The Emerging World Religion

[Windwalker]

The Bible clearly mentioned about false teachings.

Yes it does. It is a warning of the religious who teach substitutes to the realization of God in their hearts. It's a warning to the spiritual about the religious who promise the truth and deliver religion.

To be able to determine that false teachings are bad fruit is to know what the Spirit is, and what He does.

So in other words you are injecting your meaning into scripture since it doesn't explicitly say "false teachings are bad fruit". You make such a huge deal about people who practice meditation and count breaths not being in the Bible, yet you believe things like this that "false teachings are bad fruit" despite that not being explicitly stated in scripture? They call that hypocrisy.

If false teachings are not bad fruits, then why Jesus warned about false teachings?

False teaching is not "bad fruit". If you want to use the metaphor then false teaching would be corrupted seed. The fruit it produces in someone's life would be bad fruit, not the teaching itself. The bad seed of legalistic, fundamentalist religious doctrines and teachings would produce the bad fruit of self-righteousness, judgmentalism, hypocrisies, false accusations of others, persecutions, death, and all the things we see on a daily basis the is the result of religious fundamentalist seeds. False teachings in regard to spiritual truth is religious fundamentalist doctrine. It produces bad fruit because its seed corrupts the heart with poison.

The Holy Spirit is the promised Holy Spirit that was given by Jesus Christ. The fruit of the Spirit is not from our nature but what the Spirit of God produced.

That's right. Then why do you believe that believing correct beliefs is the key to the fruit of the Spirit? Aren't doctrinal beliefs a work of the flesh? I'd say so.

The Spirit of truth sourced from God. If false teachings is not a bad fruit, the statement should not say He will guide us into all truth. That would mean there must be a truth that glorifies God.

That's right. Those who speak from themselves declaring that they know what the absolute truth of God is because they read it in the Bible somewhere do not glorify God. They glorify themselves. The do not speak from the Spirit of Truth. They speak from themselves.

1 John 4:1-3
1. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
3. and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

There are spirits that are not from God.

That's right. They speak from themselves, declaring themselves to be the prophets of God, proving their doctrines with their Bible's held high in the hands making such grandiose statements such as: "What I’m uttering is His word as my basis. It is not me, it’s Him." These are the false prophets who speak from the spirit of their own ignorance. They speak from the spirit of the flesh. They speak from their ego-minds, delusional to the point they say of their own ideas, "It's not me, it's Him."

 

[Yoshua]

So you think God is a math formula?

Hi Windwalker,

No. I just want to use this analogy to better understand the absolute truth.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

It doesn't matter if the Bible is 1,000,000,000% perfect, Absolute and Authoritative. The second any human reads it, it becomes a relative truth dependent on the context of the person reading it. No human interpretation is absolute. And the Bible is nothing without the human interpreting it. It is irrelevant to us if we don't interpret it. It does not exist to us without our human minds interpreting it. All understanding is relative and non-absolute. The "word of God" as pure and absolute does not exist in any human understanding. Especially yours.

The Bible is nothing?? How could you say that? I say it again, the Bible can be read in literal sense, the narratives can be read like a novel, a story book and others. I did not say that human interpretation is absolute. The Word of God is absolute. It can’t be the Word of God if it is not absolute.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

You have faith in your interpretation of the Bible. You have faith in your beliefs. This is not at all the same as faith in God.

I have faith in the Word of God and Jesus Christ, therefore I have faith in the Christ. If a person believed, received and accepted Jesus Christ by following His teachings, I don’t think this is not the faith in God that you mentioned. You may have a different view of your God which is not in line with Jesus Christ. What Jesus did in His ministry with the disciples is the plan of God. What is in the Father is the same as what is with Jesus Christ.

B.S. It is you. It is not God. To say otherwise is delusional thought.

It is delusional if someone speaks about God without basis. If I dont’t have a basis, that’s delusional. Better talk about the basis to know the truth.

You are placing yourself above God because you take your ideas about God, and make them God, then expect everyone else to obey and submit to your limp ideas about the divine. This is the height of human arrogance.

Just as I said before, if I quoted the Scriptures and the statement of Jesus about following and submission, how come that I’m already placing myself above God. I haven’t claimed myself as God, or to be like God. Never.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

That's right. This is the unitive heart. It doesn't matter if you're Jew or Greek, Christian or Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim. All drink that one Spirit.

Why jumped into conclusion that united heart with other beliefs is already one Spirit? The Spirit is the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not hindered other beliefs to come to Him as long as they will follow Him and deny themselves. I firmly believed that they have to repent, believe or entrust their lives to Him. If all other beliefs drink that one Spirit, why Jesus need to say “Follow Me,” deny themselves and carry your own cross?

The Spirit/Holy Spirit can’t be the spirit of Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist. This is surely irreconcilable with the truth about the Holy Spirit. If you can reconcile it with the Scripture, I’m glad to know it.

Then why are you arrogantly acting as judge over your brothers? That doesn't sound very much like someone following Jesus.

For you, judging would mean to quote the Scripture as my reply to you, giving and sharing my opinion with the Scripture. How about pointing me as a cult which I’m not? Well, I don’t concentrate much more on this issue, as long as I can show and prove to you that I’m not. I’m focusing more on the subject of discussion rather than jumping to personal issues.

This is the reason why I quote the statement of Jesus Christ because I’m His follower.

That's not true at all. There is a wide range of volumes that are appropriate to our hearing. My point was, your stereo is a black and white, all or nothing stereo whose only volume is full volume. There are no in between settings for you, only off, or full volume on.

Ok. Let’s get closer. How about the light, could it be that there is a wide range of lighting that would be appropriate for visibility? I don’t think that you can put 500 watts to your living room and bedroom.

False. There are many options to heal, and not only one right one. You are wrong. Again.

Not really. I’m focusing to the subject of “medicine” to choose upon, and not about variety of cure. Anyway, let us say that there are many alternative medicine that can cure the patient, therefore that mean there are variety of truths around here to choose. Now, how many cure did the cancer patient can choose, do he needs to take all those variety of alternative medicine to cure himself or he should choose only one??

Secondly, where does the variety of alternative medicine came from? Sourced from the plants? That could be true and nearer. Now, who owned the plants? who created them? Is it man or God made it?

Still, you proceed to the originator that is God, the creator who makes all things possible. Indeed, the truth still exist, the absolute truth exists that there is God. Absolute truth exists that God send His Son to save us from sins.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Hi Windwalker,

No. I just want to use this analogy to better understand the absolute truth.

Thanks

But to use a math equation in understanding "facts" and suggest this is how we know the "truth" about God reduces God to a formula. It reduces God to something on the order of the laws of nature, physics. Math formulas only apply to relatively stable systems. Can you use math, which you assume is an absolute, to predict human behaviors? You can predict where Mars will be in its orbit in a thousand years from now, but you cannot use math to understand where your dog will be 10 seconds from now. The universe is far less formulaic and absolute that this, and so your analogy doesn't apply. God is not a law of nature.

 

[Windwalker]

The Bible is nothing?? How could you say that?

I can say it by qualifying exactly as it did in the quote which you omitted in your reading of it. I said, "The Bible is nothing without the human interpreting it." If the Bible is sitting on the shelf and no one picks it up to read it, it is nothing. It's not like some magical source of radiation warming the room all by itself without human interaction. It only has use or value or meaning if someone reads it and interprets it. So this proves it cannot be understood as an Absolute. If it were, it wouldn't need human interpreters to make it do something. But since it does, what is read and interpreted is relative because no human understanding is absolute, especially yours.

I say it again, the Bible can be read in literal sense, the narratives can be read like a novel, a story book and others. I did not say that human interpretation is absolute. The Word of God is absolute. It can’t be the Word of God if it is not absolute.

Fine if you want to believe that, but it is irrelevant. It is not absolute in any human understanding, because all human understanding is relative. So claim it's absolute all you want, but it's meaningless because no one has an absolute interpretation of it. Why even bother to bring it up then, unless you are in fact suggesting that when you quote from it adding your suggested understanding to its texts that your understanding is correct? That is in fact what you are doing, and why I criticize all you are proclaiming as God's Word in your name. It isn't. It's your words. Period.

 

[Windwalker]

I have faith in the Word of God and Jesus Christ,

No, you have faith in your interpretation of the Bible. You just call your interpretation the Word of God and make it absolute. That's delusional.

You may have a different view of your God which is not in line with Jesus Christ.

I have a different view of God which is not in line with your view of God. Don't make yourself the Authority by claiming your views are Jesus Christ. That's is delusional thinking in the extreme.

What Jesus did in His ministry with the disciples is the plan of God. What is in the Father is the same as what is with Jesus Christ.

And you claim to understand what this is absolutely, and anyone else's point of view is wrong because yours is Absolute. This too is delusional thinking.

It is delusional if someone speaks about God without basis. If I dont’t have a basis, that’s delusional. Better talk about the basis to know the truth.

Anyone who has an opinion about anything, God included, has a basis for it. How good that basis is is another matter! You're not delusional because you read the Bible and form opinions about God. I didn't say that, nor would say that. You are however delusional to believe it's not your opinion, but God's. Here's your delusional words you can read for yourself: "If God’s word has authority, what I’m uttering is His word as my basis. It is not me, it’s Him." No, it is not Him. It is your opinion of what you believe is God's word. I reject your opion and your beliefs. I don't reject God. I reject you.

Just as I said before, if I quoted the Scriptures and the statement of Jesus about following and submission, how come that I’m already placing myself above God. I haven’t claimed myself as God, or to be like God. Never.

You have actually, even within the post. You equate your opinions as God's Word. You say my views are not in line with Jesus Christ, which is saying my views are not in line with yours, therefore Jesus'. You equate yourself with Jesus Christ. This is delusional thought to equate oneself as being able to speak for God. This is what you are doing. This is deeply confused on your part.

 

[Windwalker]

Why jumped into conclusion that united heart with other beliefs is already one Spirit?

First of all, I did not say "united heart with other beliefs". You added to my words. Shame on you! What I said was all are one in Christ through Spirit, which is realized in the unitive heart. It has nothing to do with having different beliefs. The verse you quoted from in Cornintians has nothing to do with sharing the same beliefs.

The Spirit is the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not hindered other beliefs to come to Him as long as they will follow Him and deny themselves.

That's right. They can have their other beliefs and follow him by loving God with all their hearts, mind, soul, and strength. To do so, is to follow Jesus, even if you never call him by that name.

I do not believe like you that Jesus or God has a big ego that needs to be appeased by using the right name of deity for him! I have a very different view of God than you do. I like what Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita 9:23, "Those who worship other gods and those who worship them with faith, are actually worshipping me. I am the receiver of all devotion." Why would Christ deny one who worships God in "Spirit and in Truth", in that that is true devotion? Why would it matter if you called it by another name? Ego?

I firmly believed that they have to repent, believe or entrust their lives to Him. If all other beliefs drink that one Spirit, why Jesus need to say “Follow Me,” deny themselves and carry your own cross?

Because not everyone actually is on the path to God, regardless of which religion they are in. Jesus' call to "follow me" is to say, take the path to God in true worship. If you do that as a Hindu, you are following Jesus' call, even if you never have heard of him or choose to be a Christian. Jesus Christ transcends Christianity. Jesus is not a Christian.

The Spirit/Holy Spirit can’t be the spirit of Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist.

There is only One Spirit. How can it be another? Who makes you Judge?

This is surely irreconcilable with the truth about the Holy Spirit. If you can reconcile it with the Scripture, I’m glad to know it.

Do you imagine the Holy Spirit to be a separate deity form?

For you, judging would mean to quote the Scripture as my reply to you, giving and sharing my opinion with the Scripture.

I have no problems with you sharing your opinion. But you don't say it in terms of "my beliefs", "my view", "my thoughts". You state it in terms of "God says", "It's not my word, but God's word".

If you change how you talk, you might be surprised at the level of discussion that might begin to happen! Get down off your high horse and quit assuming your opinions are the Authoritative and Absolute because you read it in the Bible. You interpreted the Bible, and it's therefore your point of view - not God's.

How about pointing me as a cult which I’m not?

Deliverance churches are considered by many to be cults. I agree with that.

This is the reason why I quote the statement of Jesus Christ because I’m His follower.

Are you following the path of love and unity? I love this bumper sticker I saw once. It reads, "Lord, save me from your followers!". Who really is a follower of Jesus? I say a Hindu who follows the path of love and devotion is a follower of Jesus, long before those who preach in his name but do not follow the path of love.

 

[Windwalker]

Ok. Let’s get closer. How about the light, could it be that there is a wide range of lighting that would be appropriate for visibility? I don’t think that you can put 500 watts to your living room and bedroom.

Again, this misses my point. It's not the wattage of the bulb, but the fact that you have only two possible settings: 0% or 100%. You do not have any rheostat in place, nor know how to use it. There is no 15% setting on your light bulb. Your room is either black or white. There are no shades of color, no amber hues, no blue hues, no green hues seen when the lighting is trimmed back from full-on hot white. There are no subtle understandings of anything in your black and white world of absolutes.

Not really. I’m focusing to the subject of “medicine” to choose upon, and not about variety of cure. Anyway, let us say that there are many alternative medicine that can cure the patient, therefore that mean there are variety of truths around here to choose.

Yes!

Now, how many cure did the cancer patient can choose, do he needs to take all those variety of alternative medicine to cure himself or he should choose only one??

He should try whatever works best for him, and not feel obligated to continue to use one that didn't work for him, just because it worked for someone else. This is a perfect example of what I'm saying. There is no one-size-fits-all shoe. People have different needs for their feet, even though they all have feet!

Secondly, where does the variety of alternative medicine came from? Sourced from the plants? That could be true and nearer. Now, who owned the plants? who created them? Is it man or God made it?

All plants come from God, but how people discover how to use them are unique to them. We can learn from what others have discovered as well!

Still, you proceed to the originator that is God, the creator who makes all things possible. Indeed, the truth still exist, the absolute truth exists that there is God. Absolute truth exists that God send His Son to save us from sins.

And how that is understood is interpreted in a million different ways. Not just yours.

 

[Yoshua]

But to use a math equation in understanding "facts" and suggest this is how we know the "truth" about God reduces God to a formula. It reduces God to something on the order of the laws of nature, physics. Math formulas only apply to relatively stable systems. Can you use math, which you assume is an absolute, to predict human behaviors? You can predict where Mars will be in its orbit in a thousand years from now, but you cannot use math to understand where your dog will be 10 seconds from now. The universe is far less formulaic and absolute that this, and so your analogy doesn't apply. God is not a law of nature.

Windwalker,

Well, I’m looking at the side of “absolute truth”. The things that surround us point to a Creator who designed and placed the planetary system. You may name all laws but still, there are truths that are created by God. That is stable even you scrap the math equation.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I can say it by qualifying exactly as it did in the quote which you omitted in your reading of it. I said, "The Bible is nothing without the human interpreting it." If the Bible is sitting on the shelf and no one picks it up to read it, it is nothing. It's not like some magical source of radiation warming the room all by itself without human interaction. It only has use or value or meaning if someone reads it and interprets it. So this proves it cannot be understood as an Absolute. If it were, it wouldn't need human interpreters to make it do something. But since it does, what is read and interpreted is relative because no human understanding is absolute, especially yours.

Windwalker,

You can say those things because you did not believe the Bible as God’s word and authority. If there is no human interpreting the Bible, it does not change anything. It is still the Bible, the word of God for me. His word is absolute.

Fine if you want to believe that, but it is irrelevant. It is not absolute in any human understanding, because all human understanding is relative. So claim it's absolute all you want, but it's meaningless because no one has an absolute interpretation of it. Why even bother to bring it up then, unless you are in fact suggesting that when you quote from it adding your suggested understanding to its texts that your understanding is correct? That is in fact what you are doing, and why I criticize all you are proclaiming as God's Word in your name. It isn't. It's your words. Period.

Did you know why I put my suggested understanding with the Scripture which I quoted, it is because of logical understanding. If the Scripture say in John 14:23, 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.”

It is very clear with the following that :
1. Jesus said this statement.
2. He said that if anyone loved Him, they should keep His word.
3. He said that if anyone loved Him and do keep His word, God will also love him.

How is that? Do we need to interpret the simple easy to understand statements?

The main reason why no man has absolute interpretation is because he is human prone to error, we are not a perfect being. Therefore, there should be a system for biblical interpretation as having a standard to follow. If I tell you that Jesus did not uttered the following statement, I have to prove it.

Everything should have a system for a man to be guided. The same thing with spiritual, church has also system to follow in worship, evangelism, missions etc.. Why not for understanding the word of God?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I have a different view of God which is not in line with your view of God. Don't make yourself the Authority by claiming your views are Jesus Christ. That's is delusional thinking in the extreme.

Yes, I’m not claiming the authority. My view in Christ has basis, this is how we look at it. If I told you about Christ without a reference, you might tell me that I’m joking and uses my own words.

Anyone who has an opinion about anything, God included, has a basis for it. How good that basis is is another matter! You're not delusional because you read the Bible and form opinions about God. I didn't say that, nor would say that. You are however delusional to believe it's not your opinion, but God's. Here's your delusional words you can read for yourself: "If God’s word has authority, what I’m uttering is His word as my basis. It is not me, it’s Him." No, it is not Him. It is your opinion of what you believe is God's word. I reject your opion and your beliefs. I don't reject God. I reject you.

Why? Did I tell you something without my reference in Scripture as my supporting? I don’t say that I’m the authority, and my words should be followed rather than Christ’s words. You may search the Scripture if what I quoted are true or false. This is how we diligently study and examine His words. Truly, when I say it is not me, it is Him, that means that I’m dependent on His words rather than mine.

It is more difficult to understand if someone will tell you that Jesus Christ is a new age, or he is guided by the Spirit of truth by experience?? How could you prove experience without a basis, system and a point of reference?

You have actually, even within the post. You equate your opinions as God's Word. You say my views are not in line with Jesus Christ, which is saying my views are not in line with yours, therefore Jesus'. You equate yourself with Jesus Christ. This is delusional thought to equate oneself as being able to speak for God. This is what you are doing. This is deeply confused on your part.

Oh my! Did somebody who had a reference sourced from the Bible is already God? or it is because of our faith that His words are the truth and authority? How someone (without a basis) will justify himself as the follower of Christ? Could a Buddhist can’t use the eight-fold path as his opinion or Quran for Muslims?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

First of all, I did not say "united heart with other beliefs". You added to my words. Shame on you! What I said was all are one in Christ through Spirit, which is realized in the unitive heart. It has nothing to do with having different beliefs. The verse you quoted from in Cornintians has nothing to do with sharing the same beliefs.

That's right. This is the unitive heart. It doesn't matter if you're Jew or Greek, Christian or Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim. All drink that one Spirit.by Windwalker

Windwalker, you are talking the same thing. How come that we are one in Spirit that may realize in unitive heart? Why is it that it has nothing to do with different beliefs?

1 Cor. 12:12-13
12. For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.
13. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

First, you agree that 1 Cor.12:12-13 pertain to Jew or Greek, you added Hindu and Muslims to drink that one Spirit. How could I not react to your statements?
This is a statement of the past event as Jews and Gentiles are partakers of the grace of God. Look at the word “baptism” as connected with one Spirit or the Holy Spirit.

That's right. They can have their other beliefs and follow him by loving God with all their hearts, mind, soul, and strength. To do so, is to follow Jesus, even if you never call him by that name.

How could you call Jesus with the other name that was given by the Father as prophesied in Isaiah? Why?

I do not believe like you that Jesus or God has a big ego that needs to be appeased by using the right name of deity for him! I have a very different view of God than you do. I like what Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita 9:23, "Those who worship other gods and those who worship them with faith, are actually worshipping me. I am the receiver of all devotion." Why would Christ deny one who worships God in "Spirit and in Truth", in that that is true devotion? Why would it matter if you called it by another name? Ego?

Of course, Krishna is different with Jesus Christ. Krishna is not Jesus. This is contrast with the command of Christ.

Isaiah 45:5
5. "I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me;

Mark 3:7
7. And Jesus withdrew to the sea with His disciples; and a great multitude from Galilee followed; and also from Judea,

Luke 9:23-25
23. And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.
24. "For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it.
25. "For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself?

Phil. 2:9-11
9. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
10. that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth,
11. and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I don’t think the name Krishna is the name above every name.

Why would Christ deny one who worships God in "Spirit and in Truth", in that that is true devotion? Why would it matter if you called it by another name? Ego?

Jesus Christ will not deny people who will come to follow Him. Krishna is a Hindu deity while Jesus is the Lord and Saviour sent by God, the Father. Therefore, their names are totally differ from each other. Practically and logically, if you call Krishna, it is not Jesus Christ who will come to you.

Krishna (/ˈkrɪʃnə/; Sanskrit: कृष्ण, Kṛṣṇa in IAST, pronounced [ˈkr̩ʂɳə] ( listen)) is a Hindu deity, worshipped across many traditions of Hinduism in a variety of different perspectives. Krishna is recognized as the eighth avatar of the God Vishnu or as the Supreme God in other traditions. www.google.com

Because not everyone actually is on the path to God, regardless of which religion they are in. Jesus' call to "follow me" is to say, take the path to God in true worship. If you do that as a Hindu, you are following Jesus' call, even if you never have heard of him or choose to be a Christian. Jesus Christ transcends Christianity. Jesus is not a Christian.

Jesus’ call to follow Him is not just posing as a follower of Christ by not forsaking Hinduism in their midst. I don’t see any account in the Bible about Jesus’ followers who still embraced and practicing other beliefs. The path of God in Christ is a total surrendering of our lives to Him—as His will must be done.

Until now, you haven’t proven and reconciled Hinduism and Christianity through Christ. Prove that Jesus is not a Christian.

There is only One Spirit. How can it be another? Who makes you Judge?

Absolutely true, there is only one Spirit that is coming from God. How can it be another? Simple, because the Spirit is the Holy Spirit, this is what Jesus gave to His followers to be received.

Now, don’t misinterpret me that this is coming from my own, and make me a judge. This is my reference from Jesus’ words:

Holy Spirit is from God
Matt. 3:16
16. And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him,

This is coming from the word of Jesus Christ to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Matt.28:19
19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

The Holy Spirit was given to His follower as their Helper.

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


This is why I believed that the Spirit can’t be the spirit of other beliefs.

Do you imagine the Holy Spirit to be a separate deity form?

It is not the word “separate” that was appropriately used in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. God exists in the person of the Holy Spirit. They existed in the person of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, not one person.

I have no problems with you sharing your opinion. But you don't say it in terms of "my beliefs", "my view", "my thoughts". You state it in terms of "God says", "It's not my word, but God's word".

Ok. Thanks

If you change how you talk, you might be surprised at the level of discussion that might begin to happen! Get down off your high horse and quit assuming your opinions are the Authoritative and Absolute because you read it in the Bible. You interpreted the Bible, and it's therefore your point of view - not God's.

I don’t want to be a hypocrite, I may use the Scriptures as my supporting but not to compromise that my opinion has no basis. You are telling me that I should not treat the Bible as authoritative and absolute. I lived by His word; it changed my life, and saw the truth already. I can’t change the truth of Jesus Christ. Again, interpretation has a standard, and basis. There is no such thing as non-truth in this world. Sorry for this one. There is truth that exists.

Deliverance churches are considered by many to be cults. I agree with that.

I’m familiar with your thoughts about deliverance. There is a difference between the Pentecostal and Evangelical deliverance. Pentecostals considered speaking in tongues as part of deliverance, signs and wonders.

Evangelicals are concentrated with the basic deliverance process based on how Jesus cast out unclean spirits. Healings and counseling is also part of deliverance. It is not always casting out unclean spirits. To detect whether the deliverance is a cult or not—is by examining it with the Word of God.

Are you following the path of love and unity? I love this bumper sticker I saw once. It reads, "Lord, save me from your followers!". Who really is a follower of Jesus? I say a Hindu who follows the path of love and devotion is a follower of Jesus, long before those who preach in his name but do not follow the path of love.

I can’t answer you directly if I’m following the path of love and unity because the love and unity that you’re mentioning are not the same in terms of the source of love and unity, and how it will apply.

What is Hindu and what is Christianity? This question should be asked first before concluding he is a follower of Christ. How many gods or deity that Hindu’s had and for Christianity?

I think those should be answered first. The “path of love” you kept repeating should be identified what is that path, and justified where does that love came from.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

He should try whatever works best for him, and not feel obligated to continue to use one that didn't work for him, just because it worked for someone else. This is a perfect example of what I'm saying. There is no one-size-fits-all shoe. People have different needs for their feet, even though they all have feet!

Exactly! Truth is also the same thing. God’s truth is not referring to a variety of beliefs to be embraced. It is not, because there is only one God who sent the truth through Jesus Christ. One belief that says there is only one truth, and he is the truth.

All plants come from God, but how people discover how to use them are unique to them. We can learn from what others have discovered as well!

Of course! Why people have the capability to think and discover? It is because God gave them the life and body to be used. That is God’s grace.

And how that is understood is interpreted in a million different ways. Not just yours.

It can’t be a million ways. It is either there is a God, Creator or there is no God, Creator. One must be true and the other is false.

Thanks

 

[Straw Dog]

Deifying self is hardly new. Satan has long sold godhood in some form to humanity, as religion, or as some deeper, mystical aspect of a particular religion. Where the leaven of mysticism is found it inevitably spreads to some form of union with God, meaning...belief in becoming God or merging with God. Mysticism is the key to a universal religion because it appeals to people on a broad scale. People of different religions must have a common factor and binding agent for a global religion and that is mystical, contemplative prayer. This unity of all faiths or interspirituality is the underlying herald cry and goal of the contemplative prayer movement and it is drawing people from all religious persuasions. Yet, while it entices many from “Christianity” it is something that can never be reconciled with the biblical message of the existence of One transcendent God, the Cross, and the claim of Jesus Christ as the only Savior.


Share your thoughts.

Meh... I'm no more impressed by any 'emerging world religion' than I am by antiquated religions. Maybe it's time for something completely different.

 

[Windwalker]

Well, I’m looking at the side of “absolute truth”. The things that surround us point to a Creator who designed and placed the planetary system. You may name all laws but still, there are truths that are created by God. That is stable even you scrap the math equation.

But it's nature is not stability. It's nature is dynamic, not static. If there is a "law" of God, it is change. Relatively stable structures may emerge out of this dynamic processes, but they are not immutable and eternal. There is no mathematical "law" that transcends the system of this universe that was superimposed upon it from outside of it. The very use of the term "law of nature" suggests something eternal, but it is really more at best a figure of speech, not a fact.

God is not a static object that can be measured and defined and put into stable mathematical equations. This is a problem of understanding on your part, as well as that of quite many other traditional theists. It's a misunderstanding of the nature of reality itself, and by extension, God.

 

[Windwalker]

You can say those things because you did not believe the Bible as God’s word and authority. If there is no human interpreting the Bible, it does not change anything. It is still the Bible, the word of God for me. His word is absolute.

Is your understanding of it absolute? No? Than why argue for it being absolute, if you're not trying to argue your points of view are as well? Please answer this.

Did you know why I put my suggested understanding with the Scripture which I quoted, it is because of logical understanding.

No it is not a logical understanding whatsoever because it is not what God says, it's what you interpret God says. You should not state it, "It's not my word, it's God's word". You should accurately, and logically state, "I believe this is what the Bible means". That's radically different than denying it's your point of view but is a fact instead. That's what you are doing, and that is what I consider self-blindness and subtle arrogance. Can you blame others for seeing this in what you are in fact doing?

If the Scripture say in John 14:23, 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.”

It is very clear with the following that :
1. Jesus said this statement.
2. He said that if anyone loved Him, they should keep His word.
3. He said that if anyone loved Him and do keep His word, God will also love him.

Sure, and I agree with the statements. However, how you understand what those mean and what I understand what those mean are two different things. I agree with Jesus. You agree with Jesus. You and I do not agree with each other! Why??? Could it be that your interpretation of what Jesus says is different than what I interpret? If so, then can't I say instead of you, "It's not my words, but Jesus'"? I read the same words, and in both cases, its Jesus' words, not our own.

I don't believe you can adequately address this very fact if you deny that it's your interpretation of what Jesus said, rather than trying to dodge responsibility and say it's not your ideas but what the other person said. Yes, Jesus said these words. But you and I disagree on what he meant. Tell me why, if you can.

How is that? Do we need to interpret the simple easy to understand statements?

Yes! You need to interpret them. You already are every time you quote them to prove your own point of view. Again, you quote the exact same verses I do, but my understanding of them is light years away from yours. Why? Explain why.

The main reason why no man has absolute interpretation is because he is human prone to error, we are not a perfect being. Therefore, there should be a system for biblical interpretation as having a standard to follow. If I tell you that Jesus did not uttered the following statement, I have to prove it.

Ah, but systems of interpretation are prone to biases as well! You are using different systems than I am, and that results in different results! No system of interpretation is going to give you an absolute understanding either. So you're still stuck with relative truth!

Everything should have a system for a man to be guided. The same thing with spiritual, church has also system to follow in worship, evangelism, missions etc.. Why not for understanding the word of God?

You are actually getting deeper in your arguments and I respect that. While I agree we need systems, and these are those structures of interpretation I keep referring to, those systems themselves are merely supporting structures for our current abilities to understand things. They are not going to give you "facts" as you hope. They will at best be a reflection of themselves. These are useful to be sure, but they are not absolutes. That is an error of understanding, an illusion of Truth itself.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, I’m not claiming the authority. My view in Christ has basis, this is how we look at it. If I told you about Christ without a reference, you might tell me that I’m joking and uses my own words.

Again, I can cite Christ's words as well to support my point of view, and claim they are in fact his words which they are. But that is irrelevant as it is my understanding of his words that really matters. Same with you. It is not Christ's words I dispute. I dispute your understandiing of them, as well as the basis of interpretation you use to understand them. You own mind limits what can be understood. And the system of interpretation you use also limits what can be understood.

Some systems are better than others, which I believe mine is, but never does it make them "Authoritative" in the Absolute sense. This is where you are mistaken and deluded in your thinking about these things.

Why? Did I tell you something without my reference in Scripture as my supporting? I don’t say that I’m the authority, and my words should be followed rather than Christ’s words.

But you are in fact, in effect, saying how you understand what those mean should be believed in and followed, and how that those who do not are failing God's Word. I reject that notion of yours you hold as true for all the reasons I have logically shown.

You may search the Scripture if what I quoted are true or false.

I have and I do. And your understanding is what what I don't agree with. The words on its pages mean something different to me when I read them, because I am coming to them from a different place than you are, on very many levels.

This is how we diligently study and examine His words. Truly, when I say it is not me, it is Him, that means that I’m dependent on His words rather than mine.

All you are doing is relying on external sources, as opposed to opening yourself to internal sources in addition to that. That's fine if that's where you are at. But you are mistaking that turning to that external source is going to give you Absolute Truth. It will not. Ever.

It is more difficult to understand if someone will tell you that Jesus Christ is a new age, or he is guided by the Spirit of truth by experience?? How could you prove experience without a basis, system and a point of reference?

I've addressed this before. I certainly have significant basis for my understanding of things, and there are points of reference of course. It's not "anything goes" by any means. But it is a whole lot more fluid and dynamic an understanding than where you are coming from. You have a starting point that shapes and influences all your understanding of everything you interpret from there. And so do I. Your starting point is static and concrete. My starting point if dynamic and fluid. Everything we understand thereafter will be understood within the light of that basis.

 

[sojourner]

Hi Sojourner,

Therefore, you can’t explain it to me. You are just telling me that I’m wrong without basis. I think this is the problem if the basis is just only by one’s own opinion instead of Scripture.

Thanks

I didn't say I couldn't explain it. I said that they're all wrong. The basis is a solid theological line of thinking, which you lack. That lack means your opinions have no basis. Scripture doesn't provide its own "basis" without some sort of theological structure to aid in interpretations, since the bible is a multivalent text.