The Emerging World Religion

[Yoshua]

You just contradicted yourself ... again. Learn something about theology. Then come back with a decent theological argument that doesn't contradict itself.

The salvation that God has offered to us is an act of God. There is no possibility that man can save his soul by himself to eternal life with God.

How come that our faith and following will not save us? It can’t save if a person does not follow what God want for him. There are a lot of people who like to follow his own way rather than God’s way/will. By Yoshua

Hi Sojourner,

It is so easy to say that you learn about theology, it is a word of mouth only. What I need from you is to prove to me the following :
1.) How salvation is not an act of God?
2.) How man can save himself to eternal life?
3.) How come our faith cannot save?
4.) How come following Jesus/God cannot save us?
5.) How come following our will can save himself?

I believe this would be a decent theological argument that you will start to answer.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Double-checking word cult........

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
"a network of Satan-worshiping cults"
synonyms: sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction
"a religious cult"
Ok, done. Yep, cult is the right word.

Hi Windwalker,

You forgot to add the definition of "Cult" from google. Here it is:

a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
"a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"
synonyms:
obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of, devotion to, worship of, veneration of

Another information about Cult: http://www.gotquestions.org/cult-definition.html

First and foremost, evangelical Christianity is not a cult because we are not worshiping Satan, and we are not a small group, and unorthodox in belief. We are not obsessed with our leaders and worship them.

You may check also with Wikipedia, for the term "cult" has a lot of definition.

Thanks

 

[cambridge79]

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.

i wish the world would leave the idea of religions as a relic of the past, but being more realistic and considering how humans truly are i've the idea that we're gonna end up in making up a big sincretic religion.

in the past the big step was to drop polytheism for monotheism. next step will probably be dropping the many religions for a big single one. Probably we will end up with a big sincretic western religion and a big sincretic eastern religion more precisely since they're so different in nature. And they will look back at the people in the past thinking "how naive they were" just like when we look at greeks and think "how naive they were, zeus, venus, apollo, so silly". Today it may seem impossible just like as it would had seemed impossible for a roman in the year 0 b.c. the idea that a 500 years later nobody would remain to believe in Jupiter
Already if you take a so called "moderate christian" and you confront him with a so called "moderate muslim" you see they are probably more similar to each others than they ever used to be.
That would actually make more sense under the theological perspective than the current situation where you have 3 different major religions worshipping actually the same god in 3 very different ways.

 

[Windwalker]

You forgot to add the definition of "Cult" from google. Here it is:

a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
"a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"
synonyms:
obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of, devotion to, worship of, veneration of

I did not forget to add it. It wasn't relevant. In case you are unaware of how language works, there are multiple definitions and uses of any given word. I selected the definition that fit how I was using it to describe the fundamentalist cult you are in. That definition fits, not these other ones you think somehow will negate the other definition which fits your cult. They not negate it. They are just different ways the word is used. How I used it fit the definition I provided.

Another information about Cult: http://www.gotquestions.org/cult-definition.html

That's actually a link to some fundamentalist apologist blah, blah about what they want to define cults as. The sources I use are neutral, such as the Oxford English Dictionary which says, "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister:a network of Satan-worshiping cults"

First and foremost, evangelical Christianity is not a cult because we are not worshiping Satan, and we are not a small group, and unorthodox in belief. We are not obsessed with our leaders and worship them.

Well first of all, the example of "a network of Satan-worshipping cults" is only an example of how the term cult is applied. It itself is not a definition. The actual definition is, "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister". I think your "deliverance ministry" group certainly qualifies as a cult according to this definition as it is a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices that are regarded as really fringe, strange, wacky, and so forth. Same thing with the snake-handling cults, word-faith cults, etc. Even mainstream Evangelicals consider it cultic.

I don't consider Evangelicals per se to be cultic. I do consider fringe fundamentalist groups however to be cultic, those who are focused on some strange little doctrine that sets them apart from all the other cults they are in competition with, or those where they are spun off surrounding some central charismatic preacher who has a vision of the truth he wants those who follow him to agree with. Even if the pastor himself is not the central focus, the peculiar and strange beliefs and practices, such as demon-casting-out services, are cultitic in the truest sense of the word, cult.

You may check also with Wikipedia, for the term "cult" has a lot of definition.

No need to. I'm aware there are multiple definitions of the word. The definition of one of those uses which I am using is legitimate and fits.

 

[sojourner]

The salvation that God has offered to us is an act of God. There is no possibility that man can save his soul by himself to eternal life with God.

How come that our faith and following will not save us? It can’t save if a person does not follow what God want for him. There are a lot of people who like to follow his own way rather than God’s way/will. By Yoshua

Hi Sojourner,

It is so easy to say that you learn about theology, it is a word of mouth only. What I need from you is to prove to me the following :
1.) How salvation is not an act of God?
2.) How man can save himself to eternal life?
3.) How come our faith cannot save?
4.) How come following Jesus/God cannot save us?
5.) How come following our will can save himself?

I believe this would be a decent theological argument that you will start to answer.

Thanks

This isn't a theological argument. It's a group of questions based on the mistaken assumption that I think a person can save her or himself.

 

[Janardena]

Hi Janardena,

Why it loose the identity of being “I”? It is not.

By accepting a temporary designation as being the only reality.

Before, I’m not a follower of Christ.

But you were always ''I am''.
It is the ''I'' that decides to follow Christ, and were you to change your mind, it would be the decision of the ''I'', and the''I''
would still be present. You see the ''I'' does not change, only the designations.

He is referring to Himself as the Son who was sent by the Father when He said “I am.” It is through Him so everyone can come to the Father. He is the access to the Father because He was sent. But all glory belongs to the Father (God).

Thanks

Jesus' ''I am'' is non different to mine, or anyones essential description of themself, ''I am'', in truth, (as described above), is that essential aspect of any being, which does not change.

I think the difference between Jesus Christ, and ordinary human beings, is that he had no attachment to any of the designations, allowing remarkable clarity perceiving the reality of this material existence. This also means he was free, and not bound up in any illusion, or false notions of himself, or any form of anxiety.

I think he was a spiritually advanced human being, who was able to transcend the material world, while interacting with it. Hence his relationship with God, hence his compassion, intelligence, and, his rebellion against the powers that seek to kill God in the hearts and minds of men.

 

[Yoshua]

No, I mean that, in the culture of Jesus and the gospel writers, only a god could be raised. But since there's only one God, resurrection could not be accepted.

Hi Sojourner,

It seems that what you’re saying has in connection with a belief of something that defeat the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection. Did you know the importance of Christ’s resurrection?

How the resurrection cannot be accepted if God’s plan of salvation includes the resurrection of Christ?

John 11:25-27
25. Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies,
26. and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"
27. She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world."

John 6:40
40. "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Nope. All systemic. We do not have a "personal relationship" with God, without also having an interrelationship with all creation. What God does with us, God does with all.

Sojourner,

I did not say that we are all (believers and non-believers) had a relationship with God. That is being born-again is allowing himself to have an intimacy with Christ as I used “personal relationship.” There is an invitation of God through Jesus as He is saying “Follow Me” and “Come to Me.” God did not say all people in this world are already following Him in righteousness, and already saved.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

"God so loved the world..." John 3 comes before John 12 and John 16. It is antecedent to those statements and, therefore, defines those statements.

Does the order of the narratives in the gospel of John changes the statement of Jesus? Is Jesus inconsistent in what He is saying? Of course not.

Please allow me to explain.
John 3:16-21
16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. (The offer of salvation is universal, but the acceptance is not universal)
17. "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.

The world should be saved from what?
1 Tim. 1:15
15. It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

18. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (There is a judgment for those who did not believe Him yet God loved the world)]

What is that judgment?
19. "And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.
20. "For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21. "But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

That would mean man is still considered in the darkness if he does not believe in Jesus.

Rom. 5:8
8. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
This would mean that because of God’s love, He sent Christ to died for us.

You're confused, theologically, about what is meant by "the world." You're being confused by incorrectly applying Platonic, dualistic thinking to a concept that is not based in such thinking.

I’m not confused. It is very clear to me. I did not put additional meaning of the “world,” Those are the statement of Christ about the “world.”

John 12:46
46. "I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness.

John 16:33
33. "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."

John 8:12
12. Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life."

John 17:14-16
14. "I have given them Thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. ( the world hated His word )
15. "I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
16. "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

1) "Loving one's enemies" is a freedom from the boundary we set of "who's in/who's out." Paul says, "Love never ends" (no boundaries). We are born to love. "It is not good for the man to be alone..." Read your precious bible for once, please.

Sojourner,

If a man is born to love, why Jesus would tell us that we should “love our enemies” as well as “love our neighbors”?
Did you see a child who was born to love strangers, or he is seeking to be love?

Based on the true context in the scriptures, God made the female to have a suitable helper for Adam.

Gen.2:18
18. Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

2) No, not everyone is present. Many people are bound up by either living in the past, or living in the future. God is Presence. The Spiritual life helps us to be fully present to God -- to Presence, itself.

We are talking (here) about freedom. Who created man to become a presence (as a living being), and who give them free-will?

I think all these things belong to God. There will be no spirit for men if God did not create a living being. Therefore, that spirit make the man as a spiritual man.

3) No, peace comes when one is grounded. Peace doesn't create itself. You're confused. Again.

I’m not confused. Peace is not created but belong to God for He is a God of peace.

4) You've said the words correctly, but I don't think, judging from the rest of your posts, that you really understand what you've written.

What did I judged? I’m posting Scriptures and fully understand what I’m saying.

5) "The Spirit (capitalized) of truth cannot..." Do you hear yourself??? Neither truth nor Christ are exclusive. They are inclusive. Paul can't be broken down into soundbites, as you've done here. Paul is complex and must be taken as a whole.

Spirit" is the thread that interconnects all things. As you describe them on behalf of typical, fundamentalist thinking, these things are not understood in the light of truth and cause a twisting and a stagnation. by Sojourner


How do you understand the “Spirit”? What is this to you?

Kindly expound what you’re saying before you criticized? It can’t be a help to our discussion.

As I've said before, learn some theology, then pose a real argument. Your arguments here are peurile and very ill-formulated theologically. I'm not even sure that you really know what you believe, outside of having a tiresome supply of worn-out and shallow sound bites that you've been taught by rote and can parrot back when you think they're apropos.

They're rarely apropos.

You've failed to prove your case of the "Evil, Godless, World Religion." Please -- Give it up already. You're boring and annoying us.

I already proved it. It is just you did not believe in evil, scriptures and other facts.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I have explicitly spelled out many times how I view the Bible, as well as how I view what is the Word of God. Why does this seem to you like you're uncovering some secret here?

Let me spell it out yet one more time in case you missed it the first 90 times I've spelled it out already. Attempt 91: I do not consider the Bible to be authoritative in the way you do. I do not consider it infallible, or inerrant, not only in its present form, but it is also fallible and errant in its original forms. Furthermore, I do not consider the word of God to be ink on a page. The word of God is expressed in all forms, in all things, living and inanimate. The word of God is not a static collection of facts and truths, but rather it is living and dynamic and is heard and understood with the heart, not by our pathetic reasoning minds. Is that clear now?

Hi Windwalker,

Ok. If the Word of God is not the truth and authoritative, what do you think is the basis of what we will say is true or not?

So what role does the Bible play? Like anything men have created that expresses the living Spirit of God in all things, it has value as a manifestation of that Spirit, through the words, thoughts, and ideas of other human beings. There is Truth contained in what is expressed, which is heard and interpreted through the living Spirit that is inside the hearer of the words, or the eyes of the seer which sees with the soul. It should not be considered authoritative, and infallible, but dynamic and widely opened to interpretation, intentionally open to interpretation.

How do you know the living Spirit of God as the Truth? What is your basis?

So any of this that you argue that I'm not following God's word, is solely a case of not following how YOU understand God's word to be. I don't, because I think you are in fact not actually realizing what it is, and misinterpret it as ink and paper only. Yes, I don't believe in God the ways you imagine. But mine is not a rejection of God, but a rejection of you.

Hey! I’m not forcing you to believe me. I’m focusing on what we should discuss here. Of course, I’m not God, no need to say that you reject me. Man is born not to love as I said before, it is through God only who give us love to accept and love others (but not compromising the truth).

Of course they're the words of Jesus. You use them, but the way in which you understand them guts them of their meaning and bastardizes them into something entirely different than what the words promise and mean. "Here's your hamburger", you say as you hand the customer a plastic pickle.

This is why I always asking to prove your understanding with the Scripture even in its literal sense. If the apple is a fruit, then the apple is really a fruit.

Well, let's be clear the context I said this in and what I meant by not spending our time trying to "please God". First of all, you should provide a link when you quote me or anyone. I don't recall which post I said this in to check the preceding paragraphs that led to the statement. But, notwithstanding, I do know what I would have meant saying that. What that means is that trying to please God to satisfy our egoic seeking minds. In fact it's right there in what I said to clarify it, "or build our egos".

To legitimately "please God", we cease trying to come to God to please ourselves! That's the meaning. People come seeking to please God all the time, but in reality they are only seeking to please themselves. The whole thing is an self-facing, seeking my salvation, my happiness, my mansion in the sky, my increase of blessings, my, my, my, me, me, me.... etc. This is the cult of narcissistic Christianity.

That is the answer of how a man is not a perfect being, and no man come to God. This connects to what Jesus is saying “Follow Me” for no man is born to follow God.

But when you empty yourself of your own will before God, where you quit seeking for God for self-gain, to please him so he'll make you happy with the focus on your narcissistic self, the God is pleased. God is pleased "in you", just like when Jesus was baptized and John heard, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased". In order to "please God" we seek to let God be all there is in us. That sort of seeking to please God, is not to make God happy, as if that were a requirement of some kind, but it is the pleasure of Spirit living in you.

You don't understand this latter understanding, so it's no wonder you would misconstrue the meaning of what I said. To you, that former type of seeking to please God is all you know, and so when I say don't do that, it leaves you without God, in your understanding.

So, allow God to work in your life, and how about to follow Him?

Because that is what the mystical experience does. It makes you this bond-servant. Your will becomes the will of Christ.

To know the will of God is to seek mystical experience? It is the intimacy with God by having the relationship with Him, that you may able to know His will. Letting Him direct our path, and not lean on our own understanding.

That's right. It's only you who imagines we are saying it is through our own efforts. We have flatly denied this at least 800 times in discussion with you, yet you keep stating it as true. Why? This say to me you have no understanding at all of what the mystical experience is or how it is only realized by not making an effort.

Why would I say it is by one’s own effort in seeking those mystical experiences? Because this kind of seeking experience was already practiced since the Old Testament until our present time. The Spiritist, necromancer, séance, divination, psychics, signs and wonders, supernatural encounters, seeking enlightenment by eastern practices etc…

I’m not saying that you’re a spiritist or practiced those things but the seeking or the desire of having mystical experiences. I’m not limiting myself from those supernatural experiences instead I’m dependent on God’s given experiences in my journey of spiritual walk.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Jesus is the Light of the World. Anyone in any religion can see the Light. They don't have to be Christian to know God.

Yes, they may know God but they cannot see the true God who created man. For the angel of light can disguised as God.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I did not forget to add it. It wasn't relevant. In case you are unaware of how language works, there are multiple definitions and uses of any given word. I selected the definition that fit how I was using it to describe the fundamentalist cult you are in. That definition fits, not these other ones you think somehow will negate the other definition which fits your cult. They not negate it. They are just different ways the word is used. How I used it fit the definition I provided.

You don’t really know what you’re saying. You have no idea what is a "cult” in a religious group; how they organized, manipulate, and threatened their members. Again, it is easy to say that. From your initial definition itself plus what I’m indicated above definition does not match on us. I know what is cult and what is not. I’ve used to teach and discussed “cult awareness” topic.

Actually, all cults inside a religious group were originated from the deception of the evil one. The leader/founder claimed he is God’s prophet/messenger; God’s voice speaking to him; Jesus and angel visitations; spirit guides or Holy Spirit/Spirit of truth talking to him. They can be traced from their dogmatic teachings, manipulative concept, violation of privacy, distorted Christian doctrines etc.. They have their charismatic leader/founder who served as the authority rather than God. Their members are strictly controlled, and has polarized worldview.

Well first of all, the example of "a network of Satan-worshipping cults" is only an example of how the term cult is applied. It itself is not a definition. The actual definition is, "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister". I think your "deliverance ministry" group certainly qualifies as a cult according to this definition as it is a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices that are regarded as really fringe, strange, wacky, and so forth. Same thing with the snake-handling cults, word-faith cults, etc. Even mainstream Evangelicals consider it cultic.

Evangelical Christianity is not small group. The spiritual gift ministry is using their God given gifts to give glory to Him. There are many spiritual gifts such as evangelism, spiritual discernment, exhortation, pastoral, services (visitation, caring groups, ushering, praise and worship, art ministry, children/teen/young professional/couples ministry).

I’m familiar on what you are saying about snake-handling, word faith and others. Those are an example of twisted/distorted teachings against the Scripture. This is how you will know and test them if they’re in line with the teachings of Christ.

There are deliverance group that practiced trance, speaking in tongues for deliverance, angelic command to deliverance, divine healers, perform signs and wonders etc..

I don't consider Evangelicals per se to be cultic. I do consider fringe fundamentalist groups however to be cultic, those who are focused on some strange little doctrine that sets them apart from all the other cults they are in competition with, or those where they are spun off surrounding some central charismatic preacher who has a vision of the truth he wants those who follow him to agree with. Even if the pastor himself is not the central focus, the peculiar and strange beliefs and practices, such as demon-casting-out services, are cultitic in the truest sense of the word, cult.

That is why Evangelicals don’t praise and worship leaders. Jesus is to be praise and worshiped. We followed the doctrine of Christ and not the doctrine of man. Man may give some inspirational words, but not as following them to be the authority of all. This is the reason why we used the Scripture in investigating spiritual issues.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

This isn't a theological argument. It's a group of questions based on the mistaken assumption that I think a person can save her or himself.

The salvation that God has offered to us is an act of God. There is no possibility that man can save his soul by himself to eternal life with God.

How come that our faith and following will not save us? It can’t save if a person does not follow what God want for him. There are a lot of people who like to follow his own way rather than God’s way/will. By Yoshua

It is so easy to say that you learn about theology, it is a word of mouth only. What I need from you is to prove to me the following :
1.) How salvation is not an act of God?
2.) How man can save himself to eternal life?
3.) How come our faith cannot save?
4.) How come following Jesus/God cannot save us?
5.) How come following our will can save himself?

I believe this would be a decent theological argument that you will start to answer.by Yoshua

If those questions cannot be answered, how can you jump on theological? If you think those are mistaken assumptions, then prove it in theology that it is an assumption and wrong.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

But you were always ''I am''.
It is the ''I'' that decides to follow Christ, and were you to change your mind, it would be the decision of the ''I'', and the''I''
would still be present. You see the ''I'' does not change, only the designations.

Of course, man has a choice--a free-will to choose his path.

Jesus' ''I am'' is non different to mine, or anyones essential description of themself, ''I am'', in truth, (as described above), is that essential aspect of any being, which does not change.

I think the difference between Jesus Christ, and ordinary human beings, is that he had no attachment to any of the designations, allowing remarkable clarity perceiving the reality of this material existence. This also means he was free, and not bound up in any illusion, or false notions of himself, or any form of anxiety.

I think he was a spiritually advanced human being, who was able to transcend the material world, while interacting with it. Hence his relationship with God, hence his compassion, intelligence, and, his rebellion against the powers that seek to kill God in the hearts and minds of men.

The "I am" terminology uttered by Jesus Christ is the same "I am" for our identity as human being. When He said that "I am the truth," He has the authority to say that He is the truth because He is truly sent by the Father. That His identity as "I am" differs with the identity of "I am" for a man.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Ok. If the Word of God is not the truth and authoritative, what do you think is the basis of what we will say is true or not?

Let's be clear, I did not say the Word of God is not the Truth, I said the Bible is not infallible, inerrant, or authoritative. The Bible is not the Word of God in the manner you believe. But to your question what is the basis of what we is say is true or not? First of all, everything we say is relative, based upon our own subjective individual perspectives. My views are not absolute, and most certainly yours are not either. So there is no basis to make a claim otherwise.

Secondly however, is that my criteria for the validity of a point of view, which is its measure or degree of relative truth, is what fruit does it bear. "By their fruits you shall know them", says Jesus. So, even if you and I express truth differently, if we bear the same fruits of Love, then we are both right! If however, you insist on being right in how you think about something and conceptualize it in a certain set of doctrines, and deny others legitimacy to their points of view while disparaging and ignoring what fruits it bears in their lives, calling it "fake love" and so forth as you have, then you do yourself and Truth itself a grave disservice. You fail Love.

How do you know the living Spirit of God as the Truth? What is your basis?

The heart. The soul.

Hey! I’m not forcing you to believe me. I’m focusing on what we should discuss here.

Which is how your beliefs and doctrines are true and everyone else's are wrong.

Of course, I’m not God, no need to say that you reject me.

I believe there is a need to. You have said repeatedly it's not your views but God's. You're gravely mistaken about that.

Man is born not to love as I said before, it is through God only who give us love to accept and love others (but not compromising the truth).

So, babies hate? Oh my, what a frightening unreality you believe in.

 

[Windwalker]

So, allow God to work in your life, and how about to follow Him?

Think about it. If you allow God in your life, are you not in fact following God?

To know the will of God is to seek mystical experience? It is the intimacy with God by having the relationship with Him, that you may able to know His will. Letting Him direct our path, and not lean on our own understanding.

The mystical experience is intimacy with God. All the rest you say, again, is all the right words, but what you take them to mean is far away from the understanding I hold. If you have intimacy with God, you understand his will, and you live in accord, in harmony with it because your will and God's will are one.

Why would I say it is by one’s own effort in seeking those mystical experiences? Because this kind of seeking experience was already practiced since the Old Testament until our present time.

So, based upon your bad logic and misinformation you ignore our direct words to you? You place your ideas above truth, above the words of others? That's your whole problem, I'm afraid. It's arrogance.

I’m not saying that you’re a spiritist or practiced those things but the seeking or the desire of having mystical experiences.

So, if an eagle has feathers, and a duck has feathers, eagles are ducks?

I’m not limiting myself from those supernatural experiences instead I’m dependent on God’s given experiences in my journey of spiritual walk.

And all mystical experience is from God.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, they may know God but they cannot see the true God who created man. For the angel of light can disguised as God.

If they know God, then they know God. Only fools who do not know God mistake the devil for God, such as those who said Jesus did what he did by the power of the devil. To which Jesus responded an evil tree cannot produce good fruit. You make the same error as those Jesus rebuked. You make the same error in all your judgments of others.

 

[Windwalker]

You don’t really know what you’re saying. You have no idea what is a "cult” in a religious group; how they organized, manipulate, and threatened their members.

Um, yes I do. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, chances are very high it is a duck.

Again, it is easy to say that. From your initial definition itself plus what I’m indicated above definition does not match on us. I know what is cult and what is not. I’ve used to teach and discussed “cult awareness” topic.

Sure, the Christian cult I was in discussed cult-awareness topics too pointing fingers at everyone else, but strangely enough seemed to exclude themselves from the list!

Actually, all cults inside a religious group were originated from the deception of the evil one.

Ok, whatever. Yes, and I'm sure Captain Hook may have had something to do with it too somewhere originating in Neverland. Remember, I don't believe in the mythic stories as factual?

The leader/founder claimed he is God’s prophet/messenger; God’s voice speaking to him; Jesus and angel visitations; spirit guides or Holy Spirit/Spirit of truth talking to him.

That's only one flavor of cults. Don't think that they have to have that individual prophet with a vision to qualify as a cult.

They can be traced from their dogmatic teachings, manipulative concept, violation of privacy, distorted Christian doctrines etc..

Hmmmm...... okay........ getting much warmer now.... Let's add to that exclusionary isolationist practices, everyone but themselves have the truth, on a mission to disprove everyone, setting themselves apart as the in-group and all others as lost, under the deception of Satan, fear based doctrines making people afraid demons will steal their souls if they stray from their truths they teach...... any of this sounding familiar?

Their members are strictly controlled, and has polarized worldview.

Yep. Us versus Them. Literalist, Lost versus Saved, and so forth. Very, very polarized worldview: very black and white. Have you demonstrated anything to the contrary in our discussions? Any openness to my or other's points of view?

I’m familiar on what you are saying about snake-handling, word faith and others. Those are an example of twisted/distorted teachings against the Scripture. This is how you will know and test them if they’re in line with the teachings of Christ.

As is the deliverance groups. They're all cut from the same cultic cloth.

There are deliverance group that practiced trance, speaking in tongues for deliverance, angelic command to deliverance, divine healers, perform signs and wonders etc..

So, because the witch doctors use blue holy water instead of pink holy water they are not true witch doctors?

We followed the doctrine of Christ and not the doctrine of man.

You certainly do follow doctrines of man.

Man may give some inspirational words, but not as following them to be the authority of all. This is the reason why we used the Scripture in investigating spiritual issues.

Which are all, 100%, interpretations of men. Period.

Thanks

You're quite welcome.

 

[sojourner]

Hi Sojourner,

It seems that what you’re saying has in connection with a belief of something that defeat the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection. Did you know the importance of Christ’s resurrection?

How the resurrection cannot be accepted if God’s plan of salvation includes the resurrection of Christ?

John 11:25-27
25. Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies,
26. and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"
27. She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world."

John 6:40
40. "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Thanks

Why do you think the Jews didn't largely believe in resurrection? Becasue it conflicted with their idea of monotheism.