sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I don't care. He's not an "expert."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Contemplative Christianity?
- Thread starter Yoshua
- Start date
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
That was the biblical belief. If you want to go against the bible and believe something different, that's up to you. Very early on, as the church became bigger and more widespread, the one loaf of bread could not be taken to everyone on the day the Eucharist was celebrated. Therefore, they decreed that, through anamnesis, all bread mystically becomes the one loaf. Sorry. That's the biblical belief. you don't have to like it, but, by your own criteria, you have to believe it.
That was the biblical belief, yes. Although they wouldn't have said it was "magic." They would have said it was "mystical." Ironically, that's the same stance that the orthodox church still takes today -- you know, the church you claim has departed from biblical practices.
The source isn't wrong -- it simply doesn't address my point. My point (which you're either willfully ignoring, or just not reading correctly) is that the upper room was set up like the dining halls in Roman houses, and that the "program" of events in the meal followed the same order as a Roman symposium. IOW, the ritual was lifted from the Pagans and adapted to Xy.
How much clearer can I be? It's The. Same. Meal. One event -- one meal -- shared by all Christians in all times and in all places. Remember your supper last night? It's as if every person in the world, past, present and future, is sharing that particular meal with you, every time they recall it through anamnesis.
BTW, I just want to put out this quick, funny thought that came to me. The Bible tells us that marriage is good, but it does not specify how couples should practice their intimacy in bed. It never instructs, "Thou shalt place your lips upon hers, and then proceed by holding her hand, then assume the following sexual positions with her in your bed", detailing which positions to use to increase the experience of intimacy.
How someone shares communion with God in Spirit, is between the person and God, in an exchange of that Love. It takes many forms, and many practices. The bible doesn't specify that one practice should or shouldn't be done in this exchange. This is between you and God. If the result is increased communion, then you are doing it right with what works for you. Each person is different. "All things are lawful", the marriage bed undefiled, but not all thing work for you. It depends on the person.
How someone shares communion with God in Spirit, is between the person and God, in an exchange of that Love. It takes many forms, and many practices. The bible doesn't specify that one practice should or shouldn't be done in this exchange. This is between you and God. If the result is increased communion, then you are doing it right with what works for you. Each person is different. "All things are lawful", the marriage bed undefiled, but not all thing work for you. It depends on the person.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
We are the body of Christ, are we not?
No, it's not the same. he wasn't ready for it, or was not suited to it. He didn't find Christ in the practice. I have.
Because, OMG!! New Agers can't have the same objective as Christians. Dear God! What if New Agers started celebrating the Eucharist? Would you stop celebrating it because they were now doing it? Do you realize that Christians have been doing contemplative practices long before "New Agers" roamed the earth?
Wrong. Patently wrong. The premise here is that contemplation can be a useful in gaining a deeper relationship with the Divine -- not that it's "necessary" in order to "really know God." In contemplation, the mind isn't "turned off." Space is simply made. Didn't Jesus tell us to clean our spiritual house to make room for the Guest?
Only through a twisted interpretation.
Operative term: "I see." He's wrong.
Wrong. I don't know what peyote he's been smoking, but this is so far off base from what we actually do, that it's pathetic. He's like a cave man trying to explain quantum physics to a pig.
Red herring. The Pentecost experience wasn't meditation.
He's using the wrong lens. Neither mystical experience was meditation. Not all mystical experiences involve meditation. The Eucharist and Baptism are musical experiences. Neither involve meditation.
This has far more to do with communicating with the dead, which, if he were truly the expert you extol him to be, he should know has much, much more to do with the Judaic protection of monotheism than anything else. Because living dead people were like gods. Since there was only one God, talking to dead people was prohibited. This is "Resurrection 101" stuff. What rock has this bozo been under?
Translation: "I'm grasping at straws, because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about." Human beings can initiate dream states. We do it every night when we willfully go to sleep.
"And remember, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I expect you to think I'm an 'expert.'"
I'm sorry you've been suckered in by the P.T. Barnum of spiritual authority.
No, it says, "Give us this day our daily bread." What it infers may be completely different.
Actually, it does. Bread was a staple. Most people ate only bread at meals, because that was all they had to eat.
You have chosen to interpret it that way. Why do you not choose to interpret other passages as "general inferences?"
Why? Why "should" there be such a thing where contemplative prayer is concerned, but not where intercessory prayer is concerned?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
YES, most likely.
A mythic story that illustrates truth, but not told using historic facts.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is Fowler's stages of faith. You're right. These folks are stuck on the first rung.I would say that if those were his experiences he was either not doing it right, or they were not the right practices for him for whatever reason. They are not the normal experiences. They are considered a problem with the practice for that person. Not normal. That he finally gave up on what he was doing is good, if that was what it was doing for him! But then to teach others that the truth of Yoga equals his own experiences, as if that speaks for the whole of what it is, is simply flawed and faulty thinking, an immaturity, as well as being irresponsible to the truth and to others.
Let me offer a story to you an example.
Chapter One: A Christian fundamentalist spends his life dedicated to preaching and teaching the bible, believing the earth is 6000 years old, and all the stories of the bible are literal scientific facts of history, geology, and cosmology. But believing such things literally is conflicting with his mind of reason and rationality when confronted with the sensible data that is done by those who are specialists in these fields. It causes inner turmoil for him, anxieties, fears he is losing his faith. He continues on nonetheless, preaching and teaching even harder than before to fight against the devil of disbelief knocking at his door, trying to discredit the scientists in order to maintain his beliefs.
Eventually, after many years of this inner tug-of-war, he finally lets go of his beliefs of such things as a 6000 year old earth, that evolution did not create the species, and so forth. His "faith" goes into crisis and he ends up turning his back entirely on all that he once believed and becomes a committed Atheist, citing all the Atheist apologists, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, et. al. He is disillusioned and hurt, and is angry now. He blames religion, and says religion is the great evil. His experiences define what he sees religion as, the source of this problem for him, and sees that now it is his calling to save others from the great Satan called religion.
He becomes versed in everything about where religion is wrong by reading these authorities of Atheism who research out and specialize in debunking the bible and the myth of God. He is confident in their voices because they are so well-versed in the subject and what they say matches his own bad experiences with it! He becomes an ardent atheist apologist, and viewed as a "specialist" in the subject of religion because of his history and current knowledge of the arguments proving religion is evil. He is rewarded by those who likewise hate religion for whatever reason and a voice reflecting their own fears and ignorance of what religion is.
Now for many, the story ends there. They have found their new belief system, a replacement for what they walked away from which they once placed all their hopes and identities in.
But for some others, the journey continues into a Chapter Two, where they begin to realize it is not a black and white thing, where religion is either The Truth, or the Great Satan. Their black and white thinking begins to loosen and allow light to penetrate in, recognizing the difference between individual experiences, and the way in which we understand the truth of things is relative to the person's growth and maturity, as well as their own experiences, as well as considering other points of view and their view not held as supremely true over all others. They see that religion is not just this one thing over here, and they recognize the good in it for others, while also recognizing its pitfalls and dangers as well. And this then continues and moves into a Chapter Three, and then later a Chapter Four, and Five, Six, and Seven, etc, as they continue to mature and grow. ~ The End.
From what I hear of your friend in regard to his experience with his Yoga practices, he is in at the end of Chapter One in the above story (just substitute whatever system someone "believed in". The story is universal). He takes his experience as defining what Yoga is as a whole, the "Great Satan" in the story above. This assessment of Yoga and meditation is reflective of the person, not the practice itself, just as in my story above. It lacks any balance of reason, and is reactionary, simply switching out one religious belief, hope, for another.
I'll give you a last example of this in reality. A friend of mine who was a graduate with me from Bible College had become an atheist in later years and said to me while we were out at lunch, "I'm so glad I know the truth now!". I chuckled and smiled at him and said, "It's funny, I recall you saying the exact same words when we were in school together." He paused for a moment, then replied, "But the difference is now I really DO have the truth!".Sounds like your friend.
I'll continue my response later, but I have break for now.
I have been wanting to read some of Fowler's work. Which book would you suggest? I know Wilber cites Fowler on occasion when he is speaking of the various line of development, and how Fowler details the spiritual line of development. Not sure if you are familiar with the developmental theory that Wilber lays out based on Gebser's stages of consciousness development; archaic, magic, mythic, rational, pluralistic, and integral. He also ties this into Spiral Dynamics where the above have corresponding colors following the spectrum; beige, magenta, red, blue (or amber), orange, green, teal, turquoise, etc. Red corresponds to the warrior stage, Amber (or blue) is the traditionalist stage, Orange is modernity, Green is postmodernity, Teal and Turquoise are Integral and higher, into 2nd and 3rd tier cognition. I hope you are familiar as I would very much love getting into some real discussion with you about these.
I think when it comes to Fowler, from my understanding he lays out how those like our friend in this discussion are at the Red meme, the Warrior meme. And Fowler shows in his book (which one I'm not sure), how that each level reads and understands Jesus and the bible at the level. So you have a Red or fundamentalist warrior Jesus at the warrior stage, an Amber or mythic Jesus at the traditionalist or the mythic stage, an Orange Jesus at the rational or modernist stage (Spong would an example here), a Green Jesus at the postmodernist stage, a Teal Jesus at the integral stage, and so forth. Each set of eyes reading the bible sees a different Jesus, a Jesus their filters either allows them to see, or simply not see.
A Red meme believer cannot see or understand an Orange level Jesus, let alone a Green or Teal or Turquoise Jesus. However, the Green or Teal can in fact see and understand the earlier stages of perception and thought, because they had to grow through them themselves in order to hit the next 'higher' or more developed stage. They "transcend but include" the earlier stage and therefore can understand how it can see that way. It doesn't go the other way around however, since Red has not yet become Amber, or Orange, or Green. They can only attempt to take what is heard from those perspectives and make them fit into what they only can relate to in their Red world, which is other Reds or earlier. So, it is ultimately futile to try to debate the higher realities, but they do in fact serve other functions. They can serve as an "omega point", to pull on the earlier levels, and so forth, plus help solidify and create stronger structure for later understandings to support and build upon moving to the next stage beyond itself, etc. And that pretty much describes my participation.
Ah... that felt good to talk my actual thought processes!
Last edited:
Why is this man considered an authority? What are his credentials? A "research analyst"? Employed by whom? Is this some term he applies to himself because he blunders his way through stuff he reads on the Internet and draws uneducated conclusions about? What's his education level? What college or university does he hold accredited degrees from, in any at all? What does his actual field research entail? What clinical studies or practices did he perform, and where? You can't just pull some dude off the Internet who has created a ministry around his hobby debunking other beliefs and practice and call him an expert.
Reading this man's material shows quickly all of the above are quite highly suspect, in that it demonstrates a lack of understanding, highly opinionated, biased, and errant points of view. I'll take apart a couple since a few made me think of some things interesting.
BTW, the only person so far you have produced as external authorities that have any actual experience with it is your friend, but I have shown where and how his thoughts are really nothing better that him taking his own bad experience, due to any easily explainable reason, and leaping to a conclusion that because his experience was bad, the practice itself is evil for any who do it. That of course is easily challenged by the fact that for the majority it is not negative. Now, on to this dude's opinion article:
Has this guy's many years of research led him to the conclusion that the New Age movement began in the 14th century?Ray Whoever said:
You can see why simply calling yourself a "research analyst", says nothing about your actual depth of qualification or skill level? Back when I was in college I worked in a hospital's medical records' department where my title was "deficiency analyst". Sounds impressive! The job was flipping through the charts and finding where the doctor needed to add a signature or dictate a report. "Analyst".
It's a glorified word for clerk, like calling yourself an 'optical clarification specialist' when you wash windows for a living. Anyway, I digress....No, that is not the premise. I'm curious if he can find any place where those who practice it say you have to shut down or turn off the mind? There is a whopping big difference between quieting or stopping the thoughts swirling around in your mind, and becoming unconscious! We've covered this many times already before. So you can see your source doesn't know what he's talking about, and you quote his mistakes as though they are credible.Ray Whoever said:
You see, I think these folks, and yourself included, mistakenly identify the thoughts you have with consciousness itself. That's the source of the problem, I believe. You imagine that if you aren't having active thoughts, words inside your head, mental objects you are looking at and considering, that you will cease to be home! That you will go blank. Your house will be empty. I honestly believe that imagination terrifies those like yourself, and so all this phobic imagination about demons jumping into you to put a face on that fear.
I would really like it if you and your friends would actually listen to what those who practice this say about what it actually is, rather than these unsupported ideas of those without experience (or have had failed meditation practice and assume it's all what his experience was). What happens is that, once again, awareness increases! You become more conscious, more present, more alert, more aware, more clear, more stable, more centered, more grounded, and so forth. You don't "blank out", where the mind "shuts down". NO!!! The mind doesn't "shut down", it "wakes up". That is the complete opposite of this misinformation you believe over the words of those who practice it. I am speaking from actual experience, not my opinions about what meditation is.
Ok, so he is saying only "spontaneous" mystical experiences are valid?Ray Whoever said:
That's interesting, actually. I do actually find it interesting to get behind the thought processes of those who are opposed to mystical practices in Christianity, and the rationale for it. This is interesting to me, and why in particular I wanted to respond. Let me explain. First, I believe any mystical experience, be that spontaneous or ones which occur through meditation practices come from God. They do not come from the egoic self trying to produce an experience. They are all "God initiated", in fact. What meditation practice does is basically make you more open for God come to you. It makes us less blocked. There was a teacher who speaking of Enlightenment said that "Enlightenment happens as an accident". What meditation practice does is it makes you "accident prone". It makes you God prone, or Spirit prone. But you cannot manufacture the Spirit of God.
You will note in his example of Peter in prayer, how he fell into a state of religious ecstasy and had a vision? Bingo! That's what happens in meditation. You notice the conditions of what Peter was doing when this vision from God came to him? He was "in prayer". Does this critic Ray Whoever not consider that Peter was in fact actually doing something when it happened? And this is really what meditation is, being "in prayer". And so as we are "in prayer", in meditation, as Peter was, we are in a place of receptivity to allow God to illuminate us, that place where revelation happens, that place where we are open to Spirit. Of course it comes from God! All we are doing is making ourselves more available to hear and receive.
There is also the spontaneous peak experience, such as when Saul was on the road to Damascus. These typically happen because of some deep inner conflict that puts the person into some manner of internal crisis, and some, any, seemingly little event can flip that trigger point which spontaneously both releases all of it, while simultaneously allowing God or Light to flood into them. They momentarily "let go", release what they are holding, and it opens the door to God! There is this common action in both the "random" or spontaneous peak experience or encounter with God, and what occurs in a deliberate practice of deep prayer, or meditation as it were. It is a dual motion that occurs, one of release and receive. All of this is of course contained within scripture. "I die that I may live". You let go, and God comes.
You don't produce or manufacture Spirit. The only thing you do in meditation is to present yourself empty of your self-clinging so that you may be open to and receive God. You see it in Paul, you see it in Peter and others. You see it in Jesus. When I practice meditation, all I am doing is getting out of the way and letting God in, so to speak. And this letting go, is like the layers of an onion, with yet another layer to pull back and expose to God. Everytime this happens, more of what God is becomes exposed to the fully aware, fully conscious mind in meditation.
NEVER are you supposed to blank out, because at such a point you are not receptive to God, you aren't home. You are absent. Mediation becomes an active exchange between your mind, body, and soul with God, with Spirit, receiving and returning. In order for that to occur, you have to be fully Aware. It is an exchange of Love. You have to be fully conscious, fully present in mind, in awareness, for that to happen. If you're too busy thinking about other crap, you're not present. If you're unconscious, your not present. You see?
All of this again, is me speaking directly from my own experience using my own words to describe it. Your "analyst" is ignorant of any of the reality of this, and completely, utterly misses the mark.
According to whom? There is much wrong in this sentence. If you are in prayer seeking God, then you are in that sanction and protection. And what is this "trance state" he imagines? That word in Acts 11 translated trance is actually the word ecstasy. Religious ecstasy is not "going blank", zoning out, and all the rest that the term in his and your imagination means. Again, though, show how if it someone doing this in any fashion is "extremely dangerous". Based on what?Ray Whoever said:
Sure, anyone in meditation who is opened to God will receive God. But you have to be open. None of it happens against your will, dude! You can, and in fact do, block God all the time. The practice is to teach you to be able to continually release yourself to God, so God fills you. That's all it is. "Pray without ceasing", says Paul. That is something YOU DO. The result, is what God does.Ray Whoever said:
Anyway, I've covered enough here to make my point. I can only hope you actually give some credence to the words of someone who clearly has a great deal more knowledge and experience with this than those "research analysts" you pull off the Internet. I am infinitely more qualified to speak about this, and could easily write a book over a thousand pages on this. You really should listen to those who are actual authorities on this material.
I wanted to come back to finishing my comments on this post, keying in on your pounding the point of coming back to scripture as the "topmost basis", as you set aside all other factors and considerations that factor in as you repeat your insistence of conformity to your ideas. Always, throughout this discussion both Sojourner and I, as well WellNamed, and others, do in fact cite scripture supporting the practice.
But just as some people are "not ready" to do certain spiritual practices, such as your friend possibly, some people are not ready, not prepared, not able yet to see and hear what scripture itself teaches. They are not ready yet, because the vessel of their heart and mind is not yet matured to be able to receive that teaching. They can't see it, even though they read the words on the page, even though they hear others declare the truth of it from their own experiences.
The Apostle Paul speaks about Christians who are not yet ready to receive the deeper truths, that they are still operating out of the flesh. "Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready." They argue amongst each other who is right, who's following the right teacher and who's not, and I'll add who's reading the Bible right and who is being deceived by the devil, etc. All of this black and white pounding of the pulpit, trying to show others are wrong in their chosen spiritual practices which are working well for them in their relationship with Spirit, is operating from the flesh.
You ignore what others teach you from their own experiences that meditation practice is the utter laying down of the ego before God in the deepest forms of self-surrender, and you instead declare without any support that we are trying in our own efforts to become God, that this is an effort of the flesh and not of Spirit. In reality, it is the effort to "be right", to "obey scripture" in the manner you do, ignoring the heart, ignoring listening from within to Spirit and be led to hear and see through those eyes in your judgment of others, that is in fact an effort of the flesh. Being religious, seeking to follow scripture in order to "please God", is an effort of the flesh. It has yourself as the focal point, to be saved, to be righteous, to be a chosen one. Your salvation, your home in the sky, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I do understand this as an early stage of development, where you begin by trying to conform to the rules, to please the parent for self-reward, etc., but it is not spiritual maturity. This is what Paul was saying that they were not yet ready to receive what they heard. They were not yet in a place where they could understand it. The heart has yet to open and blossom, where these things are understood from within. Then, the words will begin to make sense to the heart, and the heart will open into Spirit itself. Prior to this opening, the words are heard in this "worldly" context, this "babes in Christ" where they have learned a few truths, and then from this point of view in their immaturity try to "be right" in believing "correct doctrine", follow the right teacher, etc, etc. It's all external to them, yet. It's still the "milk", not the solid food of a spiritual path.
The "solid food" is that which grounds and centers someone in Truth itself, in Spirit, not in interpretations of verses being right or wrong. I can see why some truth is withheld from these babes, those who still are functioning from the worldly, or fleshly mind where it seeks to achieve and attain through its own efforts. They do not yet understand that it is a principle of letting go of control, and mistake the words to mean some form of external control over their thoughts and actions. To try to "find the truth in scripture" with their earthly mind. It is in fact an effort of the grasping mind seeking to possess for itself the truth that they seek to find their sense of security in.
This marks out the "true-believer" syndrome, as I'll call it. It's where their sense of security, of stability, is being tightly affixed to a set of beliefs, "correct doctrine", as it were. If these ideas, these beliefs are challenged by other points of view, they will fight tenaciously to maintain, protect, and preserve "the truth!" as they hold it in their minds. To have those ideas moved, or shown to be partial or incomplete, or in any ways not the rocksolid fortress they have made them to be for themselves, threaten their stability, their sense of self-identity, their being. They would be lost without their beliefs! And so what ensues in defense of these is irrationality, inhospitable attitudes and hostility towards other beliefs and practices outside those of their own. It is a worldly, fleshly approach. It is the effort of the flesh to try to seize the Truth of God for themselves.
Then there are those whose foundation is Faith. They are able to withstand the beliefs they hold to be true to be challenged or changed. They rest in a deep inner sense, an intuition of Spirit, where they simply trust and look to that which is beyond their own mind's ability to comprehend. They have beliefs too, but they act more as supports or ways to talk about their faith. Their beliefs or ideas about God can be shown to either be wrong, or incomplete, or not yet mature, and withstand the challenge because they trust in the sense that their hearts tell them, even though they cannot yet truly plumb the depths of what that is impressing upon them from within themselves. Beliefs are more easily changed for them, whereas the "true believer" must fight and defend to the last! This person is far more able to adapt and grow than the 'true believer' is who is set to shatter when the wind blows hard enough against their structures.
Then there are those who move through that faith in their hearts into direct experience of That which their faith intuited. Faith becomes replaced by experience. And these are the mystics. It is no longer a matter of believing the "right things", or needing the structures of beliefs to be so well-defined and coherent and compressible, because they are now seen clearly as mere supports for the mind in order to talk about experience which is both wholly transcendent to them, and yet seen within all truths in relative light. The mystic is a person of faith, who through that faith has realized the Truth itself, both within themselves and all that is. They do not simply rest in their faith anymore, but in a direct and immediate Knowledge. They move through their own development to where their Ground is Spirit itself.
So in the above you have stages: belief, faith, experience, and adaptation. The true believer is not a person of faith, but a fundamentalist who finds their security in the things they believe in. They "trust in the external authority". They make God, the anchor, but they fail to see that they are not yet opened to faith, which is internal. It is still resting in their ideas about things. Faith is of the heart. Faith is a heart knowledge. And faith then opens to experience. And experience then opens one to transformation of all of who they are, body, mind, soul, and spirit.
All of this to say, what can be understood through the eyes of faith, and the eyes of experience simply cannot be received in the vessel that is not yet ready to receive "solid food", those who are still seeking to find the right thing to believe in. They may have had a moment of faith that opened them to God, but then in their immaturity they try to grasp God with the mind, and not the heart. They became a "true believer", and are still drinking only the milk.
I'll continue offering thoughts to the rest you say as I feel inspired to.
It is true that the soul is eternal and the body temporal, but this does not in any way mean that the body has no part in spiritual growth and development, or should be minimized. Try not eating food or drinking water for a few months and let me know how that profited you spiritually?
There are those who would disagree. What is setting your mind on Christ but a focus on the spiritual?
It doesn't need to be. But it is consistent with his teachings. If it leads to you realizing Christ in your life, it's following the teachings and doctrines of Christ. Period.
I'm still waiting for you to show where it is inconsistent. Please do so, if you can. If not, your point is forfeited.
I would hardly consider myself a master, but I am maturing little by little You cannot "wrap it in one and conclude both of you have the same experience as Mr. Sherif"? I'm not sure what you meant to say. It doesn't quite make sense worded this way. Are you saying you cannot reconcile how Mr. Sherif had a different experience from what we do? I've addressed that many times. Are you saying you don't think our experience is valid because it's not what Mr. Sherif's was?
Bottom line, the variable here is the individuals, not the practice itself. You cannot take the negative experience of a few and say the practice as a whole is bad. Drinking cyanide for humans is bad. Everyone who drinks it dies. That's bad. But riding a bicycle is not bad, if you are one who in fact can ride one without falling off and hurting yourself. Others can't, and they shouldn't ride bikes in that case. Bikes are in fact good, because a great many people who ride them benefit from them. Does your friend saying bicycles are evil because he fell off one and hurt his knee?
Same thing with meditation. Meditation is a beneficial practice for those who it is the right practice for. This isn't hard to follow or understand. It's quite simple. No need to make all this stuff up about it being against scripture, opening yourself to the devil, and all that jazz.
Scripture completely supports it. My long post before this one today explains why some are unable to recognize that fact.
If it is done in conjunction with a spiritual intent, then yes it does. If you're just exercising the body, then it is for the benefit of the body. These practices which engage the body in a spiritual pursuit, does benefit the soul. Absolutely, yes.
It's not all or none, as you make this into a black and white thing for others. It's not. I am saying the "novice" or the "infants in Christ", as Paul calls them, are unable to understand what the solid food is. I'm not removing myself from the word of God, but realizing it spiritually. I don't approach it as "milk". But you see that if I'm not drinking the milk, but rather eating solid food, to continues Paul's analogy, that I am "removing myself from the word of God". You see only milk, and to you anything other that what you know is to be turning our back on the faith.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where the practice is inconsistent with anything Jesus taught. I have looked, and looked, asked, and asked, and am being handed nothing but handfuls of sand instead of something of substance. What you claim that it should not be practiced, is simply not supported by scripture.
The priority is first your spiritual development. Then, the rest becomes illuminated from that opening. To call reading the bible spiritual development is not valid. Anyone can read the bible, but it doesn't mean you hear it or see it. That only happens after the eyes of the heart is opened through faith and experience. See my post before this one.
Shadow of Liberty
Member
Contemplative Christianity is simply the creation of a better wholesome reality. ; )
Yoshua
Well-Known Member
Hi Windwalker,
It is not surprising to hear a Christian who became Atheist, and other beliefs. As I converse with the member (before and until now) who is inside the cult churches/or other beliefs, I’m familiar with the reason why they shifted to false faiths. The prime reason is--they did not see the truth due to ignorance of the word of God, and weak foundation of his faith. Scripture is secondary to his faith. Seeking supernatural satisfaction as God speaking to them in replacement of the Scripture; Signs and wonders. Other reasons are life insecurity who finds his needs for companionship and love who will fill their emptiness. They fall on the other faith so they may fill their spiritual needs whatever it takes. But some who shifted to the other faiths see the light of the truth--as they can see vividly the error of the faith that they embraced before.
Claiming the truth that comes out of the mouth of a believer is a universal thing. The “Truth” that they claiming may not be justified as the Truth of Jesus. How would you know what he believe is the truth? Yes, it’s nice to hear someone saying he knows the truth, but what is the truth?From what I hear of your friend in regard to his experience with his Yoga practices, he is in at the end of Chapter One in the above story (just substitute whatever system someone "believed in". The story is universal). He takes his experience as defining what Yoga is as a whole, the "Great Satan" in the story above. This assessment of Yoga and meditation is reflective of the person, not the practice itself, just as in my story above. It lacks any balance of reason, and is reactionary, simply switching out one religious belief, hope, for another.
I'll give you a last example of this in reality. A friend of mine who was a graduate with me from Bible College had become an atheist in later years and said to me while we were out at lunch, "I'm so glad I know the truth now!". I chuckled and smiled at him and said, "It's funny, I recall you saying the exact same words when we were in school together." He paused for a moment, then replied, "But the difference is now I really DO have the truth!".
I'll continue my response later, but I have break for now.
No believer of such faith will confess that his faith is not the truth. The real question here is: What is the truth that Jesus was saying? Is it the truth that the basis is the word in the Scripture or not? Some will say that the Scripture is just a secondary thing or they will treat the Scripture as irrelevant to their faith, though some will prioritize the Scriptures as their guidance and standard of truth that they embraced.
What is "truth" to them, and what is not "truth" to them? How they will know the "truth"? and what is not?
John 18:37-38
37. Pilate therefore said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."
38. Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?"
And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, "I find no guilt in Him.
This is why Jesus stated this passage (below)--to those many who will claim they have the truth. False teachings by false prophets will come out and deceive many. Jesus is very particular with the spiritual direction for his followers; the obedience , commitment and submission to His teachings are very important to Him.
Matt. 7:20-21
20. "So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21. "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.
Thanks
Yoshua
Well-Known Member
Hi Sojourner,
Yes I know that they do such a practice as the sacred communion with the Divine. A Buddhist, Hindu, TM will do a sacred communion to whom? Is it to Jesus?
Now, if we apply the yoga as a communion with the divine as a tenet for Christianity, why allow & apply yoga as a meditative practice for Christianity?
Based on your analogy, people can drive and pass thru the road or streets to arrive in a certain destination (Los Angeles). Could those people who are driving the car can own the streets/road which prevent others cannot pass through it? Of course not, Isn’t it? Because everybody can pass through it—going to L.A..
There are many roads, yes, but we cannot own all the roads, and take it as your private road. Jesus has its road and a sure path of destination proceeding to Him. Why take a lot of other roads and own it, if there is a road directed to Jesus? Therefore we should trust God’s road so we make our path straight--as our faith must be straight to God.
Prov. 14:12
12. There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.
Prov. 3:5-6
5. Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And do not lean on your own understanding.
6. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.
Oh my! So the Scripture is a joke and to be fun laughing at. Not everything is spelled it in Scripture, then why does so? I believed it is a matter of acceptance, submission and obedience to God through His word.
Thanks
Yoshua
Well-Known Member
Ray Yungen, author, speaker and research analyst has studied religious movements for the last twenty years. He is available for radio and television interviews and for seminars, conferences and college assemblies. His exuberance for life and his love for Jesus Christ and for people are evident in his writing. Mr. Yungen resides in Salem, Oregon.
Thanks
Yoshua
Well-Known Member
All bread mystically become one loaf? sounds like the miracle of feeding five thousand of Jesus. I don’t see anything with the Lord’s Supper like the feeding of five thousand. Maybe, you got that belief from other source that is not in the Scripture. If I’m truly against the Bible, why don’t you show your evidence to me, and I’m curious to know about it.
That was a Roman Catholic Catechism made by man. Your interpretation of not allowing metaphors as the right interpretation seemed backfired to you. You choose what you like, and treat the Scripture as a notebook or a novel, just picking up what may fit to your belief such as the real body and blood, this is an obvious faulty interpretation.
Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,
"Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. (CCC, 1376).
Matt. 26:29
29. "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."
How come it becomes an actual/real blood of Christ if it is stated that the liquid is the fruit of the vine?
Ok. I’m not against the architectural details of the upper room or place that they held their Supper. What I did not get from you is--if Jesus and His disciples went to that place, and at the same time (presumably) there is an event known as the Roman Symposium, what makes Jesus and His disciples practice of the Lord’s Supper as pagan? Do Jesus followed the pagan practices? I think this is what I need for you to answer.
Thanks
Yoshua
Well-Known Member
This is debatable, my friend, I have heard one pastor commenting that as husband, you can do anything with your wife. My mind seemed shock of what he is saying. In everything we do, the measure is—if God will be pleased with what you are doing. What if a believer did something not pleasing in God’s eyes? and for him very pleasing to his own eyes, would we believe that he is filled with the spirit of God, or guided by the Spirit of God?
In spiritual life, it is either you believe in the word of God (Scripture)--following it or not. There are a lot of carnal Christians today due to their inability to beat their body, and allow the Spirit to work in their lives.
This is the reason why we should need the guidance of His word, what more if you ignore and not prioritize the Scripture?
No specification on what to do just like intimacy with couples, what more if without Scripture? You get lost.Matt. 26:41
41. "Keep watching and praying, that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
We should not worry about what we will do or the specifications, what’s the use of the Holy Spirit guidance?
Therefore, a believer who does not consider the Spirit of God as sufficient enough to guide him, and resort to other ways that may fill his flesh as practicing other teachings (not according to the Scripture)--is truly not sensitive to His word, and lack of spiritual discernment from God.
Ps.119:105
105. Thy word is a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path.
How does a follower of Christ apply this Scripture “Thy word is a lamp and light to his path” seriously?
Half hearted, or whole heart following His word, or sometimes, or as needed only? Let this question be pondered to our heart and mind.
It is so easy to say what you have mentioned.
Doing it right and what works for oneself in spiritual does not make sense, if you do not submit to His word. It may only works for you because it feels good spiritually and not for God. Cult churches also claimed doing it right and work for them. There are a lot of things that can be working for a believer, thus seems right once you are not submitting to anyone else. That believer cannot identify what is not right and right; demonic and non-demonic; good or bad. I even ask this many times that if Satanist feel it is the right thing to do, and works for him, is it still commendable to you? How about the mass killing of Jews by Hitler, Hitler thinks it is right, people followed him think also that is the right thing to, and it is truly works.Where is your parameter, dividing line, the distinction, identification, justification, validity, authentication…. Where?
Prov. 14:12
12. There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.
Prov. 3:5-6
5. Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And do not lean on your own understanding.
6. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.
Thanks
Yoshua
Well-Known Member
1 Cor. 12:11-12
11. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.
12. For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
Sorry to say that your phrase that ‘we will be like Jesus as fully God’ is not supported by being the body of Christ. It’s faulty. Did you notice the big letter G “fully God”? as it is we are also a God like the Father God. We (human) don’t have the capability to become like the Father God.
Yet you find Christ in your practice? Yes, there’s a lot of people like you--who claimed they have Christ, but sidestepping with another practices; though still continuing what they doing--which seems right to them. In the case of Mr. Michael Sherif, he tasted it and experienced it, then awakened to the truth. He committed and submitted himself totally to Christ. How about those people who shifted to another faith, would you conclude that they shifted because they are not suited and not ready?
Did you see any account or Scripture that those who shifted their faith to Jesus as His followers (including His disciples) like Nicodemus, Mary Magdalene and others—are not ready and was not suited in their former way of life. Can you say that reason?
Yes, New Agers cannot have the same objective as Christians. The mystical silence has a similarity and connection with the New Age practices. For you info. The mystical silence for you is a Christian application, but not for the others. Contemplative in terminology is a general term like the word ‘meditation.’ Contemplative for us is different from what contemplative is for you. This is why I should go down to specify about mantra and yoga, including the Centering/Breathe prayer.
What is “turned off”? Is this also the same application on how yoga forced a practitioner to divert his attention into something? You turned off your senses and focus on another thing. I have a better illustration (below) my answer to Windwalker regarding Buddhist meditation as similar with turned off and emptying mind.
While certain instances in the Bible describe mystical experiences, I see no evidence anywhere of God sanctioning man-initiated mysticism. Legitimate mystical experiences were always initiated by God to certain individuals for certain revelations and was never based on a method for the altering of consciousness. In Acts 11:5, Peter fell into a trance while in prayer. But it was God, not Peter, who initiated the trance and facilitated it. By Ray Yungen
This is a very simple example of trance which I witnessed before. It is clear that God initiated it. What I've observe to those who practiced mystical practices, they are the one who initiate and point it to God as God initiated it for them—to do it.
Twisted interpretation? No, actually it is not. What we are looking here is the application, the situation and the validity of the occasion who initiated the mystical experience to the people. This is how we should check the Scripture, not as we do it because it works.Oh my. Look at the content on what he is pointing at.
The mind is what he is talking about; the application that must be in accord in one place. I believed that is the outpouring of the Spirit as they do speaking in tongues.
Have you seen a person in trance? Sleep is not the same as trance. He knows what is trance because what he defined is the same what is defined in dictionary.
trance
noun: trance; plural noun: trances
1. a half-conscious state characterized by an absence of response to external stimuli, typically as induced by hypnosis or entered by a medium.
He identified which is from God and which not is from God.
1 Cor. 1:18
18. For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
What is bread? Did bread is a need for our body to prevent us from starving? If that is you reasoning, taking it now as literal as ‘bread,’ where in the Lord’s Prayer taught us to pray for our needs? Where?
How about in other country that does not eat bread? Did the Lord’s Prayer should not be applied to them? How about those who eat rice and corn?
Ok. That is a good point. How can I generalize something that is out of context, and a faulty interpretation? Contemplative teaching pushing me to believe in mantra and yoga, without studying what is inside those practices.
There are Scriptures that warned us to test the spirit, not believe in the doctrine of man/philosophy, avoidance of such practices, and warned us about false teachings etc… The Lord’s Prayer is a guide on how to pray, and not what to pray as dogmatically using the Lord’s Prayer, a personal prayer. The following are some examples on how Paul pray to Philippians and Ephesians:Phil. 1:9-11
9. And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment,
10. so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ;
11. having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
1 Eph. 1:15-19
15. For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you, and your love for all the saints,
16. do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers;
17. that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.
18. I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,
19. and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might
How will categorize those prayer needs in the Lord’s Prayer?
Intercession is indicated in the Scripture like this one:
2 Cor. 1:11
11. you also joining in helping us through your prayers, that thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf for the favor bestowed upon us through the prayers of many.
Yoga and mantra cannot be mixed nor attach with intercessory prayer--quoted with Scriptures. They must be proved in the light of the Scripture. Proving the Scripture is not just by generalizing and dogmatically followed--in a literal way. Go into a deeper study through research, then compare and check it with the Scripture. Contemplative teaching/mystical followers are like paying their credit card bill without checking it—as blindly paying it.
Thanks
Yoshua
Well-Known Member
Do you mean that the narrative pertaining to Jesus and the demoniacs is just a stories and not a real fact that transpired in Jesus time?By Yoshua
May I ask the following questions for clarification purposes:
1.) Did you believe that the account (in the Bible) about Jesus is real (really happened)?
2.) Did you believe that the casting out of demons (in the Bible) by Jesus is real (really happened)?
3.) Did you believe that Jesus believed evil spirit as unclean spirit?
Thanks
Yoshua
Well-Known Member
Colors are made by God, as different colors can be applied as different races or kind of people around the world. Whatever color they might have, they still look up to God as the maker of the colors–as Creator. Any attempt to take what is heard from other perspective and making them fit is their own choice--was his freedom of choice--given by the color Creator. The color cannot be in another color because they created that way as their genes. All colors shall bow unto their maker, submit, follow and obey His will. This is my simple analogy in your posted color.A Red meme believer cannot see or understand an Orange level Jesus, let alone a Green or Teal or Turquoise Jesus. However, the Green or Teal can in fact see and understand the earlier stages of perception and thought, because they had to grow through them themselves in order to hit the next 'higher' or more developed stage. They "transcend but include" the earlier stage and therefore can understand how it can see that way. It doesn't go the other way around however, since Red has not yet become Amber, or Orange, or Green. They can only attempt to take what is heard from those perspectives and make them fit into what they only can relate to in their Red world, which is other Reds or earlier. So, it is ultimately futile to try to debate the higher realities, but they do in fact serve other functions. They can serve as an "omega point", to pull on the earlier levels, and so forth, plus help solidify and create stronger structure for later understandings to support and build upon moving to the next stage beyond itself, etc. And that pretty much describes my participation.
Thanks
Yoshua
Well-Known Member
You read his books and I believed you will learn something.
Your comment is faster than researching what is New Age. As easy as Wikipedia may answer you that New Age used the methods same as yoga. No doubt about it.Has this guy's many years of research led him to the conclusion that the New Age movement began in the 14th century?
You can see why simply calling yourself a "research analyst", says nothing about your actual depth of qualification or skill level? Back when I was in college I worked in a hospital's medical records' department where my title was "deficiency analyst". Sounds impressive! The job was flipping through the charts and finding where the doctor needed to add a signature or dictate a report. "Analyst".
The New Age movement is a non-religious spiritual movement that developed in Western nations during the 1970s. Precise scholarly definitions of the movement differ in their emphasis, largely as a result of its highly eclectic structure. Nevertheless, the movement is characterised by a holistic view of the cosmos, a belief in an emergent Age of Aquarius—from which the movement gets its name—an emphasis on self-spirituality and the authority of the self, a focus on healing (particularly with alternative medicine), a belief in channeling, and an adoption of a "New Age science" that makes use of elements of what adherants call the new physics.
The New Age movement evolved from an array of earlier religious movements and philosophies, in particular nineteenth-century groups such as the Theosophical Society and Gurdjieff. It also incorporates strands from metaphysics, perennial philosophy, self-help psychology, and various Indian teachings such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Yoga.[1] In the 1970s, it developed a social and political component.[2] Its central precepts have been described as "drawing on both Eastern and Western spiritual and metaphysical traditions and infusing them with influences from self-help and motivational psychology".[3] The term New Age refers to the coming astrological Age of Aquarius.[4]
The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions ranging from monotheism through pantheism, pandeism, panentheism, and polytheism combined with science and Gaia philosophy; particularly archaeoastronomy, astrology, ecology, environmentalism, the Gaia hypothesis, psychology, and physics. New Age practices and philosophies sometimes draw inspiration from major world religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Chinese folk religion, Christianity, Hinduism, Sufism (Islam), Judaism (especially Kabbalah), Sikhism; with strong influences from East Asian religions, Esotericism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Idealism, Neopaganism, New Thought, Spiritualism, Theosophy, Universalism, and Wisdom tradition.[5]
New Age is considered a religion with 3.5 million adherents worldwide according to Adherents.com [6] and similar organizations. The numbers may be higher, but there are various practitioners who identify with other religions. Very few suggest it is approximately one billion.[7]Wikipedia –New Age
I’m commenting in advance about the New Age who draws practices and philosophies from Christianity and other religions. Kindly take note that they are the one who distort the Christianity, same as the cult churches (who identified as Christians). On the contrary, to those who claimed they are Christians (follower of Christ) draw practices, philosophies and inspiration from New Age teachings. Hope this make it clear.
Ok. No shutting down (see below -emptying mind). As we know, the practice of meditative mantra, choosing a sacred word, gazing an object or a light etc.. is a form of diverting his mind attention to this practices plus mantra chanting, and breathing technique. Those practices has been wrapped up in a nice box as tagged with new names as Centering, Breathe Prayer and other mystical contemplative techniques.
In the first place, we traced this technique in Zen, Tm, Buddhist, Hindus and similar with New Age.
1 Peter 1:13
13. Therefore, gird your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1 Cor. 2:5
5. that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
Windwalker, Yes, Peter is praying;he prayed on how Jesus taught them to pray, and not the same as you are doing. How can you match your prayer with his prayer if in the first place you do not agree with the Scripture as the infallible word of God. There is no Centering Prayer during the time of Peter. Father Thomas Keating founded the Centering Prayer just in our time.Ok, so he is saying only "spontaneous" mystical experiences are valid?
First, I believe any mystical experience, be that spontaneous or ones which occur through meditation practices come from God. They do not come from the egoic self trying to produce an experience. They are all "God initiated", in fact. What meditation practice does is basically make you more open for God come to you. It makes us less blocked. There was a teacher who speaking of Enlightenment said that "Enlightenment happens as an accident". What meditation practice does is it makes you "accident prone". It makes you God prone, or Spirit prone. But you cannot manufacture the Spirit of God.
You will note in his example of Peter in prayer, how he fell into a state of religious ecstasy and had a vision? Bingo! That's what happens in meditation. You notice the conditions of what Peter was doing when this vision from God came to him? He was "in prayer". Does this critic Ray Whoever not consider that Peter was in fact actually doing something when it happened? And this is really what meditation is, being "in prayer". And so as we are "in prayer", in meditation, as Peter was, we are in a place of receptivity to allow God to illuminate us, that place where revelation happens, that place where we are open to Spirit. Of course it comes from God! All we are doing is making ourselves more available to hear and receive.
Your message seems quite nice to hear spiritually, but goes in different direction with what Jesus is teaching. Let us check your statement:
Did Jesus teach us first to use the meditation to become empty, then you may be able to receive God. Where is the Scripture speaking about that new teaching/doctrine?
This is what I’m pointing out ever since on why taking the Scripture fro granted and instead twist it with Buddhist doctrine of “emptying.”?
Empty Mind’ is the primary goal of most meditation programs.
Once you are able to hold the state of no thought, it becomes possible to focus your mind indefinitely on one point.
You become able to enter higher meditations easily and remain in them.
Buddhists call empty mind meditation Vipassana, or Anapanasati. They devote themselves to years, sometimes an entire lifetime, of dedicated practice to achieve the state where thoughts disappear completely or no longer arise.
Traditional Empty Mind Meditation
The traditional Empty Mind method is quite simple, but very difficult to achieve.
1. Sit in a meditation posture. Full lotus, half lotus or Burmese positions are usual, but you can sit on a straight backed chair.
2. Use abdominal breathing. Your abdomen expands on the in breath; it contracts on the out breath.
3. Observe the breath coming in your nostrils and going out of your mouth.
4. Count your breaths from 1 to 9. At 9 begin counting over again at 1.
5. Observe the thoughts passing through your mind until you experience a small gap between two thoughts where there is no thought.
6. Focus gently in those gaps, making them last longer and longer until no more thoughts remain. Buddha used this method to reach Enlightenment. It has been used successfully by millions of practitioners since. All it takes is dedicated effort and perseverance over years of practice. You will eventually get there. exploremeditation.com
Mindfulness of Amitābha Buddha (from wikipedia, Buddhist meditation)
In the Pure Land tradition of Buddhism, repeating the name of Amitābha Buddha is traditionally a form of Mindfulness of the Buddha (Skt. buddhānusmṛti). This term was translated into Chinese as nianfo (念佛), by which it is popularly known in English. The practice is described as calling the buddha to mind by repeating his name, to enable the practitioner to bring all his or her attention upon that buddha (samādhi).[14] This may be done vocally or mentally, and with or without the use of Buddhist prayer beads. Those who practice this method often commit to a fixed set of repetitions per day, often from 50,000 to over 500,000.[15] According to tradition, the second patriarch of the Pure Land school, Shandao, is said to have practiced this day and night without interruption, each time emitting light from his mouth. Therefore he was bestowed with the title "Great Master of Light" (大師光明) by the Tang Dynasty emperor Gao Zong (高宗).[16]
In addition, in Chinese Buddhism there is a related practice called the "dual path of Chán and Pure Land cultivation", which is also called the "dual path of emptiness and existence."[17] As taught by Venerable Nan Huaijin, the name of Amitābha Buddha is recited slowly, and the mind is emptied out after each repetition. When idle thoughts arise, the phrase is repeated again to clear them. With constant practice, the mind is able to remain peacefully in emptiness, culminating in the attainment of samādhi.[18]
Jesus said “deny” yourself and not “empty” yourself.
Mark 8:34
34. And He summoned the multitude with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
The right process in biblical way is to believe, repent, receive/obey, commit, submit God first. After this, the activity of a Christian is to pray, worship, exhort, intercede, giving thanks, adore God, and others. It is obvious that the disciples and all the believers at the time of Jesus--did not do the meditation (first) before receiving Jesus Christ. We may do a prayer of acceptance in the initial stage of receiving him, but not as your language of meditation--as following the ways of Buddhist chanting mantra, and breathing (Breathe prayer/Centering Prayer).
If you will write a book, make it to the point that it is supported with Scriptures. No man is above the authority of the Scripture, but the Scripture is under the authority of God. No Scripture is simply a man made philosophies adopted from certain belief/faiths. Denying the Scripture is denying God’s word.
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.
Thanks