What is Contemplative Christianity?

[InChrist]

No. People do sin, although I think "sin" is more a state of mind than an act. The acts are results of the mind set. But I do think that people need to realize their innate goodness and oneness with God. People are not innately separate from God. People make themselves separate from God, because they've been taught that they're separate and come to believe that they're separate. Sin does exist, but it's a lie. Just like the mask exists, but the mask is not our real identity. We need Jesus to save us from that false identity and to restore us to a right relationship of love -- the relationship we were created to be in.

Thank you, Sojourner, for explaining and giving me a little more insight into your perspective. Hope you don't mind if I ask more questions in an attempt to have a little more clarity concerning your perspective and how it works out in a practical sense.

So since you don't think the biblical scriptures are God's revealed words, do you think that humans who wrote the words just came up with the concept of sin and decided that they and all people are sinful and separated from God by sin?

I think I agree that people make themselves separate from God , but I think it by their sin or willful wrong-doing rather than just believing a "lie" that they are separate. It appears to be very apparent that even little children before they are taught anything about sin or God already display demanding, self-centered, unloving (like hitting their sister to get a toy or being mean to the cat), acts.

What are your thoughts concerning those who do not want to stop sinning or change their state of mind?

 

[Windwalker]

Thank you, Sojourner, for explaining and giving me a little more insight into your perspective. Hope you don't mind if I ask more questions in an attempt to have a little more clarity concerning your perspective and how it works out in a practical sense.

I know this was in response to Sojourner, but I'll make a few replies myself to it in my own thoughts. First, I appreciate you taking the time to learn of our perspective. That says a lot to me.

So since you don't think the biblical scriptures are God's revealed words, do you think that humans who wrote the words just came up with the concept of sin and decided that they and all people are sinful and separated from God by sin?

I'll answer this question my way, that I think what is said about sin, the awareness of sin, is an existential human condition. People are aware of it naturally, being in isolation from one another, sensing their own disconnect with the world, etc. I talked about that briefly in one of my posts recently. When they choose to express that condition, that angst as it were, in the past they mainly use the language of myth to express what is itself inherently true. Today we may speak of it through our art, poetry, psychologies, philosophies, etc.

Creation myths of most cultures and religions often begin with an idyllic state of oneness with the creator, being in Paradise. Then something happened, something caused them to lose this condition. They angered the god, some event happened that caused the loss of this sense of oneness, their connection with the world, with others, and with themselves. They got kicked out, thrown down to earth, cursed, and so forth.

So people are inherently aware of this, and create stories independently from each other, that all are saying the same thing. It is easier to understand the commonality of the myths originating within the humans themselves, then to try to say a particular deity "spoke" his word to all of them.

I think I agree that people make themselves separate from God , but I think it by their sin or willful wrong-doing rather than just believing a "lie" that they are separate.

I believe it is far more basic than that. I believe their "wrongdoing" is a result of the sense of disconnect from themselves, others, and the world. I agree with Sojourner that it is a perception, and that perception creates the illusion of separateness. If you ever have a "oneness" experience with God, with Spirit, that separation becomes apparent it was an illusion of mind all along. But when we are in it, which is the "normal", or I'll go so far as to call it the "sin-condition", we are the ones creating the separation through self-contraction, folding into ourselves and blocking out God and others.

It's normal for this to happen, and it creates what the mystics call the "dark night of the soul", where you have tasted that Freedom, that Unity in yourself, and can see it but it seems miles away to return to that condition. It's an awareness of "sin", or "fall short of the mark", it is best understood as, that creates a sense of existential anguish. This is the source, this anguish, that our stories of return to Paradise Lost, stories of salvation, come from. Is this "inspired by Spirit"? I would say, yes! It is the realization of Spirit, that makes us aware of the hell of separation from it!

So "Spirit" inspires the human heart to speak of return, to reunite with Source, the Creator of themselves. It is the human heart inspired by longing for God, pulling them forward to himself. That's inspiration, and it is in the middle of all fallible, finite, human expressions of the divine. That's what scripture is. Human expressions, fallible expressions, albeight it inspired by hope of the Divine.

It appears to be very apparent that even little children before they are taught anything about sin or God already display demanding, self-centered, unloving (like hitting their sister to get a toy or being mean to the cat), acts.

Forgive me, but this is a bad, albeight common, misunderstanding of what is healthy childhood development. It is natural, normal, and healthy for very young child to be totally egocentric. They need to be in order to develop a healthy sense of who they are as individuals. This is not sin, it's the design! But as they mature, and learn things like proper socialization, the "selfish" acts are trained to begin to think of others. So gentle guidance and correction is proper. Still, it's not "sin"! It's necessary stages of growth.

When egocentrism and self-centeredness becomes a problem is when you are of an age where you should be able to function as a young adult, or a mature adult in society with others. At which point, being an Investment Banker, for instance, stealing others money and ringing a bell at how great you are for it, is indicative of a developmental problem (or an economic system which promotes greed as good). Narcissism in an adult is a "sin", falling short of the mark of a health adult ego. But in a child? No, it's not a sin at all. To attempt to crush the ego developing in a child would lead to some serious problems later in life, where they never learned to develop beyond it! Hence, CEO's and so forth.

I hope that helps your understanding of this a little better.

What are your thoughts concerning those who do not want to stop sinning or change their state of mind?

They are immature. They are setting themselves up for an existential crisis.

 

[InChrist]

I know this was in response to Sojourner, but I'll make a few replies myself to it in my own thoughts. First, I appreciate you taking the time to learn of our perspective. That says a lot to me.

Thanks, Windwalker, for your responses and thoughts. I am preoccupied with other commitments today, but hope to get back to discussion with your at a later time. Have a nice day.

 

[sojourner]

So since you don't think the biblical scriptures are God's revealed words, do you think that humans who wrote the words just came up with the concept of sin and decided that they and all people are sinful and separated from God by sin?

I don't think the writers "just wrote" anything. The texts -- with the possible exception of the epistles -- were oral tradition for a long time before they were ever written down. So, the writers didn't "just come up with a concept" or "decide" anything. The writings grew out of the sense of the community over centuries. It wasn't arbitrary, it was an ages-long process.

What are your thoughts concerning those who do not want to stop sinning or change their state of mind?

I think that, sooner or later, when faced with the ultimate Reality that is God, they'll change their tune. When their darkness is dragged into the pure light, they will no longer be able (or want) to deny that light.

 

[sojourner]

I think I agree that people make themselves separate from God , but I think it by their sin or willful wrong-doing rather than just believing a "lie" that they are separate. It appears to be very apparent that even little children before they are taught anything about sin or God already display demanding, self-centered, unloving (like hitting their sister to get a toy or being mean to the cat), acts.

What Windwalker said above ^^^.

 

[Windwalker]

In all fairness, you, having said you've spent years studying the Bible, should realize that when born again believers read the words of the scripture they are not simply reading " about Jesus in a book ', but [the] words of life, powerful, active, and alive illuminated by the Holy Spirit to the mind and heart of the believer. In other words, Jesus, the Word, is speaking.

I want to touch on this as well which you addressed to Sojourner. He offered a response, but I'll add my own as well. What you are describing is of course an experience, one which arises through a response to faith. You read words that inspire something within you, you sit within the moment of that experience, and it awakens faith in you as you let it fill you. You well may have even emotional responses to that. And all is good. Yet, this is not understood as mere emotionalism, is it?

Sojourner likened this as dipping your toe into the stream, versus stripping naked and diving into the ocean. That's not to minimize the experience of faith one has in turning the mind and heart to God inspired within you through reading of scripture. The experience of water is still the experience of water. God is God. But the degree or the depth to which one moves into what faith opens in them is where the mystic goes where others remain content in simple faith. To be sure, it is the same Water, but there is a difference of degrees in which one partakes of it in themselves. There is a difference in the "fulness" of experience.

I came across what Ken Wilber said in one of his books I quote in my signature line what I feel very much captures what I am saying of the mystic and the mystical experience. "A mystic is not one who sees God as an object, but is immersed in God as an atmosphere." The typical believer sees God as "up there" in heaven, in other words an object outside themselves. The experience of reading scripture and other acts of faith for them, cracks open the door a little for you and what you experience may be real. But what that is is, Spirit, is infinite in nature. It is limitless, and at given points in time even in the life of someone who doesn't engage in a contemplative practice, there will be degrees of depth and fullness that occur, as well as degrees of "where are you"?, experiences of separation.

So the meditator, is engaging actively in the stream of that faith experience, that opening, and deeply immersing himself into the nature of Spirit itself, through faith. I becomes falling deeply into the Ocean, to the point where you are so immersed within it, that where you end and the ocean begins becomes indistinguishable. It is like the musician who so inhabits the music that the instrument he plays is merely an extension of his own body, not something he "plays", but it plays him. The instrument, the musician, and the music are all One. And so it is with the mystic. My mind, my body, my soul become one with Spirit, and Spirit plays me. It becomes Music, and where body and God begin and end are dissolved into Spirit itself.

Another metaphor, it is as you sit and see a sunset on the lake. The beauty strikes you and you are taken aback by it. Such beauty! You are inspired in your soul! You breathe it in, and it alivens you. But there remains a subtle sense of "you" looking at the sunset which exists out there. What the mystic experience is is to inhabit what the sunset inspires in you to the degree that what is existing in you, is the same as exists in the Beauty you behold. The Beauty without, is the Beauty within, and there is a Unity of the soul with the Source which inspires it. Meister Eckhart's quote captures this perfectly, "The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love."

It is the same Source, but a matter of degrees of immersion. "A mystic is not one who sees God as an object, but is immersed in God as an atmosphere."

 

[InChrist]

I want to touch on this as well which you addressed to Sojourner. He offered a response, but I'll add my own as well. What you are describing is of course an experience, one which arises through a response to faith. You read words that inspire something within you, you sit within the moment of that experience, and it awakens faith in you as you let it fill you. You well may have even emotional responses to that. And all is good. Yet, this is not understood as mere emotionalism, is it?

It is the same Source, but a matter of degrees of immersion. "A mystic is not one who sees God as an object, but is immersed in God as an atmosphere."

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with more detail and depth. I appreciate the water analogy since one portrayal of Jesus in the scriptures is the Living water. I certainly do agree that reading the words of the scriptures which are illuminated by the Holy Spirit brings about an experience which awakens faith and even includes emotion. I don't consider it mere emotionalism. I consider it personal, relational interaction with the Living God.

I understand what you are saying because at one time ( before I knew Jesus ) I spent a few years with the same mindset, as I practiced Tai Chi (for it's health and meditative aspects, rather than martial arts) to embrace an awareness of God in all things and to be immersed in the oneness.

I have been thinking there is a question I probably should have asked you and Sojourner earlier and will now ask before I respond further to either of you. Just for more clarity of where you are both at concerning "God", do you believe God is a Personal Being or an impersonal energy or force?

 

[Windwalker]

I consider it personal, relational interaction with the Living God.

As do I.

I have been thinking there is a question I probably should have asked you and Sojourner earlier and will now ask before I respond further to either of you. Just for more clarity of where you are both at concerning "God", do you believe God is a Personal Being or an impersonal energy or force?

I think the proper way to respond is to say that I experience God as very personal. I tend to relate to God as the Holy Other, before whom I offer myself in surrender, who lifts me up in his Presence. That's is the primary experience I have. There are also other valid ways to experience God, which I do as well. I mentioned these in the other post to Sojourner speaking of the "Three Faces of God", 1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person modes of relating to the Infinite One.

I experience God in all things, in nature, in the web of life. Some of my favorite verses from the Bible are those which speak of knowing God in nature. Psalm 19 is one of my very favorite passages of the Bible, as well as Psalm 8. Seeing God in nature is a powerful and deep and meaningful experience. This is the 3rd person experience of God, the Beauty of the manifestation of God.

That is not however the same as the personal relationship with the "Holy Other". That's the 2nd person experience of God, the I-Thou relationship. This is where God is "Abba" Father. This is a very powerful, and I feel very important way to approach the Divine, because in it, there is no place for your ego to hide out! You have to lay it all out to the all-seeing eyes of the Divine, so to speak. Nothing is hidden in this. And it very literally is, in meditation practices, a very direct "face to face" encounter, where all is laid bear, you face it, you surrender it, and you accept the Love of God. It is a power, transformative practice, to be sure.

Then there is the 1st person experience of the Divine. This is as you move through the ego, beyond the ego, into Spirit, I can only describe this as the Marriage. Who you are becomes understood within that light of the Divine, where the "two become one". This is a very advanced stage where the distinction by I and Thou becomes so entwined and merged, it is as Jesus said, "I and my Father are One".... "Before Abraham was, I AM". By no means, by no means, is this an ego trip, trying to "be God"! There was a mystic, I'm not sure who said that, "To say I am God, is the humblest thing any man can say". What that means is, "It is not I, but Christ who lives in me". It is the utter lying down of all that you are in seeking for yourself, to allow God to be All within you, that you become God in the world. "You are the light of the world", says Jesus. You become Christ incarnate, Logos in the flesh. That is not arrogance at all, but a full self-emptying.

To summarize, I experience God in all these faces, but my primary experience is that of the Infinite Personal.

 

[Yoshua]

That's right. So you cannot say how he did not pray either. He could have been sitting lotus position, chanting the Lord's Prayer for all you know. You cannot say either way.

Hi Windwalker,

Why assume if you did not know, not written and documented, and unsure? So you are making your own story. That is not acceptable. If I assume that your belief of contemplative is not the right contemplative, and man-made, will you accept it?

All I know, according to what it says happened, Peter had a subtle-level state experience in the prayer he was engaging in. When was the last time you had one of those in your prayer practice? When you engage in the type of prayer that is contemplative in nature, this sort of thing is fairly common, as you are opened to God as opposed to stuck in the separate mind. The fact that the Apostles had mystical state experiences leads me to believe what they practiced in prayer went beyond simply asking God for stuff. It was far more communal in nature, whatever techniques they may have used.

When I pray, I just being open to God; pray for the family and others; my needs and giving thanks which includes praising Him. I don’t follow anything like the Centering prayer or man-made procedural prayer.

Sure, that's used in contemplative practice, to be sure. Jesus' instructions did not go into the manner with which one says them. Clearly, Jesus' prayers took him further than just asking for stuff. But we don't know how he prayed as the Bible is not an instruction manual on prayer. So you can't claim how you pray is taught in it either, nor say how others pray is disallowed by it, except through fits of your logic jumping around quoting verses you think fits your anti-everything-but-your-own approach.

Did Jesus prayed by His own words in the Garden of Gethsemane? Why can we do such kind of prayer if Jesus prayed like that?

Jesus stated that we should not be like the heathen by praying in vain repetition. You may use the Lord’s Prayer but not by repeating and repeating manner like the Roman Catholics.

Matt. 6:7
7. "But when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many word

Yes, that's one example of how they prayed. Who says it was limited to that? Obviously not, since Paul had mystical experiences through his prayer. Speaking to God as the Holy Other, is in fact a valid form of prayer. So are others. Why must you attempt to deprive others of that which works for them in their relationship with God. Again, what is wrong with you? Who does that serve? God, or your ego?

It is your ego to force yourself by allowing you to jump outside the Scripture by your own word “Who says it was limited to that”? If I tell you something that it is wrong without any basis or reference ( Scripture), surely that will be the ego--of mine, but it is not. Obviously, you intentionally shift outside of the Scripture and make your own understanding--as leaning your own understanding. Am I wrong to trust what the Lord say in the Scripture? Or those who did not trust His word and want to skip outside to get what he want? Not my will, but thy will be done.

Prov. 3:5 5. Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And do not lean on your own understanding.

That's right, it's not. But is it wrong? No. It's effective in what it does to bring someone into closer relationship with God. If your goal was to promote that, then you should learn the practice yourself and promote it, rather than be some self-appointed grand-inquisitor who destroys the work of God in his religious illness.

There is no wrong for you if you step outside the command of God? Not all effectiveness is assured already that they are from the God. All cult churches may say they feel good and effective in their faith, but in reality they did not know it is wrong. Same with all other faiths may say the same thing that they get to closer to a God. How will they know that the God they worshiping is the true God? Well, you need here the truth who is really the God whom they should adhere and follow.

Well, that's stupid. Of course, if you are not committed, you really aren't showing reverence now, are you? Duh.

I’m committed and loyal to my God, this is the reason why I stick to His word. The reverence is already built-in to commitment. How about you? Who’s God you are committing without adhering to His word?

There are lots of reasons for why you become paranoid. You'll need to go to a therapist to help you sift through the specifics for yourself in your own case. But dwelling on the Scriptures doesn't mean you don't have a problem with paranoia and a list of fears and anxieties, such as believing demons are around every door and you have to pray them away.

You’re wrong at this one. Jesus & disciples cast out demons. Ponder this Scriptures.

The Disciples in the World
13. "But now I come to Thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy made full in themselves.
14. "I have given them Thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15. "I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
16. "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17. "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.

There is a lot to learn from the statement of Jesus here. Read this carefully.
1. the world is the things around us—corrupted.
2. Christians are not of this world, because they should not be compromised with the world.
3. the word of Jesus is the truth, how can we step outside of the word of Jesus if Thy word is the truth?
4. Jesus came here to make our joy complete, and not of this world.
5. there is an evil one, and that is existing.
6. Jesus prayed for the Disciples—to protect them from the evil one.
7. the world is the evil one, and not the ego or self.
8. the word of Jesus Christ brings us sanctification because His word is truth.
9. Jesus is not of the world; He is the enemy of the world.
10. the world hates the follower of Christ, and they cannot be one.

"Dwelling" on the Bible actually can be understood as obsessing about it in your illness. Mentally ill people obsess over religion all the time. It's common. So the fact you bury your face in scripture, does not mean you don't have other problems. It's not a magic fix, buddy. "How can I have a problem if I trust in God with all my heart?", the reasoning goes. You actually do have to do some work on yourself, and that is very clearly taught in scripture. Otherwise, the obsession with the Bible or religious fundamentalism in general is a form of escaping yourself, avoiding doing the work and being made whole through the healing of Spirit.

There is no illness in the word of truth. Jesus said it already. It is up to you if you don’t believe in the word of Jesus. The illness is not believing in “thy word is the truth.” Please don’t accuse Jesus as mentally ill because He said “Thy word is the truth.”

How can you trust God with all your heart, if adhering to Jesus words--is not your priority, thus, you need to step outside what your ‘ego’ want?

If you are saying we are obsessed with the Bible, it is wrong. Following what Jesus want for us--is not an obsession, but following His will through obedience. Are you obedient to His word?

Are you?

We are in complete dependence to God.by Yoshua

Yes. Because I follow what God wants for us.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

HAHAHAHAHA!! Oh my, this is too funny. Now, not only am I "New Age" according to your messed up criteria, so are King David and Jesus Christ, as well as the Apostle Paul, as well as others of the Bible! Too funny.

Let's start with David.

Psalm 19:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

Congratulation! You are now posting Scriptures. But for Psalm of David 19, where is the Scripture here?

Psalm 8

When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?
Clearly, for David, the Word of God could be heard and seen in the manifest world! What about the Apostle Paul?

Romans 1:20

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

This is about the evidence that there is a God who created the world, His deity. Not about the Scripture. Where is it?

What about Jesus? Did he say anything about reading the Truth of God in nature?

"Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these."

This talks about being not anxious, Jesus stated this wild flowers as an example on how they grow itself.

So, what can we see here? Jesus said to ponder with the mind of the heart these things of nature which speak of God's love and glory. He's reading the word of God in nature! So is Paul, and most clearly David was!

Who is reading the Word of God in nature? Who? Where is the Word of God on your posted Scripture at Luke 12:27?

The fact you don't know this, says to me there is some serious lack in your awareness of God in the world. I think that post with the "facehugger bible", is probably the reason why. "New Age". Ha! Too funny.

Kindly seek the “word of God” in your posted text about Paul, Jesus and Psalm of David before you assure that your conclusion is right. It is much funnier if you posted the Scripture that is out of context.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

So, God is not imminent. Got it.

Hi Sojourner,
Please explain your statement why “imminent” is related to God. How do define theologically the word “imminent”?

Because sin isn't our real nature; sin is a lie about who and what we are.

Ok. It is not our real nature. So what if sin is a lie? Did Jesus came here for sinners?

Mark 2:17
17. And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "it is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

We are all born as perfectly human as can be...

So you are not sinning, and you consider yourself as perfect?

No ancient text is infallible.

Therefore, that means there is no point of reference. Your choice is to believe in a spirit that you think is God. Isn’t it?

Where did you get the idea that there aren't layers of truth? Let me guess: from the bible. I get the idea of layers of truth from the bible. You interpret the bible one way; I interpret it another. But I think my interpretation is supports the concept of god's love more completely.

Yes, maybe all about love. How about the commitment, submission and obedience to God—as Jesus said, Thy word is truth?

Yes -- the full truth for Christians. Other faiths get the full truth from another perspective.

Jesus’ truth is not compromising. Never did Jesus tell us to get the truth from others. Jesus said I am the truth and thy word is truth. He did not say I am half-truth so you get the other truth to the belief of others. The truth of Jesus is solely the truth of Jesus only. He cannot sell His truth to others. People should see and embrace the truth that Jesus has. They must know what is the truth, and come to Him.

Can you say to your wife, because I trusted in you (for the full truth, I believe in you), but I need to get the other truth from other women because they are different than you (perspective), and I also trusted them. If a true follower of Christ is truly committed (solid commitment), they will not find truth from other beliefs.

Luke 16:13
13. "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

That's what I said above, and you disagreed with me. Sin isn't reality. Sin is a lie. Sin is not the truth.

Luke 5:32
32. "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."

Why you need to wrestle with Jesus about the truth of “sinners”? It is like you are saying that the word of Jesus is also a lie. Come on. Who & what is truth for you?

Jesus is always sacrificing himself and is always being resurrected.

Oh. This is a new doctrine and theory.

Rom. 6:10
10. For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

How many times will He sacrifice Himself and resurrected based on the Scripture?

But you're not experiencing the Eucharist, you're only experiencing a shade -- a memory -- not the meal, itself. My idea is like seeing an old friend face-to-face, embracing and looking each other in the eyes. Your idea is like looking at a faded, old photograph. I experience the person; you experience an old picture.

Ah. I got your point. If you interpret the Lord’s Supper as experiential—as the person, did the personality of the Holy Spirit is the one who will be with us forever. Why not hold that promise? Who are you following? You believe the Holy Spirit is God, isn’t it?

John 14:15-21
Role of the Spirit
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.
19. "After a little while the world will behold Me no more; but you will behold Me; because I live, you shall live also.
20. "In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
21. "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him."

Why? How do you know? Jesus isn't a "way." Jesus was a human being. "Human being" is literal. "Way" is metaphorical.

Jesus is the way; the way to the Father, the mediator; the way of our salvation through Him.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

I have been thinking there is a question I probably should have asked you and Sojourner earlier and will now ask before I respond further to either of you. Just for more clarity of where you are both at concerning "God", do you believe God is a Personal Being or an impersonal energy or force?

I wanted to come back to this briefly as my previous response of how I experience Spirit, though it addresses this question could merit some expansion of thought. Granted this is getting into metaphysical descriptions, so it's maybe a little more speculative in nature. I want to qualify that again, what I "believe" about God, or the nature of the Infinite or the Absolute, is itself held by me with an open hand. Beliefs or ideas are more utilitarian for me, rather than "ideas I place my faith in". That's a highly important distinction to make, and one I think creates a watershed point between religious beliefs and spiritual experience. To be too tightly tied to one's ideas about God, place one into a relationship with their beliefs, rather than with God which suprasses all our ideas and categories, theologies and metaphysics. To hold to one's beliefs too tightly, prevents God from informing you of anything greater than your own ideas. I hope that point is clear.

So onto the "impersonal energy or force" view of God. As I said previously that I tend to primarily relate myself to the Personal face of God, but I need to qualify that even though I experience God as personal, that is MY experience of the Divine, and that does not define the Divine. The nature of the Divine is that it even transcends your experience. If you define God as either Personal or Impersonal, you have made God an object. You have defined what transcends all categories and definitions. You have made God an object like an angel, or a human, or a planet, or a cat, or a yeti, or some force like magnetism, or gravity, or any number of other objects "things". In other words you reduce God, at which point God is no longer God. You follow the reasoning here? I realize this is hard for people to break the mode of thought of categorizing "things" in dualistic modes of thought, but I see saying God is either Personal, or Impersonal, is to make God fit into our own human frameworks of thoughts and ideas. That ceases to be God at that very moment. Right?

My approach in "thinking" about God is to allow as many perspectives to be true as possible, which I illustrated in speaking of and experiencing God in 3rd, 2nd, and 1st person perspectives. 3rd person tends to be a more "impersonal" experience because God in this instance is not any one "individual" but is manifest within everything. I do not agree with then turning around and defining God as "all objects", or as "nature", as in a pantheistic God. But I don't exclude that perception or experience of the Divine in nature as invalid because someone makes a theology out of it, defining God exclusively within that context. The same thing is true for 2nd person, or theistic perspectives and experiences of the Divine, where someone defines God as exclusively the "Holy Other", the transcendent deity outside themselves and creation to whom the pray to. I believe that is a valid experience, of course, but I do not let my interpretation of my experience, or my metaphysical or theological ideas limit understanding of God to that single point of view or experience.

And the same is true of 1st person experience. All of these are true. All of these are valid. God may be understood, approached, and experienced as both personal and impersonal, or a neither personal nor impersonal. All of those, personal and impersonal, are seen, held, and experienced from a finite, limited, dualistic human point of view. As such, at their very best, they are human understandings of that which is not only wholly transcendent of a dualistic reality, but also wholly immanent within it; fully outside and fully within, and neither outside nor within.

There is nothing wrong with speaking of God in positive terms, such as saying "God is Love", but it needs to be stressed that is not a definition of God. That is to me the ultimate positive expression of God in manifestation. That is what Logos does. Manifests, expresses. Love is the highest manifestation of God, as is Infinite Personal. However, as the Bible itself speaks of Logos, what Logos is doing is manifesting or expressing the unknowable God. That to me includes the Infinite Impersonal, the Formless. The Personal is a manifestation of Formlessness. Love is a form. And Logos is the agent of manifestation. Logos is God, manifesting.

So in any sort of spiritual practice engaging oneself with the Absolute, the Infinite, with God, you can legitimately approach it as both personal and impersonal. In Christian meditation practices, historically you have both Cataphatic (God with qualities), and Apophatic (God without qualities) approaches. One engages with the figure of the manifest Christ, the divine light, the other with Infinite formlessness. Both are true, both are valid. Each has a different area it affects within us towards a positive end.

The Apophatic approach has the benefit of breaking down these ideas in our minds about God which block moving beyond those ideas into the being of God itself. Our theologies can take the place of God and we end up worshipping them as idols. The Cataphatic approach is one of building up the ideals of the highest manifestations of the Infinite Personal; God is Love, God is Light, God is Spirit. These are things within our manifest being, coming forth from and being made in the image of the Divine itself. To meditate into these qualities, develops them within ourselves, shedding that which prevents and hinders, "purifying ourselves" so to speak. I feel both are correct approaches that help in different ways towards the whole.

Again, this is all little 'heady' in explanation, but as you can see it does respect multiple points of view, seeing the truth and value, as well as the downsides and negatives of both. The key is to understand them all "from above", holding them all as partial, privileging points of view only when appropriate to do so. When speaking of God, saying it is "this and not that", is problematic.

 

[Yoshua]

I know it does to you, but that's because you've believed something else your whole life. But John makes perfect sense the way you just put it. Belief isn't an academic agreement, it's experiential.

Yes, I know that belief is not an academic agreement. The fellowship and intimate relationship build-up with Jesus--is not just by head knowledge, but includes spiritual experience. What differ with our experience from you--is the choice of experience. We experience trials, temptation, maturity, and daily walk to spiritual righteousness with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This, IMO, is sick. Sick and scary and wrong.

Yes, love comes from God first, because God is first and God is love. God loved the world into existence, and we are born loving God because we have God's very Breath within us. To believe like you means that infants who die, die in sin and go to hell. Do you believe that?

That is a good question and analogy.

John 17:15-17
15. "I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
16. "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17. "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.

There is no doubt that God loved the world. He keep His children away from the world yet He loved the world. If people are born loving God, God did not send His Son Jesus to love the world. If you are referring--as God in our image, that is the first human creation--without sin yet.

God is a fair God. How can He allow those died infants sent into hell? I believed that there is an age of accountability that is considered mature enough to know what is right and wrong, though this topic is sometimes debatable.

No, we are born loving God, since God said that, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you," and the Psalmist says, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." We are made perfectly human, and God says that we were made "very good." That's the theological reality. We are born in love, and we are born to love. Paul says that God chose us to be in the world, to show the world how to love.

Rom. 3:10-18
10. as it is written,
"There is none righteous, not even one;
11. There is none who understands,
12. All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
13. "Their throat is an open grave,
14. "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness";
15. "Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16. Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17. And the path of peace have they not known."
18. "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

I haven’t seen a person who is a perfect one like Jesus. How about you? Did you know someone?

Yes indeed. We are chosen to show to the world on how to love. Take note of this verse,
The Disciples in the World
John 17:13-17
13. "But now I come to Thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy made full in themselves.
14. "I have given them Thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15. "I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
16. "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17. "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.

The world hated thy word, and also for those who follow thy word. Now, this only proves that people who hated those who followed the Scriptures/hated the Scriptures—is the world, and they are not from God. Jesus kept His followers (follower of His word) from the evil one. This also proves that the evil one hates those who adhere to thy word.

That's one way to view the message. But it's not the only valid way -- nor is it, IMO, the best way. Why? Because, if God loves us, there's no need to "save" us from God's wrath -- especially through blood appeasement.

What? John 3:16 is not the only way and best way? Is there anything or entity that surpass what God has done for us?

Rom. 6:23
23. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Your statement “if God loves us, there's no need to "save" us from God's wrath” contradicts with John 3:16, Rom. 3:25 and 1 John 4:10.

Rom. 3:23-25
23. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24. being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25. whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

Christ suffered and died to absorb the wrath of God—it’s propitiation.

1 John 4:9-10
9. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
10. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Your statement that we are born loving God is contradicting with v.10. It is God who loved us.

Did he? Prove it. Prove that Jesus existed in the past. We're reasonably sure that some man named Jesus lived in ancient Palestine during the Roman occupation, but we're not at all sure that the mythic, miracle-working Jesus existed. The man became the myth -- just as other great men have become legendary. That myth is metaphorical -- like other myths.

This is the external test for the New Testament pertaining to Jesus Christ existence. Flavius Josephus is a Jewish historian that lived during the time of Jesus (A.D. 37-100). There are a lot of writings collection from Antiquities Book I to book 20. He has also Wars Book (history of the destruction of Jerusalem). Jesus is not a myth.

CHAPTER 3.

SEDITION OF THE JEWS AGAINST PONTIUS PILATE. CONCERNING CHRIST, AND WHAT BEFELL PAULINA AND THE JEWS AT ROME,

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.Antiquities XVIII.3.3 from early Jewish writings

I think it's real funny that someone for whom English is either obviously a second language, or has not mastered English grammar enough to write clearly, is pontificating about the meaning of English words. No matter. When we participate in God's love, we do so through commitment to the love of God, and through loyalty to what it means to be in that love relationship. It's not "shallow."

Don’t take that advantage to prove me wrong, and it is not funny. Do we need to debate about the meaning of the word?

Let me point you this:
What is Jesus, and how do we participate with Jesus? You seem to think that Jesus was a human being, who lived in a certain point in time. But that's not how the Beloved Disciple sees it. For John, Jesus is the love of God personified, in an always-happening, mystical interaction between humanity and Divinity. God's love is manifested in us, whenever -- however -- we abide in wholeness. It's tied to our state of being -- not our cognitive belief-forms. By Sojourner

I did not hear Jesus say “we participate” with Him. Did Jesus have a lot of activity for you to participate? or we must obey and submit to His command and teachings?

Participate
If you take part in an activity or organization, you participate in it. For example, you participate in a conversation by listening to and talking with others, or you participate in a sport by joining a team and taking part in practices and games.

You can use the verb participate to mean "be involved in" or "share in." Sometimes it is easy to figure out who participates in something — the runners in a race, the people waiting their turn to audition for a part in a play. Sometimes it isn't so obvious. If two students cause trouble but the teacher punishes the whole class, it might be that in not stopping the troublemakers, she views everyone as having participated — just being there means they were involved. Vocabulary.com

Commitment
Making a commitment involves dedicating yourself to something, like a person or a cause. Before you make a commitment, think carefully. A commitment obligates you to do something.

Some commitments are large, like marriage. When you take a job, you're making a commitment to show up and do the job well, and your employer makes a commitment to pay you. There are smaller commitments too. If you said you'd meet a friend at six, that's a commitment — show up or your friend will be mad. You also can speak of commitment as a quality. Staying after school for a study group shows your commitment to good grades. Vocabulary.com

How about entrust? Did you entrust your life to Jesus?
To entrust is to give someone a responsibility you assume she will fulfill. If you entrust someone with the task of getting you to school on time, make sure she’s punctual.

To entrust is to let someone take care of something for you because you believe she will protect it. It could be a duty or a thing — you might entrust a nursing home with the care of your parents or entrust an accountant with your finances. Entrust is a verb that needs an object, so you always entrust with or to something. If a friend entrusts you with a secret, she trusts you not to tell. Vocabulary.com

Shallow
The adjective shallow can describe things that aren't very deep, like a shallow puddle, or people who don't have much emotional or intellectual depth, like shallow people who judge others on their looks and how much money they have.

Shallow likely comes from the Old English word sceald, which means "shoal," the water near a shoreline. So, shallow describes something that is close to the surface — like the shallow roots of a newly-planted tree or a person whose interest in someone or something isn't very deep. For instance, a shallow person might go to the opening of a new art exhibition not so much to see the artworks as meet the wealthy people on the museum's board of trustees. Vocabulary.com

Shallow is lack of depth. Why I want to emphasize here is—the way you present and identify what is commitment to God. You said it is loyalty, and commitment to the love of God but on the other hand, not believing in Jesus words. Where is the loyalty and commitment here?

My loyalty and commitment to God is listening, believing, adhering and following Jesus word’s and surrendered/entrust my life to Him totally. This is mine.

What they need to hear about is the way of Jesus -- the way of love. What they need to hear about is the truth of Jesus -- the truth of love. What they need to hear about is the life of Jesus -- the life of love. If they live the way of love, then they have the truth of love. What they really don't need to hear (or accept) is the Christian mythology of Jesus. Why? Because love is love is love. Christians obviously don't have a corner on that market.

Oh my. Why they need to hear the way of Jesus? This is what I mean indirect submission to Jesus. Why dancing around Jesus, and not hit the right button. What will happen if they know the way of Jesus? They will nod and say, yes, I know the life and way of Jesus. What’s next? There are a lot of people who knows the way of Jesus rather than the way to Jesus. I believed they need to hear the gospel, the way to Jesus. The dedication and surrendering of their lives—is the way to Jesus. The Life and Works of Jesus is not meant for display but for salvation of our souls.

Matt. 11:28
28. "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.

Matt 4:19
19. And He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."

Oh yes, I remember now. This is why you can adhere and embraced other faiths aside from Jesus. You don’t stick to one, that is why you used “the way of Jesus,” it is like you just watching the life of Jesus in a TV, and you will able to know His way (only) , and not the way to Him. I believed Jesus did not say to watch His life, but to follow him and His words. How will Jesus know you if you don’t come to Him? You’re just watching Him.

1) Things are not reconciled "from." They are reconciled "to." You need to fix your prepositions.

Col. 1:20
20. And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

2 Cor. 5:18
18. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Did you physically walk, eat, sleep, speak, and fish with Jesus? No? The disciples did. the disciples knew Jesus personally. We do not. We come to know Jesus in a different way. Jesus now lives, not on the earth, but in our hearts. And it is through the heart -- IOW, deep, spiritual experience -- that we come to know Jesus. Not primarily through reading *about* Jesus in a book.

You set aside the Bible as the book. You just said (above) that people must hear the way of Jesus, how will they know Jesus’ way if there is no reference or book to be read, multi media, TV etc…? It seems you contradicted and broke your own statement. Did you know how the Chinese seeks the word of God in China?

Jesus lived in our hearts by the Holy Spirit; not only living but speaking and teaching us. That is the role of the Spirit of Truth.

This is petty, cheap scholarship. And since "scholarship" is the vehicle by which we read and understand these ancient texts, You're not doing a very thorough job of learning about Jesus, IMO.

.You contradicted again with your own statement. You said “If they live the way of love, then they have the truth of love; Love, by its nature, is a commitment;when we participate in God's love, we do so through commitment to the love of God, and through loyalty to what it means to be in that love relationship”It all about Love, Isn’t it?

Now, if Jesus say this words to you personally (actually it’s for us all), will you obey & follow His word or not?

John 14:23-24
23. Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.
24. "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

John 8:31
31. Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;

John 15:7
6. "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7. "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done for you

And you, of course, know that the writers were later members of ... the church, right? Just as the other later members, to whom you don't give "priority." So, upon what, then, is your "veracity" of the texts based?

If you are unsure and doubting about the Scriptures, why don’t you use your learning to dig deeper in the word as seeking the original text-interlinear? Why should you stick to the members, if there is the word of Jesus—as stated in the Bible. Do you think I’m dogmatically agreeing with what teachers or pastor has to say? We are all open to seek God’s word through Jesus Christ.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Why assume if you did not know, not written and documented, and unsure? So you are making your own story. That is not acceptable.

We were talking about how you said Peter was not practicing meditation when it says he was praying. I said it doesn't detail how he was praying, so he could have been sitting in a lotus position for all you know, making the point since it doesn't say what he was doing, YOU CANNOT SAY HE WAS NOT PRACTICING MEDITATION. Did I ague he was meditating? No, of course I didn't! It doesn't say either way what he was doing. Yes, illogically, irrationally you ignore the fact that you are "making your own story" when you say he was not! How hard is that to follow?

When I pray, I just being open to God; pray for the family and others; my needs and giving thanks which includes praising Him. I don’t follow anything like the Centering prayer or man-made procedural prayer.

That sounds man-made to me. But to me, it's just a valid as any other form of prayer of meditation we come up with that helps us on our spiritual path. But the difference is, you are too immature to allow others their own paths. They have to look like you in order for you to be comfortable with it, making yourself and your ideas the standard for all others. Grow up.

Did Jesus prayed by His own words in the Garden of Gethsemane? Why can we do such kind of prayer if Jesus prayed like that?

Did I ever say you can't??????? Quit projecting onto others what you are doing to them, telling them what you think is valid and not. I've never said anything you do is wrong, other than your hypocritical judgment of others, straining at gnats while swallowing camels. But you can't stop yourself telling others what is right and wrong. What is wrong with you? Quit judging another man's servant, says Jesus.

That's all the time I'll waste in response to this.

 

[Yoshua]

I pray by groans of the Spirit, not by blathering on and on about what I think I need or want. Such words come from the small mind. "We know not how we ought to pray," says Paul. Sounds to me like you believe you have this all figured out however! Congratulations!

Not really close to your belief.

The doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy and Infallibility. You should familiarize yourself with it, since you conflate the doctrine itself with the Bible itself. And yes, you judge a person's faith based on the "fruits of doctrinal belief", which is of course not what the Bible teaches.

Since textual criticism suggests that the manuscript copies are not perfect, strict inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. However, challenging this view, evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem writes:

For most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus, when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99 percent of the words in our present manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the originals.[2]wikipedia

I actually know about those criticism regarding the Scriptures but it will not change what Jesus had said about His word. The Scriptures is not corrupted nor destroyed. God will not do such tremendous inconsistencies. He is a consistent God, he knows everything. If there is a typographical error, that is due to a human factor. A lot of attempt was done to disprove the infallibility and inerrancy of His word. As Jesus have said, His words will not pass away. The world is trying to destroy God’s word, never they will prosper nor succeed.

If we think it logically, why you think God sent His Son Jesus and live with us? Do you think God will corrupt His word and take it away from us? Will He allow it despite of His love to us? Of course, God will not allow it. God is still in control until now. He is alive and kicking.

And now, you’re telling me I’m judging others faith. It is not judging, I haven’t forgot to post my supporting Scripture as the words is telling you, and not me.

It says to seek God with all your heart and your spirit. If that is not a mystical reality, then I don't know what is! You exclude the heart and spirit in your soulless form of "worship", mistaking Biblical literalism for faith.

I have nothing against seeking God with all our heart and spirit. I’m just aligning it right. Primarily, the Scripture about seeking is coming from our heart and mind, and soul. I remember that the spirit is used in Mark 14:38. This proverbs quote may fit in to your idea, but still the “how” application counts.

Mark 14:38
38. "Keep watching and praying, that you may not come into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Prov. 20:27
27. The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord, Searching all the innermost parts of his being.

1 Chron. 28:9
9. "As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.

Jer. 29:12-13
12. `Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you.
13. `And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.

Deut. 4:29
29. "But from there you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul.

I know you have a hard time following lines of reason that are presented to you, so I'll just bring you back. The point of bringing Thomas up was that it was a valid document used by Christians in their early Christian practices, yet, for some reason, never managed to be included in what became your Bible today. All this points to a group of men, not the Apostles, but some church councils in the 3rd century, who through politics decided what they felt should and should not be added. These men were not prophets. These men were not "divinely inspired", and so forth. Do you even understand any of this at all?

Thomas has nothing to do with whatever the heck this nonsense reply of yours is trying to challenge. I have no idea how your thinking makes this up like this. It's a mystery, for sure.

Logical thinking, did you know why those church council did not include the Gospel of Thomas?

And if however, this gospel was included in the NT, would it be consistent with Jesus’ teaching? Still, the teaching of Jesus is weightier than Thomas.

What do you mean without validity in my mind? Of course it has validity in my mind, because these are the facts of what happened! You don't understand how the Bible was canonized, do you? You don't understand Church history, do you? Are you aware of what happened in Nicea? Have you ever heard of it before? Do you imagine the Bible just pulled itself together magically, one day it was just there, a miracle, a book that dropped from the sky? I seriously question why you don't know these things. Could it be that bible strapped to your face that doesn't seek any understanding outside of what you put on like blinders against reality?

I know those things that you mentioned, but not the Bible was that was pulled itself magically. I think you should explain more on the details about this to clarify.

I am very hesitant to even talk about this, considering the nature of your thoughts and replies. What do you think the Spirit is? Let's start there.

The Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God. That’s all.

Wonderful! This means your Protestant Bible is NOT the Word of God! Why? Because it will pass away with earth. It's a book! Books will go bye-bye. And the words in them, history, people, names, faces, ideas, thoughts, beliefs, faith, all of it, every last bit of it will pass away. But the Word will not. Think about that, if you can.

See, how you reacted. The world does not like the word of God. Isn’t it? And yet you rejoice and insulting the word of God. Oh my. Your true identity seems coming out. Did you love Jesus? Pls answer this.

John 14:23-25
23. Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.
24. "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.
25. "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you.

You are contradicting with what Jesus is saying. The heaven and earth will be gone (maybe in the future), but not his stated words; that would mean His word is important and preserved. The Bible will still exist as long as the earth is existing, that is the sad part for you. Learn how not to be afraid of the Bible (word of God), even the evil one is afraid of the word of God because it expose him intensively. That is the truth that you did not know for sure.

Yes, of course it can be memorized. That's doesn't mean you understand a damn thing you're reading in it. You look at the same verses day in and day out, and never fathom them. Doesn't matter if you call yourself a believer or not. I see the same verses, but I hear something quite different than you do. The Bible does not say, "By their beliefs you shall know them". But in your version of truth, it does.

Oh. Come on. It is like you’re talking you have read and memorized the Bible already. Now, you saying that I don’t understand the Scriptures? I haven’t failed to explain the Scripture that I’ve posted. How can we align our understanding if you don’t study the Bible?

Yes, that is true. By their beliefs you shall know them whether they adhere to the truth or not. Either they love God because they keep God’s word or not; and not my version. If I don’t have a supported Scriptures, I may say that it is my version and just by experience only.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. "No, YOUR views are false teachings! There! I'm right, and you're wrong, and the Bible says so. Nah!" (How juvenile).

Prove to me that my views are wrong with this Scripture. Where is your proof that yours is right?

2 Peter 2:1-3
1. BUT FALSE prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
2. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
3. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep.

2 Tim.4:3-4
3. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings,
4. and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

1 Tim. 4:1-2
1. NOW THE Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
2. through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared,

Col. 2:8

8. See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

Gal. 1:6-9
6. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--
7. not that there is another gospel, 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, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
9. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

I said YOU abuse the Bible. Not that the Bible abuses you.

Ohh my. Honestly speaking, I look at myself fall short in God’s eye. Anything that we accomplished here or learned from Him is not sufficient to say--that you are perfect--as God. If we take time to study the word of God and embraced it--as our light to our path does not mean we abuse the Bible. There is no such thing as abusing the Bible, it is rather using the Bible to gain money or preaching false doctrine. No man can reach the mind of God as the New Age thinking—they will be like God. No way for that deceitful doctrine.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

When people abide in love, they are "following Christ."

Yes, you claimed you abide in love, but not in His word. What’s the use of that? It is nothing. I believed you are not proving that you abide in His love. This is Jesus’ statement and yet you did not embraced it. True disciples abide in His word.

John 8:31
31. Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;

John 15:7
6. "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7. "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done for you.

John 14:23-24
23. Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.
24. "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

To say that the Emergent conversation "denies Jesus" is disingenuous. It doesn't "deny Jesus." It does deny a narrow interpretation of 1) just who Jesus is, and 2) what "following Jesus" means. IOW, it denies what these fundie clowns believe, and that pisses them off.

"Interspirituality" is, indeed, the outcome of deep, spiritual understanding (that normally comes about through contemplation). People (like Jesus, for example) who are deeply spiritual can let go of the specific trappings of religion and see God and humanity more clearly. They see that all religions point to the Divine -- each in a unique and special way. In that way, all religions may be seen to be unified -- in that they are "pointers to the Divine."

As for "the denial that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation," it depends upon what one means by "way." If, as is true of every narrow-minded fundie, "only way" means that one must believe in Jesus-of-the-bible-as-fundamentalist-Christianity-portrays-him, then their accusation is true. If, however, "only way" means that Jesus is an avatar for love, then their accusation is false. Emergents tend to see "only way" as the way of love and acceptance, and not as some draconian, legalistic belief in a mythical Jesus.

Emergents do confess Jesus, because they confess love. It's a different form of confession than fundies are used to, and it pisses them off.

The way of salvation that is implied here--is they tend/used to embrace in other faiths(Relative). When you unite all beliefs—as Ecumenism, the essence of the gospel/good news is already discarded and trashed. How can you share about Jesus is the only way if you preach/practiced Buddhism, Hindu, New Age, Taoism, Islam etc…I? It is robbing the core of the gospel—that Jesus died for us to give us the hope of salvation; that He is the way, the truth and the life. As simple as that logic, the suffering of Christ becomes cheap and irrelevant with the relative principle.

It is not about the avatar of love, there is no such thing as avatar for Jesus. Jesus did His greater love to all, that is given. Jesus is the only way to salvation—as to the Father.

Because you're claiming to be the doctor here, and doctors do understand physiology and psychology well enough to know whether one is truly sick.

Hoho. I’ll be a doctor if I do not have my point of reference, but I have my supporting Scripture, and by this, my spiritual experience—is through Christ.

I think he's bang on the dot here. Jesus wasn't so worried about the eternal dispensation of our souls as he was about how we lived and treated others right now. Jesus didn't come to "get us into heaven." Jesus came to teach us how to live our lives.

Oh my. You believe more of Mclaren’s rather than Jesus. Then prove that he came to teach us how to live our lives. May the Lord remove your blindfold in your two eyes.

John 3:16
16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 4:14
14. but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

Matt. 19:29
29. And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

John 3:36
36. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

This is about hope. We hope for that for humanity, just as Jesus prayed that we would all be one, as he and the Father are one.

Yes, I follow the life of love as best I can.

Can you check more about the New Age? The one you are referring is a wrong interpretation, a proof texting. If Jesus and Father are one, it is because the Father sent His Son. The Son is subjected and submitted to the Father for the purpose of the hope of salvation.

The following are the New Age belief: If you think this is not true, you may research and check it with your own.
1.)Jesus was not and is not the only Christ, nor is he God.
2.)"God" is impersonal, cosmic, a God of energy forces.
3.) Man is himself God, for he consists of and is the creator of "the forces." Man already exercises the powers inherent in his divinity and needs only to awaken to this fact.
4.) Man should seek and accept spiritual instruction and direction directly from the spirit world.
5.) All religions and religious teachings lead to the same goal. (Ecumenism-all are one) All are equally of merit.
6.) Sin and evil do not exist. Peace and love are the ultimate realities.

Theology, cosmogony, and cosmology
Hanegraaff noted that the existence of divinity was "mostly an integral and necessary part of New Age ideas".[68] However, he added that within the movement, such ideas regarding the nature of divinity "reflect a marked aversion to rigid, doctrinal definitions",[69] with New Age theology exhibiting an inclusivist and universalistic approach which accepts all personal perspectives on the divine as being equally valid.[70] This intentional vagueness as to the nature of divinity also reflects the New Age idea that divinity cannot be comprehended by the human mind or language.[71] There are nevertheless a number of traits that are repeatedly associated with divinity in New Age literature, the first of which is the idea that it is holistic, thus frequently being described with such terms as an "Ocean of Oneness", "Infinite Spirit", "Primal Stream", "One Essence", and "Universal Principle".[71] A second common trait is the characterisation of divinity as "Mind", "Consciousness", and "Intelligence",[72] while a third is the description of divinity as a form of "energy".[73] A fourth trait is the characterisation of divinity as a "life force", the essence of which is creativity,[73] while a fifth is the concept that divinity consists of love.[74]

Most New Age groups subscribe to the view that there is an Ultimate Source from which all things originate, which is usually conflated with the divine.[75] Various creation myths have been articulated in New Age publications outlining how this Ultimate Source came to create the universe and everything in it.[76] In contrast, some other New Agers have emphasised the idea of a universal inter-relatedness that is not always emanating from a single source.[77] The New Age worldview emphasises holism and the idea that everything in existence is intricately connected as part of a single whole,[78] in doing so rejecting both the dualism of Judeo-Christian thought and the reductionism of Cartesian science.[79] The idea of holistic divinity results in a common New Age belief that humans themselves are divine in essence, a concept described using such terms as "droplet of divinity", "inner Godhead", and "divine self".[80] Influenced by Theosophical and Anthroposophical ideas regarding 'subtle bodies',[81] a common New Age idea holds to the existence of a "Higher Self" which is a part of the human but which connects with the divine essence of the universe, and which can advise the human mind through intuition.[82]

Cosmogonical creation stories are common in New Age sources,[83] with these accounts reflecting the movement's holistic framework by describing an original, primal oneness from which all things in the universe emanated.[84] An additional common theme is that human souls – once living in a spiritual world – then descended into a world of matter.[85] The New Age movement typically views the material universe as a meaningful illusion, which humans should try to use constructively rather than focus on escaping into other spiritual realms.[86] This physical world is hence seen as "a domain for learning and growth" after which the human soul might pass on to higher levels of existence.[87] There is thus a widespread belief that reality is engaged in an ongoing process of evolution; rather than Darwinian evolution, this is typically seen as either a teleological evolution which assumes a process headed to a specific goal, or an open-ended, creative evolution.[88]

Within the New Age movement, it is often unclear how divine beings are divided from those entities which are believed to exist between divinity and humanity.[89] In the literature, there is much talk of non-human beings who are benevolently interested in the spiritual development of humanity, and which are variously referred to under such names as angels, guardian angels, personal guides, masters, teachers, and contacts.[90] New Age angeology is nevertheless unsystematic, reflecting the idiosyncrasies of individual authors.[91] The figure of Jesus Christ is often mentioned within New Age literature as a mediating principle between divinity and humanity, as well as an exemplar of a spiritually advanced human being.[92]wikipedia

God
New Agers confuse the Creator with His creation and think that God is part of creation, not separate from it. They borrow from Eastern religions the belief in monism -- that "all is One" -- only one essence in the universe, everyone and everything being a part of that essence. Everything is a different form of that essence (energy, consciousness, power, love, force). But the belief in monism is really Hinduistic pantheism (all is God). New Agers view God as an impersonal life force, consciousness, or energy (M. Ferguson, Aquarian Conspiracy, p. 382; S. Gawain, Living In the Light, pp. 7-8) (e.g., the "Star Wars Force"), rather than a Person. They believe that every person and thing is "intertwined" with God (Spiritual evolution to the state of "the Christ" being), and use Luke 17:21 ("the kingdom of God is within you") to support this idea (despite the fact that "within you" in this passage means "in your midst"). They claim every human has a divine spark within him because of being part of the divine essence. The state of God is called by various terms among different New Age groups, i.e., God-consciousness, Universal Love, Self-Realization, the I AM, Higher Self, Brahman, Nirvana, etc. New Agers are obviously part of a religion of idolatry and self-worship. [HJB] 911:new Age agenda www.thebabylonmatrix.com

No, it's not. It's an opening to a conversation and a relationship. The religious landscape is like a quilt made of vastly different pieces. All the pieces are necessary in order to have a complete quilt, such that the Divine is reflected in a whole humanity.

You can easily say –it is not. On what perspective—is your word “not”? Is it what we are doing right now, just by dialogue? or you met some other people’s faith and you talk ,share about it? Or you yourself embraced and practicing already their tradition and doctrine?

Divinity is Divinity. Jesus doesn't "bow" to any faith. Jesus espouses love of God and love of neighbor as oneself -- however that is expressed. Being Jewish, himself, Jesus worked within that particular framework. But the framework is, in the grand scheme of things, relatively unimportant.

How will I believe on what you’re saying? Will Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindus accept Christ despite of what you say--that Jesus espouses love of God? It stop there. Period. I believed you cannot reconcile with this one with your “espouses love of God” and that the reality. Jesus did what the Father wants Him to do. That’s it. The love for the world was given, and an invitation was laid down—to come to Jesus. As simple as that. Then, if other faith see the truth of Jesus and follow Him, he become a disciple of Christ.

I said anyone. Is sin a person?

Of course not, he hates sin and not the person.

In matters of love and justice? No. In matters of faith and practice? Yes!

Why God compromised in matter of faith and practice? Please explain.

Again: narrow-minded hate-mongering. Of course I know what Christianity is! Christianity isn't a religion, primarily -- it's a way of being in the world. It's a way of living love.

Oh my. Jesus just said Christian—is not of this world. You contradicted again with the word of Jesus. Can you heed the word of Jesus? I may agree with love, but not being in the world. Look here, this is not my own version. I’m attaching the Scriptures.

Rom. 12:2
2. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Why would the Scripture say “do not be conformed to this world” if Christianity is the way of being in the world? Christian is not of this world. It is clear.

John 17:13-17
13. "But now I come to Thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy made full in themselves.
14. "I have given them Thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15. "I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
16. "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17. "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.

Those who are whole are very humble. But you don't seem to be...
Sin is a lie, because sin is not our normal condition. It's a condition we mistakenly place upon ourselves, and believe about ourselves. Sin is a fake condition that we must work our way out of, with God's help. Underneath the mask of sin, we are whole, human beings.

So when Jesus say “sin no more” to adulterer in the NT, Jesus is lying or making jokes?

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

There is no illness in the word of truth. Jesus said it already. It is up to you if you don’t believe in the word of Jesus. The illness is not believing in “thy word is the truth.” Please don’t accuse Jesus as mentally ill because He said “Thy word is the truth.”

This is a very bizarre, incoherent response. You are unable to address the valid points I made, and just blurted out this incoherent, irrational response. To put this into context. Here's what I posted that you responded to with this mess. My words here:

"Dwelling" on the Bible actually can be understood as obsessing about it in your illness. Mentally ill people obsess over religion all the time. It's common. So the fact you bury your face in scripture, does not mean you don't have other problems. It's not a magic fix, buddy. "How can I have a problem if I trust in God with all my heart?", the reasoning goes. You actually do have to do some work on yourself, and that is very clearly taught in scripture. Otherwise, the obsession with the Bible or religious fundamentalism in general is a form of escaping yourself, avoiding doing the work and being made whole through the healing of Spirit.​

What in the world does "There is no illness in the word of truth", have to do with the person reading it having a mental illness? None. You prove my point. You believe if you just read the Bible, if your bury your face in hiding within it, all your problems will "magically" be fixed! No wonder you hate the idea of meditation. Meditation makes you face yourself and deal with your shortcomings. I am suggesting, strongly at this point, that your brand of religion is being used by you as form of escapism in an unhealthy psychological repression.

You are indicating dissociation and an avoiding dealing with things in yourself, escaping into this bizarre form of religious paranoia and fanaticism. Your responses are incoherent, as in not just this glaring example, but pretty much all of them. The trains of thought are disconnected, not just a different point of view, but way out of true, way off-center, off-beam. No one reading your response above to the points I raised can see that as having anything to do with what I said, or am suggesting. I'm sorry, but that's the sad truth of this.

As I said originally, mental illnesses are not treatable by burying your face in scripture. The paranoia you demonstrate your irrational and unsupportable suspicions of other points of view, and in the way you read and interpret the Bible to reinforce your delusions, as well as how you respond to logical and rational points of view with posts like this, indicates a potential problem. I mean this respectfully, but you should seek some help outside just reading the Bible to help your thinking itself that you bring into the Bible with you. There are no magical fixes. It takes sincere work on ourselves, not just "pray it away" approaches that leave someone deeply delusional as to take a suggestion of being obsessive and turn it into this sort of a response as follows:

If you are saying we are obsessed with the Bible, it is wrong. Following what Jesus want for us--is not an obsession, but following His will through obedience. Are you obedient to His word?

Yes, you can be obsessive in "following Jesus". You betcha. There is healthy and unhealthy forms of everything, including your "obeying Jesus". Obsession, fanaticism, blinds the one doing it. It's unhealthy. It's damaging. And it is not "following God". It's an illness.

 

[InChrist]

As do I.


I think the proper way to respond is to say that I experience God as very personal. I tend to relate to God as the Holy Other, before whom I offer myself in surrender, who lifts me up in his Presence. That's is the primary experience I have. There are also other valid ways to experience God, which I do as well. I mentioned these in the other post to Sojourner speaking of the "Three Faces of God", 1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person modes of relating to the Infinite One.

I experience God in all things, in nature, in the web of life. Some of my favorite verses from the Bible are those which speak of knowing God in nature. Psalm 19 is one of my very favorite passages of the Bible, as well as Psalm 8. Seeing God in nature is a powerful and deep and meaningful experience. This is the 3rd person experience of God, the Beauty of the manifestation of God.

That is not however the same as the personal relationship with the "Holy Other". That's the 2nd person experience of God, the I-Thou relationship. This is where God is "Abba" Father. This is a very powerful, and I feel very important way to approach the Divine, because in it, there is no place for your ego to hide out! You have to lay it all out to the all-seeing eyes of the Divine, so to speak. Nothing is hidden in this. And it very literally is, in meditation practices, a very direct "face to face" encounter, where all is laid bear, you face it, you surrender it, and you accept the Love of God. It is a power, transformative practice, to be sure.

Then there is the 1st person experience of the Divine. This is as you move through the ego, beyond the ego, into Spirit, I can only describe this as the Marriage. Who you are becomes understood within that light of the Divine, where the "two become one". This is a very advanced stage where the distinction by I and Thou becomes so entwined and merged, it is as Jesus said, "I and my Father are One".... "Before Abraham was, I AM". By no means, by no means, is this an ego trip, trying to "be God"! There was a mystic, I'm not sure who said that, "To say I am God, is the humblest thing any man can say". What that means is, "It is not I, but Christ who lives in me". It is the utter lying down of all that you are in seeking for yourself, to allow God to be All within you, that you become God in the world. "You are the light of the world", says Jesus. You become Christ incarnate, Logos in the flesh. That is not arrogance at all, but a full self-emptying.

To summarize, I experience God in all these faces, but my primary experience is that of the Infinite Personal.

I truly enjoy nature. I feel that the intricate beauty of the nature world testifies to the awesome power, love, care, delight, and creativity of the Creator. Yet, I do see that God as Creator is distinct from nature and creation, including us, just as an artist though expressing him/herself through a painting is distinct from the paint and canvas. I get the impression that you think God is present within everything and that there is no distinction between finite nature/us and the Infinite Being of God. Am I correct to conclude this from what you have written or am I misunderstanding your words?

Psalm 8 and 19 are a couple of my favorites, also. I see these as identifying and giving glory to God as the One infinite Being who created all things by His power and wisdom and is omnipresent everywhere above His creation, but not within everything. Though I know that I am regenerated and Christ lives in me spiritually, I would not conclude that I am God, nor will I ever be God, Creator of the universe, because I understand God to be uniquely His own One of a kind Being.

 

[InChrist]

I wanted to come back to this briefly as my previous response of how I experience Spirit, though it addresses this question could merit some expansion of thought. Granted this is getting into metaphysical descriptions, so it's maybe a little more speculative in nature. I want to qualify that again, what I "believe" about God, or the nature of the Infinite or the Absolute, is itself held by me with an open hand. Beliefs or ideas are more utilitarian for me, rather than "ideas I place my faith in". That's a highly important distinction to make, and one I think creates a watershed point between religious beliefs and spiritual experience. To be too tightly tied to one's ideas about God, place one into a relationship with their beliefs, rather than with God which suprasses all our ideas and categories, theologies and metaphysics. To hold to one's beliefs too tightly, prevents God from informing you of anything greater than your own ideas. I hope that point is clear.

So onto the "impersonal energy or force" view of God. As I said previously that I tend to primarily relate myself to the Personal face of God, but I need to qualify that even though I experience God as personal, that is MY experience of the Divine, and that does not define the Divine. The nature of the Divine is that it even transcends your experience. If you define God as either Personal or Impersonal, you have made God an object. You have defined what transcends all categories and definitions. You have made God an object like an angel, or a human, or a planet, or a cat, or a yeti, or some force like magnetism, or gravity, or any number of other objects "things". In other words you reduce God, at which point God is no longer God. You follow the reasoning here? I realize this is hard for people to break the mode of thought of categorizing "things" in dualistic modes of thought, but I see saying God is either Personal, or Impersonal, is to make God fit into our own human frameworks of thoughts and ideas. That ceases to be God at that very moment. Right?

My approach in "thinking" about God is to allow as many perspectives to be true as possible, which I illustrated in speaking of and experiencing God in 3rd, 2nd, and 1st person perspectives. 3rd person tends to be a more "impersonal" experience because God in this instance is not any one "individual" but is manifest within everything. I do not agree with then turning around and defining God as "all objects", or as "nature", as in a pantheistic God. But I don't exclude that perception or experience of the Divine in nature as invalid because someone makes a theology out of it, defining God exclusively within that context. The same thing is true for 2nd person, or theistic perspectives and experiences of the Divine, where someone defines God as exclusively the "Holy Other", the transcendent deity outside themselves and creation to whom the pray to. I believe that is a valid experience, of course, but I do not let my interpretation of my experience, or my metaphysical or theological ideas limit understanding of God to that single point of view or experience.

And the same is true of 1st person experience. All of these are true. All of these are valid. God may be understood, approached, and experienced as both personal and impersonal, or a neither personal nor impersonal. All of those, personal and impersonal, are seen, held, and experienced from a finite, limited, dualistic human point of view. As such, at their very best, they are human understandings of that which is not only wholly transcendent of a dualistic reality, but also wholly immanent within it; fully outside and fully within, and neither outside nor within.

There is nothing wrong with speaking of God in positive terms, such as saying "God is Love", but it needs to be stressed that is not a definition of God. That is to me the ultimate positive expression of God in manifestation. That is what Logos does. Manifests, expresses. Love is the highest manifestation of God, as is Infinite Personal. However, as the Bible itself speaks of Logos, what Logos is doing is manifesting or expressing the unknowable God. That to me includes the Infinite Impersonal, the Formless. The Personal is a manifestation of Formlessness. Love is a form. And Logos is the agent of manifestation. Logos is God, manifesting.

So in any sort of spiritual practice engaging oneself with the Absolute, the Infinite, with God, you can legitimately approach it as both personal and impersonal. In Christian meditation practices, historically you have both Cataphatic (God with qualities), and Apophatic (God without qualities) approaches. One engages with the figure of the manifest Christ, the divine light, the other with Infinite formlessness. Both are true, both are valid. Each has a different area it affects within us towards a positive end.

The Apophatic approach has the benefit of breaking down these ideas in our minds about God which block moving beyond those ideas into the being of God itself. Our theologies can take the place of God and we end up worshipping them as idols. The Cataphatic approach is one of building up the ideals of the highest manifestations of the Infinite Personal; God is Love, God is Light, God is Spirit. These are things within our manifest being, coming forth from and being made in the image of the Divine itself. To meditate into these qualities, develops them within ourselves, shedding that which prevents and hinders, "purifying ourselves" so to speak. I feel both are correct approaches that help in different ways towards the whole.

Again, this is all little 'heady' in explanation, but as you can see it does respect multiple points of view, seeing the truth and value, as well as the downsides and negatives of both. The key is to understand them all "from above", holding them all as partial, privileging points of view only when appropriate to do so. When speaking of God, saying it is "this and not that", is problematic.

I don’t necessarily think it is “heady”, but your posts do tend to be a bit wordy and I find it difficult to wade through to find your points. There is quite a bit I would like to respond to, but choose not to even make the attempt because I know the posts would continue to become excessively long. So, I am trying to keep my responses and/or questions to a minimum, yet at the same time understand your thoughts.

Do you think it is also possible for one who holds onto their own metaphysical/mystical, all-inclusive beliefs and ideas too tightly, to also miss what God desires to reveal to them?

What if God wants us to know and understand His personal identity as our Creator and He has made it clear and straightforward, even simple enough for a child to understand because He knows our limited finite frame, that we are dust?

I do see a problem with having an open-ended variety of ideas about God when they conflict, contradict, or bring confusion, since I don’t believe God is a God of confusion. But I don’t see having ideas about God as problematic...if they are the correct ideas revealed by God Himself.

 

[InChrist]

So people are inherently aware of this, and create stories independently from each other, that all are saying the same thing. It is easier to understand the commonality of the myths originating within the humans themselves, then to try to say a particular deity "spoke" his word to all of them.

Why do you think it is any less easy to understand the commonality of creation stories as people originally having the same story and awareness of their Creator, yet having incurred change and variation over time? Does not the commonality point more toward one Creator, one beginning rather than the idea of people creating stories with such common themes independently?