What is Contemplative Christianity?

[sojourner]

Is the sacred center means the church?

No, it means "finding God at the center of your being."

Then what is objective to you?

Something that can be observed externally, corroborated by third party observation, and replicated faithfully.

if the Bible is the source of tradition, then all what is written there is to be followed.

I didn't say "the source of Tradition," I said "A source of Tradition" -- one source. There are other sources that need to be noticed. And no, one doesn't have to obey "all that is written there." Otherwise, we'd be stoning adulterers, and not wearing shirts of 50/50 cotton/poly.

Then, you may explain how to get deeper understanding of the Word. How?

We have explained it in lengthy posts time and time again. Go back and read them, since you seem to be so keen on the written word.

 

[sojourner]

Hi Unification,

Ministers of a New Covenant
1. Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you?
2. You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men;
3. being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts.
4. And such confidence we have through Christ toward God.
5. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,
6. who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,
8. how shall the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?

I posted these Scriptures to show to the readers that I'm not just babbling my message without understanding the context. I believed this is not in favor with the contemplative teachings followers. Yes, the quote of "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" is a very nice to hear because this is emphasizing the Holy Spirit who is the "Spirit of Truth." As we ponder and look at the Scriptures, this is projecting and comparing with the Old Testament law (letters- Moses) and the New Testament (Spirit-Christ). For the letter (law) consist of laws about moral, ceremonial, civil... that a man should followed while the Spirit (Gospel) penetrates our heart & soul and bring us to the grace of God; a faith that saves. This is the covenant of grace composed of Jesus Christ's teaching.

Paul said in Rom. 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. Jesus is looking at the heart of man rather than our works. I believed He is waiting people to come to Him by believing, accepting, obeying, repenting, trust, surrendering our life, submission, and commitment to Him. The Spirit gives life because He guides and convicts a believer to walk in the path of righteousness.

Role of the Spirit
John 14:16-17
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.

Therefore, Paul letters' and Jesus teachings' are infallible; if they are not infallible and the absolute Word of God, mentioning "but of the Spirit; for the letter kills,but the Spirit gives life" is futile and not worthy. We will just based on our own instinct, and by own interpretation without a basis. Paul and Jesus' word will become meaningless.


2 Tim. 3:16-17
16. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17. that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Heb. 4:12
12. For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

The Word of God is infallible because it is said so as inspired by God.
1 Peter 1:25
25. But the word of the Lord abides forever." And this is the word which was preached to you.

1 Thess. 2:13
13. And for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

Thanks

This is Messed. Up.


Seriously. I can't begin to take the time to mend everything you've managed to unravel here.

 

[sojourner]

Hi Windwalker,

Allow me explain to you what a Christian (a follower of Christ) defined Love. The love that we do (as usually seen by the people) is the outworking of the Holy Spirit. It is the love coming from God. Remember the fruit of the Holy Spirit,
Gal. 5:22-23
22. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23. gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Regarding the statement that I said "it is not from our own thinking", that would mean the love of God automatically/built-in (allow me to use this layman's word) to a believer once he accepted (having a personal relationship with Christ) Jesus Christ as His Lord and Saviour. Anybody can express their love, even to those who have different faiths. Hope you remember what we have discuss about the fruit of the Spirit before.

As a believer in Christ, that Spirit produces love..... that love came from the love of God. It is not by our own effort anymore because that love is the fruit of the Spirit. There is a difference between a non-follower and follower of Christ.

God does not control nor a dictator. He is calling us to come to Him by surrendering our will to Him; not by our might we should depend, but by the might of God--we should be dependent. The Spirit of Truth is the one who will guide us; we don't need to push ourselves seeking that Spirit by our own effort because this is a promise by God.
Eph. 1:13-14
13. In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
14. which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glor

Demolishing strongholds is not my own power & thinking, it is coming from the power of the name of Jesus Christ.

Thanks

Your haphazard method of reading appears to have caused a massive breakdown in your comprehension of what you're reading. Further, I get the distinct feeling that many of your posts are either cut-and-pastes from fundie web sites, or poorly-complied notes of yours (or someone else's) that have been scribbled at "seminars" and "bible studies." Your theological musings are not solid. Your theological house is being built on sand (to borrow a biblical concept). There's no underpinning of coherent thought that ties your various ideas together. I just don't get the impression, by reading your posts, that you have a solid grasp of theological thought, the exegetical process, or the interpretive discipline. This post simply doesn't make sense in any theological way. It just reads as mushed-together, religious platitudes, loosely-based on some disparate bits of biblical text.

 

[sassysam29]

the trick isn't simply "reading what Paul said." The trick is actually exegeting the text. Case in point: first, you think Paul wrote Ephesians, and that it's Paul's words you're reading. Even though I've explained that most reputable and peer-reviewed scholars have mined the evidence and it shows that he most likely didn't write Ephesians. So, right off the bat, you're beginning to read your own biases into the text.

Second, you have to do some literary and cultural criticism in order to discover that the writer is using a metaphor here. What does the writer mean by the terms, "powers," "darkness," and "spiritual forces?" What is his world view? What is his take on spirituality? It's obviously not the same as yours. What does he mean by "full armor of God?" Why does he use these metaphors? What's he trying to get across?

Third, what's the context in which he's writing? He's not writing to you; he's writing to a group of ancient Greeks. What is the situation in that place that's prompted him to write what he wrote? And how is that particular circumstance cogent to our own?

You, OTOH, appear to be simply picking up a bible and reading the words on the page, as if "Paul" is speaking directly and plainly to you. And that just doesn't cut it, because, to do that means that it is, in fact, "[your] own words," in the sense that you have read them through your filter and have put your spin of meaning to them.

See just above ^^^. That's a great place to begin. exegesis is the beginning of interpretation, and if you don't have that process down first, you don't have a solid basis to formulate an interpretation of what you've read, because you don't really have a good idea of what you've read until you do that!

How will you know what? Do you mean, "How will I know about meditation?" We've told you and told you and told you -- and you keep throwing up bible verses that aren't germane to what we've said.

One doesn't hear through the eyes, by reading words on a page. One hears by becoming quiet and listening.

This is why amateurs shouldn't dabble in exegesis. You do a simple Strong's search on a foreign word of a language you don't understand, and think you know everything you need to know to make an informed decision. Every foreign word has, not only a definition, but sometimes several. And the definition changes as context changes. When Strong's defines hagah as "moan, growl, utter, speak, and muse, the word is an onomatopoeia -- IOW, it's a poetic word like "bang!" or "Crash!" The pronunciation sounds like what the word is describing. In meditation, sometimes one speaks a vowel sound, one mumbles a mantra over and over, as a means to help clear the mind and focus on what one wishes to focus on. That's what's going on here! The Law if muttered as a mantra, over and over. We can see this practice in modern-day Judaism. Prayerful Jews will stand and rock back and forth, muttering phrases in prayer. It's meditation -- not "reading the text." All you've managed to do here is to prove my point.

I know, I'm inserting myself here, but have you ever been at the receiving end of words like "ameature", "inexperienced", "uneducatedated", Sometimes without even meaning to, we place ourselves above other people. God used the very opposite kind of men in great ways. Again, I have much regard for science and education, but it's simply not this complicated. As I have said before, all these things are useful in and of themselves but they are very poor substitutes for the Holy Spirit. If we need a physician we seek a doctor...that is our physical flesh needing healed. When we need spiritual healing we look to the physician of our souls.....not science and religious gurus.

 

[Windwalker]

This is why amateurs shouldn't dabble in exegesis. You do a simple Strong's search on a foreign word of a language you don't understand, and think you know everything you need to know to make an informed decision. Every foreign word has, not only a definition, but sometimes several. And the definition changes as context changes. When Strong's defines hagah as "moan, growl, utter, speak, and muse, the word is an onomatopoeia -- IOW, it's a poetic word like "bang!" or "Crash!" The pronunciation sounds like what the word is describing.

Oh my, that's fantastic! Can I carry you around in my pocket? I love it. Onomatopoeia! Yes. When I saw Strong's word "growl", I thought that makes sense, and then to see the word is Onomatopoeia, radically underscores it! It's like when Paul says, "We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans." That does in fact describe meditation practice quite well. It is a deep, groaning, expressing from the depths what the mind cannot put into words. It is the engagement not of the mind of reason and thought, but the very being, the soul. It groans from the depths of being, deep, primal, guttural, transcending thought into Spirit itself. Beautiful.

In meditation, sometimes one speaks a vowel sound, one mumbles a mantra over and over, as a means to help clear the mind and focus on what one wishes to focus on. That's what's going on here! The Law if muttered as a mantra, over and over. We can see this practice in modern-day Judaism. Prayerful Jews will stand and rock back and forth, muttering phrases in prayer. It's meditation -- not "reading the text." All you've managed to do here is to prove my point.

Yes. The mantra, to repeat the sacred word(s), is to allow what is deep within the soul to come through you, past your conscious mind, and ascend into heaven as an offering of incense to the Divine. If you look at what is in the OT it talks about placing sacred objects here and there, to touch it as you enter and exit through doorways, to wear it on the forehead, etc. This is all part of meditation. All of it. It is teaching mindfulness. And to offer active prayer in the form of silent reflection, or muttering sacred words, or offering of the heart and soul in praise or song, is all meditation.

As you said well, you can read with the eyes, but you can only hear when you are silent. That silence is of the mind, but the soul sings loudly with clarity and precision in that Silence.

 

[sojourner]

I know, I'm inserting myself here, but have you ever been at the receiving end of words like "amature", "inexperienced", "uneducatedated", Sometimes without even meaning to, we place ourselves above other people. God used the very opposite kind of men in great ways. Again, I have much regard for science and education, but it's simply not this complicated. As I have said before, all these things are useful in and of themselves but they are very poor substitutes for the Holy Spirit. If we need a physician we seek a doctor...that is our physical flesh needing healed. When we need spiritual healing we look to the physician of our souls.....not science and religious gurus.

I get that. BUT, the poster is emphatic that "looking to the physician of our souls" can only be accomplished through reading the bible. So, if that's going to be the poster's modus operendi, the poster needs to read as thoroughly and correctly as possible. Meaning that it's going to take some professional-level work. Seeing how the poster seems to throw around Strong's as if the poster knows what the poster is doing, and then still manages to make a complete theological mess, the term isn't pejorative, but accurate. The poster isn't so accomplished as the poster seems to assume.

When this sort of mess is made, then, yes, a "religious professional" is indicated to clean up the mess.

 

[sojourner]

Oh my, that's fantastic! Can I carry you around in my pocket? I love it. Onomatopoeia! Yes. When I saw Strong's word "growl", I thought that makes sense, and then to see the word is Onomatopoeia, radically underscores it! It's like when Paul says, "We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans." That does in fact describe meditation practice quite well. It is a deep, groaning, expressing from the depths what the mind cannot put into words. It is the engagement not of the mind of reason and thought, but the very being, the soul. It groans from the depths of being, deep, primal, guttural, transcending thought into Spirit itself. Beautiful.


Yes. The mantra, to repeat the sacred word(s), is to allow what is deep within the soul to come through you, past your conscious mind, and ascend into heaven as an offering of incense to the Divine. If you look at what is in the OT it talks about placing sacred objects here and there, to touch it as you enter and exit through doorways, to wear it on the forehead, etc. This is all part of meditation. All of it. It is teaching mindfulness. And to offer active prayer in the form of silent reflection, or muttering sacred words, or offering of the heart and soul in praise or song, is all meditation.

As you said well, you can read with the eyes, but you can only hear when you are silent. That silence is of the mind, but the soul sings loudly with clarity and precision in that Silence.

The "growl" or "groan," or, heck, "Om," is (I like to image) the reflection of the Note or Tone that spoke creation into being -- the Sacred Note that still resonates deep inside everything.

 

[sojourner]

God used the very opposite kind of men in great ways. Again, I have much regard for science and education, but it's simply not this complicated.

When what we're using as the source of the information that is seen as our only ticket to spiritual wisdom is removed from us by language, culture, time, and method of transmission (the synoptics, for example, were probably originally oral stories -- not read, but told), then, yes, it really is "this complicated." If we don't have professionals to do the translation, for example, how can "simple people" read languages they don't understand? If the texts are written in metaphor that's culturally-driven, we need professionals who study and understand ancient cultures to tell us what the metaphors mean, or we get it wrong and end up with gobbledygook.

"Reading the bible" isn't really a simple matter. You pick up a bible and read it, but the complicated stuff has already partially been done for you -- and you don't even notice. The work of translation, of interpreting the foreign colloquialisms so that they make sense to us in our culture -- that stuff's already been done, and if it hadn't, you wouldn't have a bible that you could read. Then there are the programmatic bible studies that are generally used in guided bible study. These studies involve A. Lot. of scholarship that the general population (read: "amateur") doesn't possess. What filters down to Joe-the-Churchgoer as simple, printed words in a simple, paperback study guide has taken hours of scholastic work to produce.

Remember, whenever you read the bible, you're reading someone else's (professional) scholarship.

 

[Windwalker]

Regarding the statement that I said "it is not from our own thinking",

Those are not the words you said. You explicitly stated, "Love is not letting you do your own thinking". That is not the same thing as saying "It is not from our own thinking" by any stretch of the imagination. Go read your words in Post #425. I am quoting you exactly. I have no problem with saying it is not from our own efforts. I've been saying that all along and why meditation is singularly the best tool to help teach how to hear, listen to, and be lead, and to act from and speak from Spirit. It is experiential Ground. But that is not what you said! You said, again to quote, "Love is not letting you do your own thinking".

You are misquoting yourself, and misrepresenting what you said. You also said you see God as a Dictator. And you compared your relationship to him as an Employer Boss, as opposed to a love relationship, a marriage, a child-parent relationship, etc. "Love is not letting you do your own thinking" is an expression of forced control of another. "I am not going to allow you to think for yourself, because I love you so much!" That is the opposite of love.

Quote scripture all you want. Your words above in post #425 are clear.

 

[Windwalker]

The "growl" or "groan," or, heck, "Om," is (I like to image) the reflection of the Note or Tone that spoke creation into being -- the Sacred Note that still resonates deep inside everything.

Yes, that is very true. I actually went into a bit of depth comparing Om and Logos in this thread here: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/logos-and-aum.160077/ You may enjoy that discussion. It picks up and I go a little deeper after the first few pages. Singularly, my favorite verse and understanding of Christ is that of John 1:1 - 14. Logos is that "sacred note" that still resonates.

I said a few posts ago in speaking about God in creation, that it is not a case of seeing the "creation" as a finished act, but "creation" is a continual action. It is "creating", and God is that active creating. Logos, is that creating motion, it is the manifestation of the unknowable God. It is the relationship, the cusp between nirguna brahman and saguna brahman. Saguna brahman is the is the visible manifestation of the the unqualifiable divine. It is the comparison between knowing God as apophatic and as kataphatic, unquantifiable and qualifiable. I would love to go into some depth in this with you, but alas, this discussion in hung up on "breathing techniques" being scriptural or not!

 

[sassysam29]

When what we're using as the source of the information that is seen as our only ticket to spiritual wisdom is removed from us by language, culture, time, and method of transmission (the synoptics, for example, were probably originally oral stories -- not read, but told), then, yes, it really is "this complicated." If we don't have professionals to do the translation, for example, how can "simple people" read languages they don't understand? If the texts are written in metaphor that's culturally-driven, we need professionals who study and understand ancient cultures to tell us what the metaphors mean, or we get it wrong and end up with gobbledygook.

"Reading the bible" isn't really a simple matter. You pick up a bible and read it, but the complicated stuff has already partially been done for you -- and you don't even notice. The work of translation, of interpreting the foreign colloquialisms so that they make sense to us in our culture -- that stuff's already been done, and if it hadn't, you wouldn't have a bible that you could read. Then there are the programmatic bible studies that are generally used in guided bible study. These studies involve A. Lot. of scholarship that the general population (read: "amateur") doesn't possess. What filters down to Joe-the-Churchgoer as simple, printed words in a simple, paperback study guide has taken hours of scholastic work to produce.

Remember, whenever you read the bible, you're reading someone else's (professional) scholarship.

So, let me ask you this, science can indeed explain the formation of the mountains right, but it cannot explain their beauty.....there's no human reasoning, mathematic equations for beauty, it simply cannot be compartmentalized ...does beholding beauty become unreasonable? Our only ticket to spiritual wisdom is through the Holy Spirit guiding us.
I guess I see the bible as something we try to apply human reason and scientific formulas to and in doing so it reduces it to a compilation of fairy tales. Why base any belief or practice on something that requires such intense examination by professionals that it simply becomes half truths and half lies. How much faith would you put in science if it were simply translated exaggerations of old cultures, full of half truths which required a professional to interpret? Why have faith at all if the record is so flawed? I understand that the original manuscripts have been translated by much smarter men than myself, but is God not able to cross cultural and language barriers to keep that message preserved? Could the God that created the beauty of the mountains have divinely guided men to give us the book we hold? Is there anything about God that you believe without applying human reason? Is beauty logical? Is love logical? you simply cannot apply logic and human reasoning to some things. I believe the word of God is true and divinely inspired... if it isnt, I choose no faith.

 

[sassysam29]

And btw....I don't know how to reply to portions of posts so sometimes my order/thoughts are out of sync with your questions. I do good on my iPad but phone messes me up

 

[sojourner]

So, let me ask you this, science can indeed explain the formation of the mountains right, but it cannot explain their beauty.....there's no human reasoning, mathematic equations for beauty, it simply cannot be compartmentalized ...does beholding beauty become unreasonable?

We're not talking about aesthetics. We're talking about what the bible says. It sounds almost as if you want to be able to take "poetic license" with what the texts say.

Our only ticket to spiritual wisdom is through the Holy Spirit guiding us.

Yeah, but that wasn't what I said. What I said was that some seem to think that our only ticket to spiritual wisdom is the texts. And besides, this whole "the Spirit guides our reading" thing is claptrap. Yes, the Spirit guides in developing meaning and understanding, but it's not a Magic 8 Ball that exegetes the texts for us. It doesn't do the work of translation, or the work of form, literary, cultural and historic criticism that enable us to discover what the writer meant and what the writer wrote. We have to first discover those things, and then the Spirit can help us make meaning.

I guess I see the bible as something we try to apply human reason and scientific formulas to and in doing so it reduces it to a compilation of fairy tales.

Sometimes it does. Some of the stories are, patently, "fairy tales." But exegesis never "reduces" the value of anything. If anything, the exegetical process increases the value by helping us read it with better understanding of what we're reading. If a pericope is, indeed, a fairy tale, doesn't it inform us to know that, so that we actually read it as such, instead of assigning it some false, factual importance (such as the sky factually being a rigid dome covering a disc-shaped earth)?

Why base any belief or practice on something that requires such intense examination by professionals that it simply becomes half truths and half lies.

That's the rub: Christianity Isn't. Based. On. The. Bible. Christianity was formed 400 years before the texts were canonized. The earliest Xtians didn't have bibles to read. They based their faith off the teachings of the apostles.

But to run with your argument, intense, professional scrutiny, as I stated earlier (but which you, apparently, chose to ignore), is necessary in order for you to even have a bible to read!! Translators are ... professionals. And the process of translation is long, involved, and painstakingly academic. And they don't "rely on the Spirit" to guide them in their work. the work of exegetes doesn't create "half-truths." This is nothing more than a straw man. Exegesis creates understanding of what was actually written and actually meant, so far as that process is able to make those determinations. Where it cannot, a note is made saying, "The original meaning is unclear."

How much faith would you put in science if it were simply translated exaggerations of old cultures, full of half truths which required a professional to interpret?

The bible isn't science. It's ancient literature in ancient, foreign languages.

I understand that the original manuscripts have been translated by much smarter men than myself, but is God not able to cross cultural and language barriers to keep that message preserved?

God may be able -- we don't know with any certainty -- be we are not able to do that without the exegetical process.

Why have faith at all if the record is so flawed?

Because faith isn't predicated either on the bible, or on testable facts and theories.

Is there anything about God that you believe without applying human reason?

Sure there is. But God isn't the bible. The bible is an ancient collection of even more ancient writings of even more ancient oral stories, out of several ancient cultures, compiled, edited, and redacted by human beings over a long period of time.

Could the God that created the beauty of the mountains have divinely guided men to give us the book we hold?

Sure, but it's still the men, themselves, who did the work involved.

Is beauty logical? Is love logical? you simply cannot apply logic and human reasoning to some things.

The bible isn't "beauty" or "love," or any other aesthetic. It's ancient literature. And, yes, you can and should apply logic and human reasoning to its interpretation.

I believe the word of God is true and divinely inspired... if it isnt, I choose no faith.

Of course it's "true." But it's truth isn't necessarily factual. I, too, believe it to be divinely-inspired, but that inspiration stops the moment an English-speaking, post-modern, American man picks up ancient Hebraic and Greek texts and begins to read them. Once they've been exegeted, then Divine Inspiration can step in and help create meaning of what's actually written, but Inspiration isn't going to help in the process of discovering "What's Actually Written."
I might suggest that, if your faith hinges on the factual and literal accuracy of the biblical texts, your faith may be in real trouble.

 

[sojourner]

And btw....I don't know how to reply to portions of posts so sometimes my order/thoughts are out of sync with your questions. I do good on my iPad but phone messes me up

I hate doing this on my phone!!

 

[sojourner]

So, let me ask you this, science can indeed explain the formation of the mountains right, but it cannot explain their beauty.....there's no human reasoning, mathematic equations for beauty, it simply cannot be compartmentalized ...does beholding beauty become unreasonable? Our only ticket to spiritual wisdom is through the Holy Spirit guiding us.
I guess I see the bible as something we try to apply human reason and scientific formulas to and in doing so it reduces it to a compilation of fairy tales. Why base any belief or practice on something that requires such intense examination by professionals that it simply becomes half truths and half lies. How much faith would you put in science if it were simply translated exaggerations of old cultures, full of half truths which required a professional to interpret? Why have faith at all if the record is so flawed? I understand that the original manuscripts have been translated by much smarter men than myself, but is God not able to cross cultural and language barriers to keep that message preserved? Could the God that created the beauty of the mountains have divinely guided men to give us the book we hold? Is there anything about God that you believe without applying human reason? Is beauty logical? Is love logical? you simply cannot apply logic and human reasoning to some things. I believe the word of God is true and divinely inspired... if it isnt, I choose no faith.

Here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2015/08/the-root-of-conservative-christianity.html

 

[Windwalker]

So, let me ask you this, science can indeed explain the formation of the mountains right, but it cannot explain their beauty.....there's no human reasoning, mathematic equations for beauty, it simply cannot be compartmentalized ...does beholding beauty become unreasonable? Our only ticket to spiritual wisdom is through the Holy Spirit guiding us.

Yes, that's right, reading and reasoning itself does not convey what a single sunset sitting quietly on a dock will, not thinking about it, but simply basking in it will. Time for a quote from my favorite mystic Meister Eckhart. "The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.” Seeing with the eye of love, is not the same thing as "thinking, reasoning, and analyzing something, even the Bible itself.

I guess I see the bible as something we try to apply human reason and scientific formulas to and in doing so it reduces it to a compilation of fairy tales.

And this is the whole problem with fundamentalists who try to "prove the Bible"! It puts it in the arena of science! It takes the transcendent God and reduces him to a special sort of object, like a Bigfoot or something that science can either confirm or deny. It robs God of transcendence, and that is the main problem with these "Biblical inerrancy" people who try to prove Noah's Ark and a 6000 year old earth. If you believe that literally, then you are going to be in some serious trouble with your faith when and if you have to confront actual, credible scientific data.

It's building your house on shifting sand. And so it is with any "I have the truth, because the Bible says thus and so!". What happens when you find out it can be understood differently? Either you bury your head in sand, stuff your fingers in your ears and go, "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you," or you head into a crisis of faith and end up an atheist or something. House of sand. Information is constantly changing. If we build a faith on that information, good luck.

Why base any belief or practice on something that requires such intense examination by professionals that it simply becomes half truths and half lies. How much faith would you put in science if it were simply translated exaggerations of old cultures, full of half truths which required a professional to interpret? Why have faith at all if the record is so flawed?

Or on fundamentalist apologists who try to prove it's without error? It's the exact same problem. Atheists in the making!

I understand that the original manuscripts have been translated by much smarter men than myself, but is God not able to cross cultural and language barriers to keep that message preserved? Could the God that created the beauty of the mountains have divinely guided men to give us the book we hold?

It doesn't fit what we see. I think seeking to understand God without superimposing notions about Biblical inerrancy, which are ill-founded and go against the very best evidences we have, is the far more sensible, reasonable, and spiritual approach. Don't try to fit God into your ideas about God. Try to take what you experience of God into how you think of God.

Is there anything about God that you believe without applying human reason? Is beauty logical? Is love logical? you simply cannot apply logic and human reasoning to some things.

Are you sure you have an issue with our approach??? This sounds like the posts I make!

I believe the word of God is true and divinely inspired... if it isnt, I choose no faith.

This may help you. You find inspiration in yourself through what others who are inspired say. Digest that thought for awhile.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

What is Contemplative Christianity?
Is considering what Jesus might have done given the situation , self reflection how you could of done things better , the right thing to do.
Doesn't need to be weeks or months unlike the definition lol could be just a few seconds

 

[Windwalker]

BTW, this is a great video describing all the extremely positive benefits that come with a meditation practice which science validates.

 

[Yoshua]

Your haphazard method of reading appears to have caused a massive breakdown in your comprehension of what you're reading. Further, I get the distinct feeling that many of your posts are either cut-and-pastes from fundie web sites, or poorly-complied notes of yours (or someone else's) that have been scribbled at "seminars" and "bible studies." Your theological musings are not solid. Your theological house is being built on sand (to borrow a biblical concept). There's no underpinning of coherent thought that ties your various ideas together. I just don't get the impression, by reading your posts, that you have a solid grasp of theological thought, the exegetical process, or the interpretive discipline. This post simply doesn't make sense in any theological way. It just reads as mushed-together, religious platitudes, loosely-based on some disparate bits of biblical text.

Hello,

You are welcome to comment on my message (itself), instead of criticizing my answer including my explanation. How can I copy and paste messages to serve it as my answer? Are you joking? It is not my practice to paste my personal answer to you; do you know how hard & impossible to find an answer for every question?

It is my pleasure to answer if you have questions. I ask the Holy Spirit to guide me. This is where meditation comes in--as a follower of Christ. I meditate with the Word of God before answering, and see to it that the recipient of this message may understand. I tried to set an example, but some take it negatively.

I believed that you started to share your knowledge pertains to biblical studies, and that is a better idea than by sharing our experiences which we don’t have a basis, and still the Word of God is the authority.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I don't remember any of us EVER saying here that Xy has a low standard, that it is of no quality, nor have we said that we avoid the written word. What we have said is that we had the Christian principles close to our hearts, and that we find Christ deeply within us, and that we take the texts for what they are -- not for what we wish they were. But this is typical of the kind of non-listening -- or non-understanding -- that you have typically displayed in your posts here.

Hi Sojourner,
Not necessarily you, but for those who read the forum. I believed that if a person does not acknowledge nor accepted that the Word of God is the infallible Word of God, they look at the Scripture as less important, less priority, and low standard.

It's good and valid evidence that you're reading a lot into the texts by reading through your own filter of bias and limited understanding. It's evidence that your interpretation of what you read is clearly your perspective.

My perspective? If that will be the case, then those who have an inner experience have much more to say with their own perspective also. How do you reconcile that? Is it when I interpreted it nearer to your perspective or nearer to the Scripture?

Everyone -- EVERYONE -- encounters God through their own experience. Even by simply "reading the bible," one doesn't receive a pure and objective experience of God. We can only encounter God through the lens of our individual experience, because there is no external evidence for God. Can't see God, can't touch God, can't smell God, can't measure God in any way, can't observe concrete ways in which God affects other things, because God is immaterial. You seem to think that "reading the bible" somehow "puts skin and bones" on God objectively. It doesn't, as Windwalker and I have tried unsuccessfully to explain to you time and again.

This is it what you are telling. It is faith. When I say faith saves, do I contradict the Word of God?
Eph. 2:8-9
8. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9. not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

the trick isn't simply "reading what Paul said." The trick is actually exegeting the text. Case in point: first, you think Paul wrote Ephesians, and that it's Paul's words you're reading. Even though I've explained that most reputable and peer-reviewed scholars have mined the evidence and it shows that he most likely didn't write Ephesians. So, right off the bat, you're beginning to read your own biases into the text.

I know what you are saying. Some say its Paul and some say it unsure that Paul wrote it. Anyway, whoever wrote that, still, it can be applied. But, in Eph. 6 chapter, do you think Paul is talking there?

Second, you have to do some literary and cultural criticism in order to discover that the writer is using a metaphor here. What does the writer mean by the terms, "powers," "darkness," and "spiritual forces?" What is his world view? What is his take on spirituality? It's obviously not the same as yours. What does he mean by "full armor of God?" Why does he use these metaphors? What's he trying to get across?

Thanks for sharing that. I appreciate it. My view here obviously is telling us to be aware against the wicked spirits, and evil forces as stated in v.11, the schemes of the devil. The armor of God was specified after v.12.

Third, what's the context in which he's writing? He's not writing to you; he's writing to a group of ancient Greeks. What is the situation in that place that's prompted him to write what he wrote? And how is that particular circumstance cogent to our own?

The message is applicable to us. It does not prohibit us to be guarded with the armor of God. The people at Ephesus believe in Hermes, Artemis, and other gods. They have their temples, I believe this message was given to them to be vigilant, be strong and stand firm in their faith.

ou, OTOH, appear to be simply picking up a bible and reading the words on the page, as if "Paul" is speaking directly and plainly to you. And that just doesn't cut it, because, to do that means that it is, in fact, "[your] own words," in the sense that you have read them through your filter and have put your spin of meaning to them.

I’ve read this passage for a long time. After reading it, I’m conscious and aware that those armor of God must be applied to my life. I don’t worship Paul so, it is not my concern to include Paul in my awareness. When I’m posting this Scripture, I stick to what the Scripture is telling us.

This is why amateurs shouldn't dabble in exegesis. You do a simple Strong's search on a foreign word of a language you don't understand, and think you know everything you need to know to make an informed decision. Every foreign word has, not only a definition, but sometimes several. And the definition changes as context changes. When Strong's defines hagah as "moan, growl, utter, speak, and muse, the word is an onomatopoeia -- IOW, it's a poetic word like "bang!" or "Crash!" The pronunciation sounds like what the word is describing. In meditation, sometimes one speaks a vowel sound, one mumbles a mantra over and over, as a means to help clear the mind and focus on what one wishes to focus on. That's what's going on here! The Law if muttered as a mantra, over and over. We can see this practice in modern-day Judaism. Prayerful Jews will stand and rock back and forth, muttering phrases in prayer. It's meditation -- not "reading the text." All you've managed to do here is to prove my point.

Why? did using the word “mantra” and attached it to the Jew as their term for meditation makes you professional?

If you want to use the word “mantra,” you may use it for Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, TM and for those who practice yoga. Now, if the word “mantra” will be inserted to Christianity, it’s not evangelical Christianity. We don’t use the word “mantra.”

Do you think the Jews does not recite the Word of God like the Shema nor read the Scripture? I’m familiar with what you are pointing at, they chant, recite/read and pray. Additional question: if the law is muttered as a mantra, and prayer to support your facts, do you think that the Jews don’t read the text as they face the wailing wall? How are you sure? Why there are holding a pocketbook in their hands while meditating? a book placed on top of a rostrum?

We did not limit ourselves by just reading the scripture to meditate, we reflect (remember), pray, read and glorify God as the word “hagah” in Joshua 1:8 was applied. Therefore, it is not a wrong application to read the text (with or without reading), we may recite the text. Your onomatopoeia can be applied, but even without this, the meaning of “hagah” as utter, speak, groan, muse….still not in error but fits with the passage on what the context is saying.

Ps. 143:5
5. I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works; I muse on the work of thy hands.

Thanks