The Emerging World Religion

[Windwalker]

God created the universe within God's self, and instead of "controlling" the universe, God "empowers" the universe. God lets us be who we are. And mysticism, seeking the freedom of the individual and community to be, rejects control in favor of freedom. This threatens the fundamentalist whose hermeneutic is control-based, rather than life-based.

There is a passage in scripture which speaks to me always of this very thing, though I think many don't see it in this context. To quote from the King James version since it's poetry flows with the passage,

Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
​

Do you hear what this says? The lily is not manipulated by God. It grows from within. And that organic reality, of life within flowing outward, arrays it in such beauty that no human effort can begin to rival. And how does God clothe the grass of the field? With a can a spray paint? No, by instilling within it all the necessary ingredient to grow from within and be 'clothed' with that glory which is God. And so it is with us. The message is to not toil, spin, seeking to control, to manipulate, to impose, to dictate, to threaten, to demand, to intimidate, to frighten with torture others to conform to some external standard, but to allow what is within the freedom to array oneself with that Beauty that is within it, naturally.

 

[Yoshua]

Yes, things of the spirit(inner) rather than external. The human brain has plenty of cisterns(wells) of living water within.

If an inner spirit is teaching and guiding one into truth, I would say one may have to go beyond the mind for that to happen. If one does not, than ones own thoughts and ways will remain.

Hi Unification,

So, what is the process in having going beyond the mind?

That's the greatest excuse most use, that "God" can do whatever "he" wants and we can't understand why. Poor justification. Yet somehow those of the spirit are supposed to have the mind of "Christ" according to texts yet still not understand why. Supposed to have the same spirit indwelling as those who wrote the "OT" and still not understand why. "God" can't do whatever "he" wants if "God's" ways are higher than our ways. "God's" ways/nature would remain the same. The texts say "God" doesn't and can't do many things. Our ways and thoughts would be killing literal people and slaughtering literal animals. Why do you reduce "God" to our nature yet say "his" ways are higher?

How can He be a God if He cannot do whatever He wants? As I know, God poured out His love towards men. This is a logical and valid justification.

Some take the understanding of the Scriptures with their very own context. This is the reason why they cannot capture what is the “mind of Christ.”

1 Cor. 2:14-16
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Yes, indeed. God ways are higher than our ways, same as His thoughts. As you have said, His nature is still the same nature as God. where is the text that God cannot do many things?

Are all the creation surrounding us is not sufficient to justify that He can do many things?

I did not reduce God to our nature. I believed in the authority of God, His ways are higher than us. Man cannot attain to reach the knowledge of God outside the Scriptures.

If you don't follow a "higher" nature, how can you follow a "God" of "higher" nature and "higher" ways? If you can't comprehend "his" WAYS, then you can't comprehend "Jesus" who is the WAY. You wouldn't be able to decipher "God's will if you can't understand "God's ways and thoughts.

Man cannot follow God’s nature nor He can be a God. As I said, we can comprehend God’s nature through the Scripture, not by feeling and mystical/supernatural things that man tried to attain. Although, being a follower of Christ, supernatural things can be experienced given by God, and not man seeking supernatural things.

The disciple of Christ can comprehend Jesus, but not all the time for they will understand Christ’s promises and teachings as they mature in their walk.

It is very clear that we can understand God’s will by renewing our mind, by transforming your thoughts not in the world but in the righteousness of God. Surrendering your will to God rather your will be done.

Rom. 12:2
2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Using your justification with that, it can be easily said that all evangelical doctrine is wrong because those are things of man's mind, thoughts, and ways.

I am greater than no man or woman, or the universe, or "God," regardless of how much inner strength/power/awareness/wisdom that I may have or don't have. Would "God" be ignorant enough to not equip the human being with everything that they need within them? Faith in "God" is still self faith, who else's faith is it? Faith in that power/spirit within is still faith within oneself. The power/spirit within doesn't make it ones own.

Evangelical based their doctrine on the Scriptures. They believed in the authority of the Scriptures as God inspired word. In this verse, it is clearly stated that God is willing to give what we need.

Matt. 6:33
33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Phil. 4:19
And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

“Faith” is something that we firmly believe in trust and obedience. All we are doing is by faith, we dine in a restaurant, we walk outside on our own are still—by faith. Same as in spiritual life by trusting God’s promises and words in the Scriptures. This is not a spiritual self-help Scriptures, but dependency with God’s divine providence, love and His righteousness. I firmly believed that “Self-help” is a new age thing for man seeks God by his own desire, he seeks what he wants to satisfy his spirituality by any means disregarding the Scriptures and the promises of God.

Eph. 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

The grace of God that was given to us through our faith in him—is a gift from God, and not by our own effort (works). This is dependency with God’s providence. Our faith in God is our act toward God’s grace, for there is salvation in it.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

No. They're not. They are different ways of describing the same thing.

Kundalini's, life force or Chi's are obviously different with Christ's Holy Spirit. by Yoshua

Then, how can you explain and prove it, by Scriptures or by facts? Can you prove it?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

"Evil One?" What "Evil One?" Rush Limbaugh? Jesse Duplantis? Gene Simmons? Frankenfurter?

Jesus believed in the evil one, He casts them out with His disciples. I think that a person who does not know about the evil one cannot discern nor determine who is/what is the evil one.

Thanks

 

[psychoslice]

Kundalini's, life force or Chi's are obviously different with Christ's Holy Spirit. by Yoshua

Then, how can you explain and prove it, by Scriptures or by facts? Can you prove it?

Thanks

So called scripture doesn't mean its true or literal, how can you prove the holy ghost, or Jesus, words from an old book means nothing without proof.

 

[Unification]

Hi Unification,

So, what is the process in having going beyond the mind?

How can He be a God if He cannot do whatever He wants? As I know, God poured out His love towards men. This is a logical and valid justification.

Some take the understanding of the Scriptures with their very own context. This is the reason why they cannot capture what is the “mind of Christ.”

1 Cor. 2:14-16
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Yes, indeed. God ways are higher than our ways, same as His thoughts. As you have said, His nature is still the same nature as God. where is the text that God cannot do many things?

Are all the creation surrounding us is not sufficient to justify that He can do many things?

I did not reduce God to our nature. I believed in the authority of God, His ways are higher than us. Man cannot attain to reach the knowledge of God outside the Scriptures.

Man cannot follow God’s nature nor He can be a God. As I said, we can comprehend God’s nature through the Scripture, not by feeling and mystical/supernatural things that man tried to attain. Although, being a follower of Christ, supernatural things can be experienced given by God, and not man seeking supernatural thing.

The disciple of Christ can comprehend Jesus, but not all the time for they will understand Christ’s promises and teachings as they mature in their walk.

It is very clear that we can understand God’s will by renewing our mind, by transforming your thoughts not in the world but in the righteousness of God. Surrendering your will to God rather your will be done.

Rom. 12:2
2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Evangelical based their doctrine on the Scriptures. They believed in the authority of the Scriptures as God inspired word. In this verse, it is clearly stated that God is willing to give what we need.

Matt. 6:33
33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Phil. 4:19
And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

“Faith” is something that we firmly believe in trust and obedience. All we are doing is by faith, we dine in a restaurant, we walk outside on our own are still—by faith. Same as in spiritual life by trusting God’s promises and words in the Scriptures. This is not a spiritual self-help Scriptures, but dependency with God’s divine providence, love and His righteousness. I firmly believed that “Self-help” is a new age thing for man seeks God by his own desire, he seeks what he wants to satisfy his spirituality by any means disregarding the Scriptures and the promises of God.

Eph. 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

The grace of God that was given to us through our faith in him—is a gift from God, and not by our own effort (works). This is dependency with God’s providence. Our faith in God is our act toward God’s grace, for there is salvation in it.

Thanks

By having a still mind and not thinking of what you think things are and should be.

You just said "God" cannot do many things yourself. I suppose according to what you wrote, it's possible for "God" to lie if "with God all things are possible" and "he" can do whatever he wants and change outside of a particular nature.

Why would anyone want "knowledge of" "God" rather than to know? Great lie.. that one cannot have knowledge of "God" outside of scriptures. The scriptures even say there is plenty outside of them.

Many of contradictions. How could "God" be "God" if "God" is incapable of teaching anyone outside of scriptures? According to you, yet another thing "God" cannot do.

You would be saying, "God" can't and doesn't have the power/capability to be revealed without a book.

Yes, self help can be misleading in ways. There is a power within someone. Because something rests within someone doesn't make it "self-power." Im not sure you know what is work(action) and what isn't. Following is work, changing ones mind is work. Reading is work. Apparently the self has to do many things.

 

[Unification]

Jesus believed in the evil one, He casts them out with His disciples. I think that a person who does not know about the evil one cannot discern nor determine who is/what is the evil one.

Thanks

If the evil one is external to you, then there is nothing evil and internal to cast out.

How is something cast out that is external to someone?

 

[sojourner]

Kundalini's, life force or Chi's are obviously different with Christ's Holy Spirit. by Yoshua

Then, how can you explain and prove it, by Scriptures or by facts? Can you prove it?

Thanks

1) The bible is proof of nothing.
2) Prove factually that God exists.
3) Prove fatually that they're not the same thing.

Whenever you ask for factual proof where spiritual matters are concerned, you're asking for the wrong thing. And if you're asking for factual proof, then you don't understand spirituality enough to have a dog in this fight.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus believed in the evil one, He casts them out with His disciples. I think that a person who does not know about the evil one cannot discern nor determine who is/what is the evil one.

Thanks

"Evil one" is a highly poetic and metaphorical term. You'll have to be more specific here.

 

[Yoshua]

No, you believe the bible to be God's "revealed truth." You don't know any such thing, because in order to know it, there would have to be external, objective evidence that that's the case. There is no such evidence.

God is known for who God actually is, in the varied imaginations of the human family. Are you familiar with the Alfred Burt carol, Some Children See Him? People tend to perceive Deity in a way that's easiest for them to. therefore, God is best perceived as a reflection in the eyes of humanity -- for no one can see God face-to-face and live.

Hi Sojourner,

If it is not the Bible as the "revealed truth," what do you think the "revealed truth" that God has given to man?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

What I find particularly bizarre about this topic in tying it to mysticism is to say that the mysticism's goal is to make a new religion, a "one world religion" on top of it. Nothing could be further from the truth. What lies at the heart of the mystical experience is the ultimate transcending of one's own religion, in fact the transcending all religions. It is the exact opposite of forming a new religion.

What mysticism is able to do is to preserve the unique qualities of each religion, to respect the differences, while at the same time being able to see one another beyond the religious labels we all wear, to see beyond what divides and embrace what unities. This is not some imagined new "one world religion". It's simply realizing we are more than the labels we apply to ourselves and see each other not as enemies of one another, but spiritual brothers and sisters together, each within our own respective cultures, or religious, or nonreligious contexts. It recognizes the relative nature of these things, as well as their importance to each person. It unites through a unitive consciousness, as opposed to divide through an exclusive mind that focuses on the differences and shouts, "You're not like us!". The latter is the ego-mind trying to find itself by external identifiers, that which marks differences between themselves and others. The former is an inclusive mind which sees all as being more than our differences and embrace one another in that which transcends all boundaries.

It is in fact the exact opposite that is the truth. It is not the mystic who seeks to make all world religions one. It is the fundamentalist who does. The fundamentalist seeks to destroy all other religions, all differences, and make their own the dominant world force to control what is believed and practiced. That is in fact the very reality of it. That is why the fundamentalist despises the mystic. The mystic removes such aspirations, valuing differences. The fundamentalist despises differences and seeks uniformity through their elimination. The mystic seeks unity while preserving differences. If we want to put mythological faces upon this, the mystic heart is the heart of God bringing and holding all together in their infinite array of diversity into a unity within One Heart, whereas the fundamentalist is the mind of Satan seeking to destroy unity through division, imposing itself, its own image upon others to make the world one it is own image. The one seeking a "one world religion" is not the mystic, but the fundamentalist.

Hi Windwalker,

You and Sojourner should check it out if your statement here plus your concepts of "One word religion" are really not for mystics. I've seen your concepts are the same and in connection with "One World Religion." After reading the New World Religion that I posted here, check it out who is the author and the publishing company (named after). For complete information, http://www.lucistrust.org/world_goo...literature_on_line__2/the_new_world_religion4

The New World Religion
The Reappearance the Christ and The Externalisation of the Hierarchy both published by Lucis Publishing Company, New York and Lucis Press Limited, London.)

Religion is the name given to the invocative appeal of humanity and the evocative response of the greater Life to that cry.

The truly religious spirit is more fundamentally alive today than at any previous time. Everywhere people are ready for the light and expectant of a new revelation.
Only great and fundamental principles of living can really meet mankind's need. Religion in the new age must be based on truths which are universally accepted. These are:
The fact of God, both transcendent and immanent.

1. Man's relationship to God; we are all "sons of the one father."
2. The fact of immortality and of eternal persistence, arising from man's essential divinity.
3. The Continuity of Revelation and the Divine Approaches; God has never left Himself without witnesses.
4. The fact of our relationship with each other, or of human brotherhood.
5. The fact of the Path to God, trodden down the ages by mystics, occultists and saints of every religious faith.

The source of all the great world religions and philosophies is the spiritual Hierarchy of the planet, whose members are called the custodians of the divine Plan.
Today another great approach of God to Man, a new revelation is possible. Humanity awaits the reappearance of the world teacher, head of the spiritual Hierarchy, known as the Christ in the West and the Lord Maitreya in the East, and recognised by many names -- Messiah, Imam Mahdi, Zarathustra -- in the different world religions......

The New World Religion
Human beings everywhere are searching for spiritual release and truth, and the truly religious spirit is more fundamentally alive than at any previous time. The ferment and conflict in the world has permeated the churches; enlightened churchmen and religious thinkers are seeking an end to age-oId conflicts between differing sects, and are searching for the living reality behind the outer forms. Orthodoxy in the world religions is rapidly falling into the background of men's minds, while we are undoubtedly approaching nearer to the central spiritual reality. Click the link for continuation of this message.

Alice Ann Bailey (June 16, 1880 – December 15, 1949) was a writer of more than twenty-four books on theosophical subjects, and was one of the first writers to use the term New Age. Bailey was born as Alice LaTrobe Bateman, in Manchester, England.[1] She moved to the United States in 1907, where she spent most of her life as a writer and teacher.

Bailey's works, written between 1919 and 1949, describe a wide-ranging system of esoteric thought covering such topics as how spirituality relates to the solar system, meditation, healing, spiritual psychology, the destiny of nations, and prescriptions for society in general. She described the majority of her work as having been telepathically dictated to her by a Master of Wisdom, initially referred to only as "the Tibetan" or by the initials "D.K.", later identified as Djwal Khul.[2] Her writings were of the same nature as those of Madame Blavatsky and are known as the Ageless Wisdom Teachings. Though Bailey's writings differ from the orthodox Theosophy of Madame Blavatsky, they have much in common with it. She wrote about religious themes, including Christianity, though her writings are fundamentally different from many aspects of Christianity and of other orthodox religions. Her vision of a unified society includes a global "spirit of religion" different from traditional religious forms and including the concept of the Age of Aquarius.[3][4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey

Lucis Trust
Main article: Lucis Trust
Alice and Foster Bailey founded the Lucis Trust in 1922. It activities include the Arcane School, World Goodwill, Triangles, a quarterly magazine called The Beacon, and a publishing company primarily intended to publish Bailey's many books. The Arcane School gives instruction, and guidance in meditation, via correspondence; based on the ideas in Bailey's books. World Goodwill is intended to promote better human relations through goodwill, which they define as "love in action", and focuses on the United Nations. Triangles are groups of three people who agree the meditate on right human relations at the same time each day.

Alice and Foster Bailey founded a publishing company which may have been named after the name of the Theosophical Society's original magazine "Lucifer". Their new publishing venture which released the books Initiation, Solar and Human and other early volumes was initially incorporated as and known as "Lucifer Publishing Co." The next year, they changed that name to "Lucis Publishing Co."[18] In 1923, with the help of Foster Bailey, Alice Bailey founded the Arcane School (part of Lucis Trust), which gave (and still gives) a series of correspondence courses based on her writings.

Bailey continued to work up to the time of her death in 1949.[19]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey

One World Religion http://www.gotquestions.org/one-world-religion.html

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Hi Windwalker,

You and Sojourner should check it out if your statement here plus your concepts of "One word religion" are really not for mystics. I've seen your concepts are the same and in connection with "One World Religion." After reading the New World Religion that I posted here, check it out who is the author and the publishing company (named after). For complete information, http://www.lucistrust.org/world_goo...literature_on_line__2/the_new_world_religion4

The New World Religion
The Reappearance the Christ and The Externalisation of the Hierarchy both published by Lucis Publishing Company, New York and Lucis Press Limited, London.)

Religion is the name given to the invocative appeal of humanity and the evocative response of the greater Life to that cry.

The truly religious spirit is more fundamentally alive today than at any previous time. Everywhere people are ready for the light and expectant of a new revelation.
Only great and fundamental principles of living can really meet mankind's need. Religion in the new age must be based on truths which are universally accepted. These are:
The fact of God, both transcendent and immanent.

1. Man's relationship to God; we are all "sons of the one father."
2. The fact of immortality and of eternal persistence, arising from man's essential divinity.
3. The Continuity of Revelation and the Divine Approaches; God has never left Himself without witnesses.
4. The fact of our relationship with each other, or of human brotherhood.
5. The fact of the Path to God, trodden down the ages by mystics, occultists and saints of every religious faith.

<snip>

One World Religion http://www.gotquestions.org/one-world-religion.html

Thanks

HAHAHA! As I've said before, I'm not New Age. All of the above is from Theosophy. I'm not a Theosophist, nor do I subscribe to its ideas. In the above list of 5 main points, I agree with only two of them, that God is both transcendent and immanent, and our human brotherhood.

You have to, you need to understand that these were the sorts of things my grandmother was exposed to. What we understand today is considerably beyond this, considerably more sophisticated. They were experimenting on the edges of orthodoxy, trying to make ideas from it fit into the rapidly changing world of modernity around them. Most of it seems quaint to me. And modern New Agers tend to find some of it's points attractive as they try to take their Christian understanding and find some direction for it in this complex modern world. As I've said before, New Age is best understood as Experimental Christianity. It's underlying framework is still there, but trying to be "updated" without fundamentally changing anything. It's basically Christianity with crystals instead of crosses.

I don't have the time to pick all of that apart which she wrote over three-quarters of a century ago, but I will stress again, if you are talking with Sojourner and me, you shouldn't be referencing material like this. We don't accept it either. You err, assuming it reflects our thoughts. For instance,

Today another great approach of God to Man, a new revelation is possible. Humanity awaits the reappearance of the world teacher, head of the spiritual Hierarchy, known as the Christ in the West and the Lord Maitreya in the East, and recognised by many names -- Messiah, Imam Mahdi, Zarathustra -- in the different world religions.
​

Absolutely not! I do not await such a thing, and this again is the reflecting of thinking back in the 1920s to 1930s America! In no way shape or form does that reflect my beliefs.

In addition to this, her definition of what constitutes a religion does not reflect mine. A religion is a set of beliefs, doctrines, teachings, and practices that are taught to one another from teachers to students. It is a system, a structural support for a particular approach to God, or the Absolute. I do not believe there ever will be, nor can be a "one world religion", because culture is too diverse!

The only thing I believe, is that individuals can rise above being exclusively identified by their religions to see one another in the spirit of Love. To see one another with the eyes of a unitive consciousness. This preserves their religions, while transcending them. It is not bringing all religions together as a single belief, practice, teaching, or set of doctrines. There is no new "head of a spiritual Hierarchy"! Nor can there be, nor should there be. World religions are preserved, but transformed from exclusive little warring islands, into the heart of true religion which is the spirit of Unity. Unity requires diversity, not sameness.

Again, my point stands as completely valid. It is your camp, the fundamentalist aberration, that seeks a One World Religion - theirs, through purging out all other religious perspectives and truths and supplanting them with their own. Try to deny this, if you can. This entire thread is a projection of your own goals onto others to distract from acknowledging that fact. It demonizes the spirit of unity because that would destroy the aspiration of the fundamentalist of religious domination.

 

[Windwalker]

Actually, I want to thank you for linking to that 1920's material from that American Theosophist author. I've always been perplexed as long as I've heard it from fundamentalists of the coming "One World Religion" they demonize. Where did they get that from? Now I think I see it finally. They're still arguing with someone's idea from the 1920s as if it were the big "boogie man" today. Where in the Bible does it talk about there being a "One World Religion"? The only thing that comes to mind is these early fundamentalists, which themselves were born in that exact same time era as that Theosophist author was born, took in their paranoid thinking of the workings of Satan in the world in reading authors such as her, and reading it into the Bible in passages of the Book of Revelation, superimposing their paranoia into its highly obscure texts.

In other words, is this whole "One World Religion" hysteria the continuation of a fear-mongering response of fundamentalism in the 1920s to the Theosophist ideals? How absolutely ironic and absurd, if so. I'm really curious to understand more what the source of this modern hysteria was. It would seem to fit with fundamentalist thinking to never question the basis for these beliefs that were conjured up by those who came before them! It's so ironic to me. Here we are in the year 2015, still trying to deal with a fight from 1920s over something so originally misinformed.

 

[David1967]

Actually, I want to thank you for linking to that 1920's material from that American Theosophist author. I've always been perplexed as long as I've heard it from fundamentalists of the coming "One World Religion" they demonize. Where did they get that from? Now I think I see it finally. They're still arguing with someone's idea from the 1920s as if it were the big "boogie man" today. Where in the Bible does it talk about there being a "One World Religion"? The only thing that comes to mind is these early fundamentalists, which themselves were born in that exact same time era as that Theosophist author was born, took in their paranoid thinking of the workings of Satan in the world in reading authors such as her, and reading it into the Bible in passages of the Book of Revelation, superimposing their paranoia into its highly obscure texts.

In other words, is this whole "One World Religion" hysteria the continuation of a fear-mongering response of fundamentalism in the 1920s to the Theosophist ideals? How absolutely ironic and absurd, if so. I'm really curious to understand more what the source of this modern hysteria was. It would seem to fit with fundamentalist thinking to never question the basis for these beliefs that were conjured up by those who came before them! It's so ironic to me. Here we are in the year 2015, still trying to deal with a fight from 1920s over something so originally misinformed.

Unfortunately there has been a modern mythology built around the second coming of Christ that involves belief in a pre tribulation rapture ( not found in the bible) as well as a belief that there will be a one world religion (also not specifically taught in the bible, but if you torture scripture enough with the right amount of creativity you might make it say that). The book series 'Left Behind" really ran with this idea and has helped build a new belief that requires little of actual scriptural support. What you have to do is take parts of scripture from here, bounce it off other verses from here and there and try and put them together....Uh yeah. And yes I actually have read that series. It is fiction 100%. Should have a disclaimer that says "for entertainment purposes only."
Anyway, I would encourage anyone to do some honest, unbiased research into some of the modern views in Christian evangelical,fundamentalist teachings on subjects like the pre tribulation rapture and how recent that teaching actually is. I was raised under these teachings so this is not new to me.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm going to try to tie some some of these recent thoughts with the OP:

Mysticism is the key to a universal religion because it appeals to people on a broad scale.

Actually, no it does not appeal to people on a broad scale. Mystics are, and always have been, a very tiny minority. It requires considerably more dedication, commitment, and sacrifice than simply "believing" in something and calling it good. If you want to define "mystical' as "magical thinking" (which many mistakenly do), then yes, magical thinking is very appealing because it doesn't require a whole lot of effort to carefully consider and weigh things. Magical thinking contrasts with Critical thinking. But mysticism proper is neither magical thinking, nor critical thinking. It is a state-experience which requires going beyond modes of thinking, either magical or critical.

Very, very, very few people actually engage in mystical practices. Most prefer to rely on what they can fit into their modes of thinking, either magical or critical modes of thinking. If I were to give a percentage figure in the world of religion, I'd say actually mystics are less than 1%. Most are just comfortable 'believing' and feeling good about things through that belief. The mystic is not satisfied with that, and they are rare. Hardly "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.

I'd love it if people all did practice meditation. The world would be a whole lot more understanding, compassionate, and loving towards each other! Sadly, few do practice it. But if they did, they wouldn't be creating a "global religion", but respecting and loving others regardless of their religious identifications.

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.

You completely misconstrue interspirituality with interfaith dialog. Interspirituality is not about syncretism, mashing distinct faiths together to make a single new mashup faith. Absolutely not. Interspirituality is shared experience of the divine, which each of those who have in fact actual experience of the divine are able to have in common. It's the shared Heart, not shared and exchanged beliefs. But with that Unitive Heart, one can see with respect the Truth that all share as humans in touch with the divine. It leaves other religions intact, just growing up sufficiently to see that we are not enemies.

And that, that, is what Jesus taught, isn't it? To love those you call your enemies? I believe the intention of such a teaching was to get you to see with your heart, not your mind looking at what divides. What else does love your enemy mean?

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.

I would argue that Unitive Consciouness is what entices many to what Christianity is supposed to be, away from this warring faction that calls itself the "True Faith", bent on world domination. Who is it it actually that is in favor of the "One World Religion", exactly? Those that call for Jesus' return to "defeat God's enemies", those of other religions? Since when does "love your enemies" mean defeat them in battle? Which version of the beatitudes of Christ teaches that?

 

[viole]

First, there is and ever will be only ONE Jesus, so I will not be faced with such a nonsensical choice when I get to heaven, Secondly, in heaven there will be many homosexuals, mystics, atheists, Buddhists, Islamic's and even adulterers, thieves, liars, etc, who have repented and turned to the Savior Jesus Christ for forgiveness and eternal life. God's offer through Christ is equally available to everyone.

May I ask at what moment in time those atheists in Heaven repented and turned to the Savior Jesus Christ?

Ciao

- viole

 

[InChrist]

One thing you said stuck out for me. That's the issue of control. fundamentalists are all about conformity, believing correctly, and "obeying God." For the fundamentalist, God seeks to control God's creation through the conformity of all things -- including human beings. The fundamentalist would be very quick to jump on the band wagon of the statement that "God is in control."

What they seem to ignore is the fact that control is, of necessity, an external force intruding itself upon some other thing external to that force. But God isn't external to us. If that were the case, we'd be able to prove God's existence through external means. God doesn't control us. God doesn't "want" to control us. God wants to love us, and love is the opposite of control.

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:17

Yes, God (Jesus) is in control of all things and God is external:

"The Holy Spirit, in giving us this inspired passage of Scripture, now explains that all things (both visible and invisible) in the entire universe were created through this same Jesus, the Eternal Word. We may think of the universe and its intricate design as being conceived in the mind of the Father then spoken into existence by the Son (who makes the invisible, visible). The Holy Spirit is the One who energizes and supplies life to the creation, not only at the time of creation but also moment by moment after that.
We are also told that all things were created for Jesus. He is "the heir of all things." That means that we are house guests in Someone Else's universe. There is a future accountability to be given by all of us---history is headed somewhere and at the end of road stands Jesus to whom all power and authority has already been given:
Jesus said, "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:22-29)

One of the key words in the Colossians passage above ("...and in Christ all things hold together") is the Greek word sunistemi which means "to stand-together," "to be compacted together," "to cohere," "to be constituted with."
http://www.ldolphin.org/cohere.shtml

God doesn't "control" us -- or the universe. Only when God "controls" the universe is theodicy an issue. I think it makes more sense to have a model where, instead of creating the universe "out here" in front of God's self, God created the universe within God's self, and instead of "controlling" the universe, God "empowers" the universe. God lets us be who we are. And mysticism, seeking the freedom of the individual and community to be, rejects control in favor of freedom. This threatens the fundamentalist whose hermeneutic is control-based, rather than life-based.

I don't know where you come up such a nonsense kind of idea like "God created the universe within self". Obviously, It is not from God the Creator or His revealed Word. Nor is it based in any reasonable or logical thinking. With that kind of mental gymnastics you may as well say things like a painter created a painting within self or the chef created lasagna within self. Sure the idea originates within self, but the result or the created product is external from self. You have created or accepted belief in some kind of nebulous, vague, incoherent god that has no inherent Being or distinct Self, a god of your imagination which allows you to be in control and freedom to do whatever you think is okay.
I believe that freedom is very important to the biblical God, so much so that His creation of human beings made in His image had to include freewill. Nevertheless, our choices made apart from God's wisdom lead to self-destruction. So it is not about "control", although God as Creator is certainly in control, it is about coming to the realization that the best choice, the choice which frees us from our sin and self destructive direction,is to response to our Creator with complete trust and submission to His will for us, which is perfect in eternal wisdom and love.

 

[InChrist]

May I ask at what moment in time those atheists in Heaven repented and turned to the Savior Jesus Christ?

Ciao

- viole

Certainly, you may ask. I can't say what moment in time any atheist repented and turned to Jesus Christ, except to say that if they are in heaven they did so before their live here on earth ended in death.

 

[InChrist]

Actually, no it does not appeal to people on a broad scale. Mystics are, and always have been, a very tiny minority. It requires considerably more dedication, commitment, and sacrifice than simply "believing" in something and calling it good. If you want to define "mystical' as "magical thinking" (which many mistakenly do), then yes, magical thinking is very appealing because it doesn't require a whole lot of effort to carefully consider and weigh things. Magical thinking contrasts with Critical thinking. But mysticism proper is neither magical thinking, nor critical thinking. It is a state-experience which requires going beyond modes of thinking, either magical or critical.

Very, very, very few people actually engage in mystical practices. Most prefer to rely on what they can fit into their modes of thinking, either magical or critical modes of thinking. If I were to give a percentage figure in the world of religion, I'd say actually mystics are less than 1%. Most are just comfortable 'believing' and feeling good about things through that belief. The mystic is not satisfied with that, and they are rare. Hardly "appeals to people on a broad scale"


I'd love it if people all did practice meditation. The world would be a whole lot more understanding, compassionate, and loving towards each other! Sadly, few do practice it. But if they did, they wouldn't be creating a "global religion", but respecting and loving others regardless of their religious identifications.


You completely misconstrue interspirituality with interfaith dialog. Interspirituality is not about syncretism, mashing distinct faiths together to make a single new mashup faith. Absolutely not. Interspirituality is shared experience of the divine, which each of those who have in fact actual experience of the divine are able to have in common. It's the shared Heart, not shared and exchanged beliefs. But with that Unitive Heart, one can see with respect the Truth that all share as humans in touch with the divine. It leaves other religions intact, just growing up sufficiently to see that we are not enemies.

And that, that, is what Jesus taught, isn't it? To love those you call your enemies? I believe the intention of such a teaching was to get you to see with your heart, not your mind looking at what divides. What else does love your enemy mean?


I would argue that Unitive Consciouness is what entices many to what Christianity is supposed to be, away from this warring faction that calls itself the "True Faith", bent on world domination. Who is it it actually that is in favor of the "One World Religion", exactly? Those that call for Jesus' return to "defeat God's enemies", those of other religions? Since when does "love your enemies" mean defeat them in battle? Which version of the beatitudes of Christ teaches that?

I agree that Jesus taught us to love our enemies, but LOVE but no means includes compromising truth.

Actually, humans have always had an interest and fascination with mysticism or what the scriptures at times refer to as mystery religions. Your definition or practice of mysticism is just one avenue, but it comes in many variations. You may be correct that many are not willing to commit to the disciplines you practice, but that does not mean mysticism is not accepted in its various shapes and form on a broad scale. I see that it is becoming ever more accepted on a global scale and will culminate with a world leader who embraces such a spiritual mindset ultimately resulting in a one world spirituality which at first will be voluntary and then mandatory.

It is one thing for the Creator to return, as the scriptures indicate He will, to rule the world bringing peace and unity with His truth and wisdom. It is an entirely different and dangerous situation to have a one world system and spirituality imposed on everyone based on humanistic wisdom.

 

[InChrist]

HAHAHA! As I've said before, I'm not New Age.

You can say you're not new age because that terminology is no longer used, but the thoughts, ideas, and spirituality you espouse is no different than the new agers, even the word faith preachers and so many others who are basically promoting the same spiritual mysticism with just a few tweaks here and there.