What is Contemplative Christianity?

[Yoshua]

But only as a corollary to believing in the person.

The right term is “faith” in Christ not only as a person, but as Lord, Saviour and God.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

The truth that Jesus is, though, is that "love is universal, and includes even those whom we don't like very much."

Yet to accept that He taught us to love others is the same treatment to his statement as believing that He is the way, the truth and the life.

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

Hi Sojourner,

If love does not demand submission, Jesus don’t need to say “Follow Me” which seems illogical to think how the disciples followed Jesus. I think this should be reconciled on how love does not demand submission.

Thanks

"Come with me" and "submit to me" are two different things.

 

[sojourner]

The right term is “faith” in Christ not only as a person, but as Lord, Saviour and God.

Thanks

Not really cogent to the argument.

 

[sojourner]

Yet to accept that He taught us to love others is the same treatment to his statement as believing that He is the way, the truth and the life.

Thanks

Yes, but because love is the way, and love is truth, and love is life.

 

[Yoshua]

Come with me" and "submit to me" are two different things.

Sojourner,

I did not say “Come with me.” That is “Follow Me” from the word of Jesus Christ. How about “Follow Me”?

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner,

I did not say “Come with me.” That is “Follow Me” from the word of Jesus Christ. How about “Follow Me”?

Thanks

"Follow me" and "submit to me" are the same. "Come along with me" is not. "Come along with me" is an invitation to love. "submit to me" is an assumption of control. Control is the antithesis of love.

 

[Yoshua]

"Follow me" and "submit to me" are the same. "Come along with me" is not. "Come along with me" is an invitation to love. "submit to me" is an assumption of control. Control is the antithesis of love.

Sojourner,

Therefore, submission is to follow him. In Christianity, when we say God is the controller of our lives, that would not mean we become a puppet or a robot. The "control" here means God is the driver of our life. He guide us and lead us to the right way. Others were so afraid with the word "control", I believe that they are the one who experienced a wrong concept of the love of God. We loved our kids, we don't say we control them--for our kids have free-will. We guide them; nurture them and teach them. This is obviously the same concept of what Jesus did to His disciples as well as God who takes care of His people. The phrase "Thy will be done" means we allow God to take control of our lives, we don't depend on our own wisdom and understanding but by entrusting it to Him through prayer.

If I take your meaning of "Control" as antithesis of love, that would applicable to the cult organization and not the Christianity that Jesus preached.

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

Therefore, submission is to follow him. In Christianity, when we say God is the controller of our lives, that would not mean we become a puppet or a robot. The "control" here means God is the driver of our life. He guide us and lead us to the right way.

"Guidance" and "leading" are within parameters of loving relationships, implying some kind of equality between partners. Jesus (God Incarnate) provides that equalizing factor between humanity and God. "Control" actually does imply an outside manipulation, which "guidance" and "leading" do not imply.

We loved our kids, we don't say we control them--for our kids have free-will. We guide them; nurture them and teach them. This is obviously the same concept of what Jesus did to His disciples as well as God who takes care of His people.

Then why on earth would you say that God "controls" us? If we, who are human parents, know to give bread to our children when they're hungry, why expect God, who is perfect, to supply stones?

The phrase "Thy will be done" means we allow God to take control of our lives, we don't depend on our own wisdom and understanding but by entrusting it to Him through prayer.

"Allowing someone to take control" implies a non-loving, unequal, and pathological relationship. I don't "allow" God to "control" me. But I do try to live in accordance with "the way the world is" (the world being God's body). In that way, an equal and interdependent relationship is formed between me and God, rather than some codependent, Jerry Springer-esque nonsense.

If I take your meaning of "Control" as antithesis of love, that would applicable to the cult organization and not the Christianity that Jesus preached.

I don't know what you mean by "cult organization." The Church is the body of Christ in the world.

 

[Yoshua]

"Guidance" and "leading" are within parameters of loving relationships, implying some kind of equality between partners. Jesus (God Incarnate) provides that equalizing factor between humanity and God. "Control" actually does imply an outside manipulation, which "guidance" and "leading" do not imply.

Hi Sojourner,

Your statement '"Guidance" and "leading" are within parameters of loving relationships, implying some kind of equality between partners' pointing to a love relationship in the same status of a person as friends only but not for God and man. When we say God guides and leads, He is a divine God who is superior and spiritually high status (above us). God is not treated as partners. He is our God, the divine Creator. We may say to our friend that you guide and lead me the way to go to a certain place, but if we say that to God to lead us spiritually, that is an automatic submission. Jesus incarnation serves as the mediator between God and man. His purpose of coming here is not to equalize between man and God. Jesus did not consider to be equal with God, and takes the form of a servant, in the likeness of man. Jesus did not come here to make His followers to become equal with God. That is biblical.
God's control is not manipulation. Man may manipulate man, but not God. He direct and lead us the right path.

Then why on earth would you say that God "controls" us? If we, who are human parents, know to give bread to our children when they're hungry, why expect God, who is perfect, to supply stones?

Then, there is a closure about the issue of "control."

"Allowing someone to take control" implies a non-loving, unequal, and pathological relationship. I don't "allow" God to "control" me. But I do try to live in accordance with "the way the world is" (the world being God's body). In that way, an equal and interdependent relationship is formed between me and God, rather than some codependent, Jerry Springer-esque nonsense.

Of course, control of human side and God side are totally different. For me, I lived the way in accordance with God's path of righteousness, and not the way of the world for the world is not for follower of Christ as stated in the Bible. That is a personal relationship.

I don't know what you mean by "cult organization." The Church is the body of Christ in the world.

Sorry for quoting about the word "cult." The cult organization aimed to brainwash their members by manipulation and total control of their lives without privacy and violates their rights as a person or citizen. They are dogmatically followed their teachings; prohibited to question their beliefs, and the organization itself. Therefore, they are controlled like a puppet or robot.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Yes. That’s right . Scripture dictates experience, that is because of the authority of the Scriptures.

Then you have only an experience of your ideas about God, and mistake the experience of them as confirmation of your beliefs, in a self-generated feedback loop. The experience is caused by your ideas. If however, you have an experience of God that surpasses your ideas and beliefs (which any genuine experience of God in fact will do by its very nature), then you now have to let the experience itself challenge and inform your points of view or beliefs. This is balance. Not the notion you propose which is to deny and repress anything thing that challenges your beliefs.

In terms of spiritual experience, not all experiences should be tasted to prove and justify spirituality.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What does "justify spirituality" mean? I understand "justify beliefs", but justify spirituality? That makes no sense. Spirituality is simply a state of being. That's like saying you need to justify being awake.

One does not need to experience hell and heaven to believe that there is a hell and heaven.

Actually, I think if anyone actually has an experience of God, it will challenge that belief to its core. I can tell you from my own experience that hell cannot exist. My experience of God tells me that the ideas and beliefs of a hell as is interpreted by humans as a literal place God sends people to, is to say the least lacking an understanding of God as God is and is a projection of their own fear. I'm fine with hell as a metaphor for separation and the sense of isolation, fear, and loss that creates in the individual experience of one's own life, but as a place within God it simply is not possible. So, yes, you should have an experience of God to help you understand the things you read in the Bible. It's obviously inconsistent with God.

That raises an important point. You argue all the time with things being inconsistent with scripture. To which I endlessly point out that fact that there is no such thing as "according to scripture", but rather is according to your "interpretation of scripture", which is radically different and destroys stating things as absolutes, such as you do. But what I should add to this is that many things you teach are inconsistent with God. I think that if one directly experiences the Ineffable, that is going to trump any theoretical ideas or theological beliefs about God. And it should. Experience should challenge you to reconsider your beliefs. It should inform your ideas. Are your beliefs consistent with your experience of God? Is there even any experience of God to weigh them against? No? Then you speak from yourself.

You want to put your beliefs to the test? Go seek God and see how they stand. I promise you they won't. God has a way of being beyond what we think and believe about God.

Let's try to use that analogy in your example of ocean. A person read about the description of ocean from others, they told him that the ocean is dangerous.

I'll wipe out your whole argument before you begin. My analogy was not to compare spirituality or the experience of God as the ocean itself. So talk of the dangers of it, etc, is irrelevant. I could have said that reading about a tomato and how it tastes will never inform you of what it tastes like. You have to actually taste it to let inform you what you read about it. The comparison was about what experience offers above and beyond what mere "scripture" about tomatoes or oceans or any other object out there can impart to you. Without experience, your knowledge is hollow.

 

[sojourner]

Your statement '"Guidance" and "leading" are within parameters of loving relationships, implying some kind of equality between partners' pointing to a love relationship in the same status of a person as friends only but not for God and man. When we say God guides and leads, He is a divine God who is superior and spiritually high status (above us). God is not treated as partners. He is our God, the divine Creator. We may say to our friend that you guide and lead me the way to go to a certain place, but if we say that to God to lead us spiritually, that is an automatic submission. Jesus incarnation serves as the mediator between God and man. His purpose of coming here is not to equalize between man and God. Jesus did not consider to be equal with God, and takes the form of a servant, in the likeness of man. Jesus did not come here to make His followers to become equal with God. That is biblical.
God's control is not manipulation. Man may manipulate man, but not God. He direct and lead us the right path

Yeah, except for when God becomes fully human. That places God firmly on equal footing with the rest of us human beings. The Incarnation doesn't represent a mediator. It represents reconciliation.

 

[Yoshua]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What does "justify spirituality" mean? I understand "justify beliefs", but justify spirituality? That makes no sense. Spirituality is simply a state of being. That's like saying you need to justify being awake.

Hi Windwalker,

This is because of your relative view about the truth of Christ. There will be no justification on your side.

Actually, I think if anyone actually has an experience of God, it will challenge that belief to its core. I can tell you from my own experience that hell cannot exist. My experience of God tells me that the ideas and beliefs of a hell as is interpreted by humans as a literal place God sends people to, is to say the least lacking an understanding of God as God is and is a projection of their own fear. I'm fine with hell as a metaphor for separation and the sense of isolation, fear, and loss that creates in the individual experience of one's own life, but as a place within God it simply is not possible. So, yes, you should have an experience of God to help you understand the things you read in the Bible. It's obviously inconsistent with God.

How could you explain that hell cannot exist? By believing what other people’s experience?

That raises an important point. You argue all the time with things being inconsistent with scripture. To which I endlessly point out that fact that there is no such thing as "according to scripture", but rather is according to your "interpretation of scripture", which is radically different and destroys stating things as absolutes, such as you do. But what I should add to this is that many things you teach are inconsistent with God. I think that if one directly experiences the Ineffable, that is going to trump any theoretical ideas or theological beliefs about God. And it should. Experience should challenge you to reconsider your beliefs. It should inform your ideas. Are your beliefs consistent with your experience of God? Is there even any experience of God to weigh them against? No? Then you speak from yourself.

It may be inconsistent for you because of your belief that Bible is not absolute authority. Experience and Scriptures, I believe, should be hand-in-hand.

If you’re asking me that my belief is consistent with my experience of God, I would rather consider your question if you ask me if my belief is consistent with the Scriptures. I believe this is where we should start to think it over rather than jumping to non-basis spirituality.

How will I know that my belief is consistent with my experience if I don’t have my absolute basis?

Then how will I know my belief is align with God if I don’t have my absolute basis?

Do you have your absolute basis to know that your belief is consistent with your experience with God? How will you know that your belief is consistent with God?

I'll wipe out your whole argument before you begin. My analogy was not to compare spirituality or the experience of God as the ocean itself. So talk of the dangers of it, etc, is irrelevant. I could have said that reading about a tomato and how it tastes will never inform you of what it tastes like. You have to actually taste it to let inform you what you read about it. The comparison was about what experience offers above and beyond what mere "scripture" about tomatoes or oceans or any other object out there can impart to you. Without experience, your knowledge is hollow.

Yes, you have a point here, but not all needs to experience--to know everything. No one needs to be a superman to taste experience. Jesus did not call us to experience everything so we may know everything. I never heard that. Let’s face it, there are warnings, teachings and reminders in the words of Jesus. If a believer insists himself to taste the experience, he failed to trust in Christ. Where is faith here?

One should not experience adultery to know that adultery is not right in the eyes of God, and one should not become an apostate to know what is apostasy. I believe this is the saving act of grace that God has given for his people not to be drowned in sinning.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Yeah, except for when God becomes fully human. That places God firmly on equal footing with the rest of us human beings. The Incarnation doesn't represent a mediator. It represents reconciliation.

Hi Sojourner,

1 Tim. 2:5-6
5. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6. who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time.

I don’t think this scripture does not have to do with incarnation. I believe it is.

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

Hi Sojourner,

1 Tim. 2:5-6
5. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6. who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time.

I don’t think this scripture does not have to do with incarnation. I believe it is.

Thanks

You completely missed what I said. I said that the Incarnation isn't about mediation. It's about reconciliation. I was talking about he aspect of Jesus that is God Incarnate. That aspect places God and humanity on a level playing field.

 

[Windwalker]

This is because of your relative view about the truth of Christ. There will be no justification on your side.

And this underscored my point. A "view" is a belief. You justify beliefs. You do not "justify spirituality", as you worded it.

But as far as a relative views go, of course they may be justified. I can support my views, despite the fact all views are relative. Being relative and being justifiable are two entirely different things. You have relative views too, but the only difference between us is I acknowledge it, and you simply live in denial of that fact. If your views are not relative, then they are absolute. Do you believe your beliefs are absolute?

How could you explain that hell cannot exist? By believing what other people’s experience?

You must not have read what you quoted that this is in response to. If you look at it closely and carefully the 2nd and 3rd sentences in it says this. "I can tell you from my own experience that hell cannot exist. My experience of God tells me.....". Did you not read what I wrote? Why would you then ask how I come to this view, "by believing what other people experience"? No. I draw directly from my own experiences.

It may be inconsistent for you because of your belief that Bible is not absolute authority.

Even if the Bible is Absolute Authority experience that is inconsistent with a view of the Bible means you should reevaluate your views. If you've experienced God, it is unmistakable and overwhelming. To deny the experience is like cutting your own throat out.

Experience and Scriptures, I believe, should be hand-in-hand.

No you do not. I have proven this again and again. You say all experience must be consistent with your beliefs. That is not balance at all. Balance is where you let experience challenge or even contradict and deny your ideas about God. The stream of knowledge goes both directions. But you put your ideas of the Bible at the top, and from there nothing flows back upstream. That is not balance, but domination of one's beliefs at the top acting as God. Hence, why I say you worship your beliefs, not God.

If you’re asking me that my belief is consistent with my experience of God, I would rather consider your question if you ask me if my belief is consistent with the Scriptures. I believe this is where we should start to think it over rather than jumping to non-basis spirituality.

You have no understanding of spirituality. You have no experience. You have only beliefs. There is no difference between scripture and what your beliefs are because scripture is only what you believe it to be. It is nothing in itself. It is powerless until you make it part of your beliefs. Hence, you have only your beliefs, and no experience to balance it out with. Everything thing you type consistently supports me saying that. There is no "non-basis spirituality". Spirituality is experienced. The basis is not beliefs. The basis is experience. This is why you do not understand me, nor anyone else. All you have are your beliefs.

How will I know that my belief is consistent with my experience if I don’t have my absolute basis?

Balance? Where is it in this question of yours? You do not need an absolute basis. You simply need a basis. You weigh them against each other.

A lesson about Balance:

Let me help you understand what balance is and is not. Are you familiar with a 2-sided scale used to measure weights? They have two trays on opposite sides of a post. You add material to each side until they balance each other out and they hang at equal heights opposite to each other. If you have a brick on the right side and a feather on the left, they are not in balance at all. The brick smashes down to the table and the feather flies up into the air. There is no balancing going on in here. There is imbalance. This is what you call balance, a heavy stone on one side, and air on the other.

Let's expand this 2-sided scale analogy to balance in one's spiritual knowledge in life. Spirituality is made up of material that both of experience and knowledge. Imagine it as a pile of grains of sand you are picking up off the table and trying to weigh out into equal, balancing proportions. If you take handfuls of this sand, or pebbles, or whatever you want to use as an analogy, and pile them up into the right-hand tray which we will call head-knowledge, the scale begins to tip to that side, dropping it down to the bottom. There is nothing being picked up from the available pile and scooped into the left-hand tray which we will call experience. That scale is not in balance with the other tray. Experience and head-knowledge are not balancing each other out in the whole person. The scale, the person himself, is in a state of imbalance. But when you add experience to the left hand tray, the head-knowledge tray is no longer dominating everything and the scale between experience and knowledge begin to move into balance. The ideal is an equal measure of experience and knowledge, where there is not a domination of one over the other.

This is balance. What you preach is not. It's a brick in one tray and nothing in the other.

Then how will I know my belief is align with God if I don’t have my absolute basis?

You don't have an absolute basis. You have to have experience to weigh one against the other. If you want a "true" measure, you need both.

Do you have your absolute basis to know that your belief is consistent with your experience with God? How will you know that your belief is consistent with God?

My experiences inform my beliefs, and my beliefs inform my experiences. I do not let my beliefs predetermine my experience. That is not valid to do so. And on the other hand, I do not let my experiences outright dismiss my beliefs. There has to be consideration between the two. Many times the result is for me to change my view on something, to rethink it based on what experience has now shown me. Other times, reason tells me to reign in ideas I may have about my experiences that do not balance out with reason. That keeps one from going off the deep end.

It is my firm belief that both you and InChrist are deeply afraid of that voice of experience within yourselves, as you misapply scripture to say you should never trust your heart. That is tragic and poisonous to the soul. It is not balance. It is not spiritual. Spirituality is balance. It balances out the whole individual, body, mind, soul, and spirit. That includes the heart.

Yes, you have a point here, but not all needs to experience--to know everything.

No one said anything about knowing everything. But when you claim to have authoritative knowledge of something you have no experience in, then you are clearly nothing but a hack. Without experience, your knowledge is hardly informed.

No one needs to be a superman to taste experience

To claim you know what it is to be superman you do. To claim you know what love is you do. To claim you know what God is, you do. If you have never tasted God, you don't know God.

Jesus did not call us to experience everything so we may know everything. I never heard that.

Let's make a distinction here. You don't have to experience being burned by gasoline to know to avoid it. That's actually a "should". But to say you know what is is to be burned by gasoline when you have not, makes you a liar.

 

[Yoshua]

And this underscored my point. A "view" is a belief. You justify beliefs. You do not "justify spirituality", as you worded it.

But as far as a relative views go, of course they may be justified. I can support my views, despite the fact all views are relative. Being relative and being justifiable are two entirely different things. You have relative views too, but the only difference between us is I acknowledge it, and you simply live in denial of that fact. If your views are not relative, then they are absolute. Do you believe your beliefs are absolute?

Hi Windwalker,

How could I can’t deny if there is a truth that exist? Isn’t it. I believe that my beliefs are absolute. Do you know why I believe in it? This is because I saw the truth of Christ that was revealed in the Holy Scriptures. I see who God is and what God is. The God who created the world and humanity. I see a divine person who claimed He is the truth and came from the Father, and gave a promised Holy Spirit to be with us forever. That is absolute.

You must not have read what you quoted that this is in response to. If you look at it closely and carefully the 2nd and 3rd sentences in it says this. "I can tell you from my own experience that hell cannot exist. My experience of God tells me.....". Did you not read what I wrote? Why would you then ask how I come to this view, "by believing what other people experience"? No. I draw directly from my own experiences.

Oh I see. I think this is an example of unjustifiable belief by one’s own experience. What if the other says he can tell that hell exists? How do you justify that? There should be an answer for this; this is a serious matter for man’s salvation.

Even if the Bible is Absolute Authority experience that is inconsistent with a view of the Bible means you should reevaluate your views. If you've experienced God, it is unmistakable and overwhelming. To deny the experience is like cutting your own throat out.

Yes, of course. One has to be consistent with what the Bible says in terms of his experience. Just like an example with idols. If the Bible prohibited us from making and worshiping graven images, any graven images that was worshiped and displayed miraculous healing and wonders are considered not coming from God.

No you do not. I have proven this again and again. You say all experience must be consistent with your beliefs. That is not balance at all. Balance is where you let experience challenge or even contradict and deny your ideas about God. The stream of knowledge goes both directions. But you put your ideas of the Bible at the top, and from there nothing flows back upstream. That is not balance, but domination of one's beliefs at the top acting as God. Hence, why I say you worship your beliefs, not God.

Oh. Wait. Please don’t make a justified statement that seemed I created my beliefs. The reason that I had beliefs—is because I have faith in the Son of God who said He is the way, the truth and the life. Your term “experience challenge” is not the aim of Christianity. It is denying yourself and allowing God’s hand to work in believer’s life. There is a command and authority in it. I haven’t heard that Jesus Christ pushed his followers to make their spiritual experiences as a challenge of their own. It is not. Anything that transpired according to their experiences were all came from God. He is the author of their experiences, and not by their own will or likeness. That I believe is the real balance.

I don’t put ideas on top of the Bible, it is the Bible on top of believer’s ideas. That is why I believe in complete submission of authority with God and Holy Scriptures.

You have no understanding of spirituality. You have no experience. You have only beliefs. There is no difference between scripture and what your beliefs are because scripture is only what you believe it to be. It is nothing in itself. It is powerless until you make it part of your beliefs. Hence, you have only your beliefs, and no experience to balance it out with. Everything thing you type consistently supports me saying that. There is no "non-basis spirituality". Spirituality is experienced. The basis is not beliefs. The basis is experience. This is why you do not understand me, nor anyone else. All you have are your beliefs.

I think it is immature to say that I have no experience, and what I had is only beliefs. This is the reason why I don’t say to anyone here that they have no experience, low experience or high experience. Everybody can claim they have a wide spiritual or supernatural experiences but not everybody could say their experience is consistent with the word of God. If I (only) have my beliefs, I think I could not stayed here in this thread for so long answering about contemplatives and shared my experiences.

Wow. How could you say that the Holy Scriptures has no power? Is that would lead your experience is not in line with the Scriptures? Think about it.

If somebody’s experience a complete changed in his life through the word of God, then that is absolutely came from the word of God. That is power coming from God who handed us the Scriptures.

Based on our discussion before about experience, I remembered quoting about people who has a lot of different spiritual experiences. Now, how can you validate them which is true and false in God’s eye? This is where justification of experiences comes in. You cannot tell that all of their experiences are true. If there is no basis like the Holy Scriptures, there would be no justification. Therefore, all of their experiences are all true in God’s eye. In reality, this is not what the Scripture telling us. Jesus Christ gave warnings and reminders about false teachings. If we should consider your views about spiritual experience, that will absolutely lead to non-basis, non-truth and no authority exists. It is like saying that there will be no law that should exist because all people here in this world have their own laws. As there is moral, it is because there is God that exists.

Balance? Where is it in this question of yours? You do not need an absolute basis. You simply need a basis. You weigh them against each other.

A lesson about Balance:

Let me help you understand what balance is and is not. Are you familiar with a 2-sided scale used to measure weights? They have two trays on opposite sides of a post. You add material to each side until they balance each other out and they hang at equal heights opposite to each other. If you have a brick on the right side and a feather on the left, they are not in balance at all. The brick smashes down to the table and the feather flies up into the air. There is no balancing going on in here. There is imbalance. This is what you call balance, a heavy stone on one side, and air on the other.

Let's expand this 2-sided scale analogy to balance in one's spiritual knowledge in life. Spirituality is made up of material that both of experience and knowledge. Imagine it as a pile of grains of sand you are picking up off the table and trying to weigh out into equal, balancing proportions. If you take handfuls of this sand, or pebbles, or whatever you want to use as an analogy, and pile them up into the right-hand tray which we will call head-knowledge, the scale begins to tip to that side, dropping it down to the bottom. There is nothing being picked up from the available pile and scooped into the left-hand tray which we will call experience. That scale is not in balance with the other tray. Experience and head-knowledge are not balancing each other out in the whole person. The scale, the person himself, is in a state of imbalance. But when you add experience to the left hand tray, the head-knowledge tray is no longer dominating everything and the scale between experience and knowledge begin to move into balance. The ideal is an equal measure of experience and knowledge, where there is not a domination of one over the other.

This is balance. What you preach is not. It's a brick in one tray and nothing in the other.

Yes. That’s true. Head knowledge and spiritual experience should be balance and consistent from each other. Let’s get nearer to this balance example. The head knowledge is the knowledge that we read and study in the Scriptures. When we say the two to be in balance, I assume that the head knowledge is applied to believer’s experiences, and that experiences were consistently sourced from the Scriptures (head knowledge). If we say we deny ourselves and carry our own cross; obey, keeping and remaining in his words as commanded in the Scriptures, could you say that there is a domination?

 

[Yoshua]

My experiences inform my beliefs, and my beliefs inform my experiences. I do not let my beliefs predetermine my experience. That is not valid to do so. And on the other hand, I do not let my experiences outright dismiss my beliefs. There has to be consideration between the two. Many times the result is for me to change my view on something, to rethink it based on what experience has now shown me. Other times, reason tells me to reign in ideas I may have about my experiences that do not balance out with reason. That keeps one from going off the deep end.

I think that not letting your beliefs predetermine your experience is considered a non-conformity with the Scriptures. This is experience over the beliefs. Based on the Scriptures, Jesus always used these terms such as: Believe in me, remain, obey, trust, faith, love….. That shows believing is the starter, it is not the experience. That is the practical and natural process. If you are a student, you should believe what the teacher says. The teacher would not tell to his class to gain experience first without lecturing what is the fact and knowledge about the subject. Therefore, the students has faith in the subject as what the teacher is telling were true. This is the same with God who handed us His words in the Bible. We read it first, have faith and trust in His words, then apply it to gain the spiritual experience.

It is my firm belief that both you and InChrist are deeply afraid of that voice of experience within yourselves, as you misapply scripture to say you should never trust your heart. That is tragic and poisonous to the soul. It is not balance. It is not spiritual. Spirituality is balance. It balances out the whole individual, body, mind, soul, and spirit. That includes the heart.

Why should we violate the practical and natural process of believing and trusting first in His words before gaining experience? Why? We don’t want to step-in the front and make God to follow us instead we follow Him—as He is in front—a leader. If we make it in reverse—as leader should follow his servant; that is truly poisonous to the soul of man. If we truly believe that God is our leader, why should we have fear? It is not fear that goes inside a believer’s heart but reverence and submitting our lives to him as being the great leader of all for He knows what is right and wrong for us.

To claim you know what it is to be superman you do. To claim you know what love is you do. To claim you know what God is, you do. If you have never tasted God, you don't know God.

To know what love is—is always coming from God. To know what God is—is always coming from God. To taste God is to know God. To know God is to discover who God is. To discover who God is—is through the Scriptures.

Let's make a distinction here. You don't have to experience being burned by gasoline to know to avoid it. That's actually a "should". But to say you know what is is to be burned by gasoline when you have not, makes you a liar.

Therefore, the suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross cannot be duplicated. No one should do the actual experience of Christ’s suffering to say that he is saved. Actually, aside from crucifixion, the words of Christ are already a salvation to all.

2 Cor. 5:21 (to be sin on our behalf)
21. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

1 Peter 3:18 ( to bring us to God)
18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

Rev. 1:5 (to free us from the slavery of sin)
5. and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us, and released us from our sins by His blood,

In application with the Bible today, we don’t need to go back in Jesus’ time to prove that Jesus really claimed He is the truth, the way and the life. This is done by trust and faith in Him.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

I believe that my beliefs are absolute.

Thus ends all possibility of any hope of discussion. This is the very definition of a closed mind. If your beliefs are absolute, you never discuss anything with others. You simply proclaim your thoughts as absolute. Your thoughts and ideas are infallible to you. Congratulations on your full conversion to delusional thinking.

 

[Yoshua]

Thus ends all possibility of any hope of discussion. This is the very definition of a closed mind. If your beliefs are absolute, you never discuss anything with others. You simply proclaim your thoughts as absolute. Your thoughts and ideas are infallible to you. Congratulations on your full conversion to delusional thinking.

Hi Windwalker,

I believed in Christ. His teachings are absolute. Therefore when a person believed and received Christ, he is following the teachings as absolute. There is truth. That is why it is absolute. I don't own God and Christ to say I'm absolute. It is God who is absolute so his follower can uttered his belief is absolute.

Discussion has nothing to do with the absolute. God's word are infallible, and I don't make myself as infallible. The reference point is the Holy Scriptures (Bible).

Thanks