What is Contemplative Christianity?

[Windwalker]

That's great. But are you suggesting that the logical alternative is to listen to people who have their theology mixed up, etc? I don't think so. That is a matter of personal perspective, not ''facts''.

Faith is not about facts. I think you have your theology mixed up.

 

[sassysam29]

That should clear it up for us

 

[sassysam29]

Faith is not about facts. I think you have your theology mixed up.

You talk out both sides of your mouth

 

[Windwalker]

Then stop using scripture as your supporting argument to mystic experiences. Gods word is divinely inspired... not fact. You believe facts while seeing through God's eye and let us know what he says about the bible

I can, and will use scripture all I want. It speaks to the truth of my experiences of God. Why are you opposed to that? Because I understand God differently than you? Why is that so difficult for you?

Again, that quote from Eckhart has absolutely nothing to do with analyzing facts! I would spit that quote out of my mouth and stamp it to death if it did!

 

[Desert Snake]

Faith is not about facts. I think you have your theology mixed up.

Faith is a mixture of facts and beliefs based on 'faith', as a concept.. we're utilizing a logical format to discern likely ''facts''. Everyone does that, practically.
Altogether, we call this our ''faith'', or our ''beliefs''. There is no separation here, when faith is used in the religious sense.

 

[Windwalker]

You talk out both sides of your mouth

I think your are have difficulty following and interpreting badly. Why don't you just ask for clarification?

 

[sassysam29]

I think your are have difficulty following and interpreting badly. Why don't you just ask for clarification?

I think you want to back up bad theology by using a book you don't believe and condemning me for believing the book says your theology is wrong huh? Eh, come back?! SCREWED UP

 

[Windwalker]

Faith is a mixture of facts and beliefs.

It is? So, the moons of Jupiter are matter of faith? That's curious.

That's why we don't believe in ridiculous things, in the first place; we're utilizing a logical format to discern likely ''facts''. Everyone does that, practically.

Why don't you use science instead, since it's a more powerful tool than logic arguments? But then, to me, that's not faith. Perhaps it is to you.

 

[Windwalker]

I think you want to back up bad theology by using a book you don't believe and condemning me for believing the book says your theology is wrong huh? Eh, come back?! SCREWED UP

Bad theology is theology that doesn't agree with you. I'm not condemning you. You are condemning me. Let's get the direction clear here. You are hostile here, not me. Proof? SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS!.

 

[sassysam29]

Yes.. I am because it's an oxymoron. Hey kids let me show you how to make some cookies with this recipe but I don't believe the recipe is correct

 

[sassysam29]

And then I will prove these cookies are good by comparing it to a recipe I don't believe

 

[sassysam29]

Crazy.

 

[Windwalker]

I believe the Bible. Just not in the way you do. The value I place upon it is not dependent on believing it in mythological or magical contexts. If I were forced to think of it literally in those terms, I would be forced to reject it. It's value is there, nonetheless without the necessity to think in that particular framework of understanding. You cannot say I "don't believe" in God, because I don't think of God in the same way you do. That's judging another man's servant, isn't it?

 

[sassysam29]

I would have much more respect if you just threw the Scriptures out completely and went solely on your experience and said I believe nothing about the Scriptures

 

[Windwalker]

I would have much more respect if you just threw the Scriptures out completely and went solely on your experience and said I believe nothing about the Scriptures

Because it would make you more comfortable and secure in your belief structures? I believe that is so. Why shouldn't you be happy for me instead? Isn't finding Peace in God what is important, or is it "correct interpretations of the Bible" that take precedence for you?

 

[sassysam29]

Because it would make you more comfortable and secure in your belief structures? I believe that is so. Why shouldn't you be happy for me instead?

No, because it would not be an oxymoron. I respect atheism because they just flat out deny it. Their honesty is admirable. This is just cherry picking

 

[Windwalker]

No, because it would not be an oxymoron. I respect atheism because they just flat out deny it. Their honesty is admirable. This is just cherry picking

I don't cherry pick at all. I contextualize. Fundamentalists cherry pick because they ignore parts of the Bible that contradict their preconceived beliefs. They ignore evidence. I do not not. I face it head on and understand it and process it contextually, with intellectual honesty.

 

[sassysam29]

I don't cherry pick at all. I contextualize. Fundamentalists cherry pick because they ignore parts of the Bible that contradict their preconceived beliefs. They ignore evidence. I do not not. I face it head on and understand it and process it contextually, with intellectual honesty.

It's the pot calling the kettle black

 

[Brickjectivity]

Are you kidding me? Do you understand the odds of just 1 of the prophecies being accurate?

I don't have time right now to go back and quote posts, but as I've followed along (I've missed a lot of recent posts) it seems that at some point this appeal to fulfilled prophecies has become your answer to the problem of establishing the authority of the Bible as I raised it earlier in the thread, although you never directly responded to those posts. However, this claim to the accuracy of prophecy is also problematic.

And so, I claim that there are no meaningful and verifiable instances of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible. Meaningful and verifiable mean, to me, that it can be determined to some reasonable standard that a prophecy was made in advance of an event predicted, that the event actually occurred as predicted, and that the prophecy describes the predicted event in sufficient detail as to exclude the possibility of reading the meaning back into it after the event.

I would challenge you to attempt to substantiate the claim that the authority of the Bible is testified to by fulfilled prophecy by responding to my assertion above and showing how such prophecies were made and how you verify their accuracy.

I just noticed this exchange and wanted to try and avoid the misunderstanding that well named is pointing out that prophecies are not about predictions. Fulfillments in the NT are not actions that were predicted by the prophets but are allusions to situations that are similar. For example if Moses is angry about a golden calf and says something about it, then when Jesus encounters a similar predicament the gospel writer will refer to this as fulfillment. In other words the fulfillments are not 'Fulfillments' in the sense of a predicted event, and they are not intended to be viewed that way. Therefore well named does not have to believe in predictions by the prophets in order to value the fulfillments in the NT. Its because they are not fulfilling predictions but fulfilling prophecies. Check each fulfillment in Matthew if you like, and look up the relevant passage of scripture. You will see that none of them predict anything, however they are fulfillments of another kind.

 

[Desert Snake]

It is? So, the moons of Jupiter are matter of faith? That's curious.

Faith is not necessarily an absolute, of non-knowing. And yes, we do employ ''faith'', in our everyday observations, just to different degrees, and in different contexts.

Why don't you use science instead, since it's a more powerful tool than logic arguments? But then, to me, that's not faith. Perhaps it is to you.

You are talking about things as if they each contain an expression of pure ''faith'', as opposed to fact. This is not realistic, because, theology is a collection of ideas, and beliefs, and yes, ''facts''.