What is Contemplative Christianity?

[sojourner]

The Emergent church goal of spirituality is totally different from the goal of Christianity. The Great Commission is for Christianity, and for Emergent Church is--All is one.

Thanks.

You misapprehend and twist the meaning of the great commission, making into some kind of conformity thing, instead of an inclusive thing. It's vile and disingenuous, IMO.

 

[sojourner]

Is Thomas Merton a theologically sound person?

Absolutely.

Is he a Buddhist or Christian?

He was Christian, who had a broad concept for humanity and human spirituality -- who didn't attempt to place people in boxes of "right" or "wrong."

Quotes by Thomas Merton:
“I’m deeply impregnated with Sufism.” (Merton, The Springs of Contemplation, p. 266)

“And I believe that by openness to Buddhism, to Hinduism, and to these great Asian traditions, we stand a wonderful chance of learning more about the potentiality of our own traditions, because they have gone, from the natural point of view, so much deeper into this than we have.” (Quote by Merton from the book, Lost Christianity by Jacob Needleman)

“I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity … I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can.” (Merton in David Steindl-Rast’s “Recollection of Thomas Merton’s Last Days in the West” – Monastic Studies, 7:10, 1969)

These are all excellent examples of his ability to see beyond perceived or unimportant differences, to the God within us all.

 

[sojourner]

This is not Christianity.

You don't have a solid understanding of the scope of Christianity.

A panentheistic theology? I thought you like sound and solid theology.

Panentheistic theology is solid.

thus you contemplate between this concept and the true meaning of the Scripture.

There is no one, "true meaning" of scripture.

Did Jesus, a panentheist?

I believe so.

A Hindu thought?

Does it matter? Christianity -- like Hinduism -- is, at its roots, an Eastern religion.

McFague’s panentheistic theology stresses God as highly involved in the world (though distinct from it), and concerned (as seen in the life of the paradigmatic Jesus, for example) to see all of it brought to full enjoyment of the richness of life as originally intended in creation. This is not the omnipotent, omniscient and immutable God of classical theism and neo-orthodoxy: for McFague, God is not transcendent in any sense that we can know. This has led some critics to ask whether McFague’s theology leaves us with anything that may properly be called God at all. British theologian Daphne Hampson notes ‘the more I ponder this book [Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age], the less clear I am that it is theistic’.[19]

A theology where God as creator does not stand ‘over against’ the creation tends to shift the focus away from God as personal. In which Jesus is a paradigm individual rather than the unique bearer of godlikeness. The role of the Spirit is emphasised in her theology, though there is little sense in which this is uniquely the spirit of Jesus. God as Spirit is not primarily the initiator of creation, but ‘the empowering, continuing breath of life’.[20]

It follows, too, from this metaphor of God as involved in the world that traditional notions of sin and evil are discarded. God is so much part of the process of the world and its agencies’ or entities’ ‘becoming’ that it is difficult to speak of ‘natural disasters’ as sin: they are simply the chance (as viewed by human observers) trial-and-error ways in which the world develops. As McFague sees it, ‘within this enlarged perspective, we can no longer consider evil only in terms of what benefits or hurts me or my species. In a world as large, as complex, and with as many individuals and species as our planet has, the good of some will inevitably occur at the expense of others’.[21] And because the world is God’s body, evil occurs in and to God as well as to us and the rest of creation.[22]

Correspondingly, the notion of the individual in need of God’s salvation is anachronistic in a world ‘from’ which that individual no longer need to be saved, but rather ‘in’ which he or she need to learn how to live interrelatedly and interdependently. Redemption is downplayed, though not excluded: McFague emphasises, characteristically, that it ‘should include all dimensions of creation, not just human beings’ and that it is a fulfilment of that creation, not a rescue from it.[23] This of course brings about a radical shift in the significance of the cross and resurrection of Jesus, whose resurrection is primarily if not exclusively a validation of continued human embodiment. There is, too, an insistence on realised, not final, eschatology. The earth becomes the place ‘where we put down our roots’,[24] and we live with ‘the hope against hope’[25] that all will participate in the resurrection of all bodies. However, God is presently and permanently with humankind: we are ‘within the body of God whether we live or die’.[26]

That's a real good overview. Did you understand any of it, and why it's an important part of the constructive theological conversation? Or are you simply dismissing of it because you don't understand it, and it doesn't fall in line with what conservative Evangelicals have to say? Before you proceed too far down the "uninformed criticism" pathway, you might actually pick up a copies of McFague's Models of God and The Body of God and give them a good read. At least then you can formulate some solid critique, as opposed to your signature, "Nuh-uh!" approach.

 

[sojourner]

The gospel is extremely narrow?

The fundamentalist view of the gospel is, yes.

then what can you recommend aside from the gospel?

a more liberal, less narrow view of the gospel.

The gospel is judgmental or straightforward. When Jesus say "love your enemies" or "take out your eyes if your eyes caused you to sin," Is that judgmental?

No, but the usual fundamentalist interpretation of passages like "I am the way..." and "enter by the narrow gate..." are.

Did fundamentalist sourced their faith with the Scriptures, why accused them that they are not pointed for love, and insisting its own way?

Because they're very quick to point out that their interpretation is the only "right" one, and that their brand of Christianity is the only "right" one, and that we'd all better think and act as they do. That's "insisting on [their] own way."

I believed those who don't like the Scriptures (Jesus teachings/God's word) put to blame to those who believed in God's word.

This makes no sense.

 

[sojourner]

That concept is wrong.

See? Narrow, judgmental, and insisting on [your] own way, just as I mentioned in the post above. That concept is different from the one you hold. But not "wrong."

Jesus came here to say "creation" and "life" to us again?? Saying it and not saving who are lost?

Calling our attention to our true created selves does save us from being lost in our sinfulness, because it reconnects us to God.

Oh my. That is a deception from the enemy. John 3:16 says that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. God is waiting to come to Him and not just saying it. What is the worth of dying on the cross, and the suffering of Jesus for the sins of many if the salvation just by Saying it?

The cross is a personification of sacrificial love. Jesus sacrificed all for the sake of God's love.

 

[sojourner]

What did your Jesus tell you what to do?

Thanks

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the lonely, free the prisoner, include the outcast, welcome the stranger, lift the fallen, empower the disenfranchsed, heal the sick, love the loveless, proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. IOW: Love God and love neighbor as oneself.

 

[Windwalker]

Panentheistic theology is solid.

The Trinity is Panentheistic.

 

[Orbit]

News flash: God didn't write the Bible. We don't even have original texts most of the time, but copies. They were written by men. What is in the Bible was selected by men. Some texts made it in, some were left out. When you are chained to the Bible you are missing the entire point of spirituality. God is in your heart, NOT ON THE PAGE. Meditation is connecting with your heart. There is nothing evil about it. There is noting "unbiblical" about it. There is nothing harmful about it. You are straining at the gnat and swallowing a camel.

 

[Windwalker]

News flash: God didn't write the Bible. We don't even have original texts most of the time, but copies. They were written by men. What is in the Bible was selected by men. Some texts made it in, some were left out.

It's a leap of faith that says, without any external support mind you, that God miraculously guided the process that gave them the Protestant Bibles that they use in church today. So "through faith" they accept it as the "preserved word". This is of course circular reasoning, and ignored the other accepted Bibles that have different scriptures included, or excluded. Only THEIRS is the true word. It's so obvious it could bite the noses off their faces.

When you are chained to the Bible you are missing the entire point of spirituality.

They equate the Bible and reading it as spirituality itself. Just redefine the terms, and you're all set!

God is in your heart, NOT ON THE PAGE. Meditation is connecting with your heart. There is nothing evil about it. There is noting "unbiblical" about it. There is nothing harmful about it. You are straining at the gnat and swallowing a camel.

Reason will not prevail against the True Believer!

 

[InChrist]

The only cogent part of this quote is that the father "certainly does not kick the wayward son out of the family." I might add that the father also waits and watches until the prodigal returns. Not until suppertime. Not until he gets tired. Not until some arbitrarily-set date of "Armageddon." Until the prodigal returns. He doesn't judge the prodigal. He doesn't cast aspersions on the prodigal. He lovingly waits.

That is true the Father lovingly waits, but in the parable the son does return. What about those who refuse to return? How does your universalist perspective deal with those who do not return, who willfully reject God and His goodness, choosing instead to remain in the mire and in what the scriptures describe as sin and wickedness? What do you do with all the scriptures that do speak of judgment and/or a day of judgment?

 

[InChrist]

"New life" = "restored life." We are not naturally "in sin."

Before confessing, repentance, and forgiveness we are in sin... after this comes new, restored life in Christ.(Matt. 3:6; Mark 8:38; Luke 3:3; 15:7; 24:47; John 8:24; Acts 2:38; Romans 5:12; 6:32; Romans 6:3-5)

To believe that "Jesus is THE savior" is to believe something about Jesus.

Yes, I guess you are correct and to believe that Jesus is THE Savior is to believe He alone has the power to save...Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

"Exactly those who receive" is everyone -- the human family.

According to the scriptures, everyone of the human family does not receive ( John 3:36; John 12;14; Romans 2:8)

I think you have confused a "plain meaning" of the texts with your meaning of the texts, and are interpreting them to suit your own fundamentalist, exclusionist views.

It's not my meaning. I'm sure as anyone else I'd come up with the same meaning as you see, easy and all-inclusive, but the scriptures certainly do not come across that way to anyone who reads in a normal, plain, and straightforward way ...Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
Don't you think God has the right to be exclusive If He chooses to and establish the way He desires humans to come to Him/
.For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.. 1 Tim. 2:5

yes, emphasis on "am" not on "I." And Jesus' way is the way of love. Show me where it's not. Jesus' truth is the truth of love. Show me where it's not. Jesus' life is the life of love. Show me where it's not.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept the way you disconnect the words " I " and "am" and deconstruct the sentence trying to apply another meaning. It's like saying, " I am the cook"...but the emphasis or subject is the "am", not the "I" and the "am" is the cook instead of the "I", it does not work or make any sense. But I certainly can't show you where Jesus' way, truth, and life is not love because He is love and it is His sacrificial love which proves that He alone is the only Savior through Whom all must go to reach oneness with the Father. Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6

Believing in Jesus as "THE Savior" is a "certain religious system."

No, it is believing in a Personal Being.

...
Because you'd rather believe in the ideas of documents like the Westminster Confession than you would in other, just as valid ideas of other people, like Irenaeus, Erugenia, and Pelagius.

My ideas come from the scriptures. and my relationship with Jesus Christ. I am not Reformed or Presbyterian and do not appreciate the Calvinistic slant of the Westminster Confession. Irenaeus spoke out against the Gnostic heresies of his day and believed the scriptures to be God's Word, unlike you. Pelagius taught heresy denying the sinful human nature contrary to the scriptures. I have no reason to find value in Eugenia or any other Catholic "saints" when I have the biblical scriptures which point to Jesus Christ.

Fallen and marred human beings, though, are the body of Christ.

The Body of Christ is composed of those who have been ...redeemed from being marred and fallen and now walk in newness of life.

...Obviously, reconciliation is for all humanity.

Obviously it is. So it is very sad when many refuse and reject reconciliation with God who offers ultimate love and joy.

 

[sojourner]

That is true the Father lovingly waits, but in the parable the son does return. What about those who refuse to return?

None refuse.

How does your universalist perspective deal with those who do not return, who willfully reject God and His goodness, choosing instead to remain in the mire and in what the scriptures describe as sin and wickedness?

None refuse. I don't care how willful one is, one can't hold out forever against truth and love.

What do you do with all the scriptures that do speak of judgment and/or a day of judgment?

I weigh them against the scriptures that deal with hospitality, love and inclusion.

 

[sojourner]

Before confessing, repentance, and forgiveness we are in sin... after this comes new, restored life in Christ.

Before being in sin, we are in God.

Yes, I guess you are correct and to believe that Jesus is THE Savior is to believe He alone has the power to save...Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

This written by a believer for believers. of course the writing affirms the avatars of its religion. Unfortunately for you, the truth of the bible is a biased truth from a particular perspective.

According to the scriptures, everyone of the human family does not receive

According to the scriptures, all undo receive. Gen. 12:3, Exodus 33:19, Psalm 22:27, Psalm 65:1-2, Psalm 145:8-10, Isaiah 25:6-8, Is. 45:22-24, Jer. 31:33-34, Joel 2:28, Mark 11:17, Luke 3:6, Lk 19:10, Jn 1:9. Etc.

Don't you think God has the right to be exclusive If He chooses to and establish the way He desires humans to come to Him

How can God "choose" to be other than God is? Love isn't exclusive.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept the way you disconnect the words " I " and "am" and deconstruct the sentence trying to apply another meaning.

It certainly is correct to place the emphasis on "am," and it makes perfect sense to do so in light of the context of the saying.

But I certainly can't show you where Jesus' way, truth, and life is not love because He is love

My point proven. Thank you.

No one comes to the Father except through Me

...Who is the personification of love.

No, it is believing in a Personal Being.

Which is a particular religious system.

My ideas come from the scriptures.

...Tempered by the thinking present in the Confession.

I am not Reformed or Presbyterian and do not appreciate the Calvinistic slant of the Westminster Confession.

Yet, your ideas of humanity's disposition is entirely the same, based upon what you've posted here.

Irenaeus spoke out against the Gnostic heresies of his day and believed the scriptures to be God's Word, unlike you.

So, you would buy into his ideas?

Pelagius taught heresy denying the sinful human nature contrary to the scriptures.

Pelagius has been grossly misrepresented. Human nature isn't sinful "according to the scriptures." According to the scriptures, we are created "very good."

I have no reason to find value in Eugenia or any other Catholic "saints" when I have the biblical scriptures which point to Jesus Christ.

Of course you don't. They disagree with you.

The Body of Christ is composed of those who have been ...redeemed from being marred and fallen and now walk in newness of life.

They're still fallen human beings. Show me one, single, sinless Christian, and I'll show you the Easter Bunny.

Obviously it is. So it is very sad when many refuse and reject reconciliation with God who offers ultimate love and joy.

It will be very joyous when all receive it.

 

[Yoshua]

Only if its dangerous, which, clearly, it isn't.

Hi Sojourner,

What is danger to you despite of not believing in evil things? Can you explain it.

You just contradicted yourself. Jesus is a path -- not a "destination."

He is not the only path but a path with destination (eternal life). If you still think that--He is still a path, then reconcile these Scriptures with your concept.

John 3:16
16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Acts 4:12
12. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

Any time a text is held up as "infallible," it then become idolatrous.

Why those of other faiths Bible/writings are not infallible like the Muslims, Hindu and Buddhist?

That's because they're not infallible.

What is infallible to you? Can you cite a writings or documents that are infallible?

You see it that way, because you don't have as solid an exegetical grasp of them as I do.

I see instability of handling the Scripture in you. Which is which?By Yoshua

Ok. You should prove it, and not just saying. By the way, let me know what do you mean by a solid in exegetical grasp? In what standards will I see from it?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

There was no truth in that word.

It is because you don’t believe Jesus is the truth, and you have your own truth.

The truth contains many layers, each layer of which is part of a larger truth. It's up to us whether we will embrace one part of truth as the whole truth, or whether we choose to see the larger picture. You clearly fall into the former camp.

Oh. Where did you get the theology of layers of truth? There is one truth, Jesus Christ is the Truth.

Then you really don't have a dog in the hunt of passing judgment on people whom you know nothing about.

Come on. Don’t take that chance to tell me that I’m passing judgment. That is a foul reason. I may know something that you did not know, same as you know something that I did not know. As I said, in exemption of religious personalities and characters, I know them well.

But there is such a thing as mysticism.

I think these definitions of Mysticism are the beliefs that you embraced, but not Christianity.

1.) a religious practice based on the belief that knowledge of spiritual truth can be gained by praying or thinking deeply
2.) the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
3.) the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight) merriamwebster

"Shallow" and "correct/incorrect" are two different concepts. Your shallowness precludes you from engaging deeply. Therefore, your answers are shallow. Where the "incorrectness" enters the picture is when you insist that your shallow view is the whole view.

Anything that you criticize regarding my view or my answers should be proved. Let me hear what you are saying. It is easy to criticize but to prove your point needs some evidence.

V. 28 is clear that it's the blood of Christ. Now what do we do? Just ignore the "real blood part" because it makes us uncomfortable? Or do we actually interpret the text theologically, based on an exegetical understanding of what the writer is actually saying? Apparently, you'd rather simply ignore it.

Matt. 26:25-29
The Lord's Supper Instituted
26. And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
27. And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
28. for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
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."

V.29 is clear that it is the fruit of the vine that they drinking and not the real blood of Christ.

Oh my. Is that what you called solid theology? You don’t need to ask me if do we actually interpret the text theologically, it is how you understand it in the right place—interpreting it right. You misinterpreted it literally.
Kindly see your answer to me with the following:

-Metaphor. It's all metaphor. Revelation is a dream. Dreams are highly metaphorical.By Sojourner

-Dreams are highly metaphorical. Daniel is also not an account of an "actual event." It, too, is a story.By Sojourner

You don’t agree with the metaphors.

-I did get your point, because you're willing to "go outside the box" where the Lord's Prayer is concerned, but not where other teachings are concerned. IOW, you pick and choose what is to be taken literalistically and what isn't. It's a disingenuous practice.By Sojourner

You told me that I interpreting the Scripture literally.

-It's poetry -- not reality.By Sojourner

The Psalms to you is just a poetry and no bearing of truth to you.

Now, let me point you something about the Lord’s Supper interpretation. V.28. for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

I agree with you that Jesus said that is his blood. Of what? Is it His blood coming from his body or the blood that He will be shedding on the cross for the New Covenant fulfillment?

The continuation of the statement followed “which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” This is a metaphoric statement to convey a message that His blood that He will be shedding is—for forgiveness of sins.

Heb. 9:22
22. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

I think you missed and failed to study the Lord’s Supper message thoroughly.
v. 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."

Please don’t cover and close your eyes with the next verse at 29. This verse confirmed what Jesus is drinking with His disciples. If we ignore v.29, you also ignore the truth. The understanding of the Scripture is in error.

Therefore, the blood that Jesus is saying is a metaphorical phrase that is referring of what he will do the next event of the prophetic fulfillment—the shedding of His blood. To connote the true blood of Christ, Jesus never get a knife and prick it in His arm or hands to let the blood drops on the cup as His own blood for the Lord’s Supper.

...which is exactly what you're attempting to do here.

Proving the Scripture is not just by generalizing and dogmatically followed--in a literal way.By Yoshua

What I mean here is—we should determine what is a metaphor and what is literal in understanding of the Scriptures.
One example:

Ps. 91:4
2. I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust.''
3. Surely He shall deliver you from the snare of the fowler And from the perilous pestilence.
4. He shall cover you with His feathers, And under His wings you shall take refuge; His truth shall be your shield and buckler.

If we interpreted it literally as what you did in the “blood” of the Lord’s Supper, my understanding will be God is a big bird because He has feathers and wings.

Of course it's metaphor!!! It's all metaphor. Theological thought depends heavily on metaphor. Metaphor is how we make meaning. That's how the bread means more to us than simply "a loaf of bread." We wouldn't slather mayonnaise on on it, nor would we simply throw it in the trash. Why? Because it's the body of Christ. it has substantive meaning for us, because of the metaphor. Is it all "literally" one loaf? Of course not. That would constitute magic. But it is metaphorically one loaf that carries substantive meaning for us. It's the meaning that the bread has always had for the Christian (until the watering-down process of the Reformation). It's the meaning that is present in the scriptures when the term anamnesis is used -- it's a re-membering -- a "bringing together" of the diverse body of Christ, not a "remembering" of some past action. Why? Because the work of Christ in the Eucharist is an ongoing process, not a one-time event.

I thought you don’t like metaphors, and now you accept metaphors. If Jesus used the “bread” as He say He is the bread of life, would it be all the bread in the bakery is the real body of Christ? I don’t think so.

What would we bring together, the body of Christ? Where?

The event that transpired between Jesus and His disciples—is a scenario same as the cross of Calvary. It happened once same as the cross of Calvary. When Jesus say “do this in remembrance of me,” Jesus initiated this communion with His disciples. The purpose of doing it—is because He will be soon to unfold the main event of His life—on the cross. Did Jesus say “It is finished”(John 19:30)? I believed that the word “finished” covers all including the Lord’s Supper.

Now, when Jesus said “do this in remembrance of me,” what we suppose to do with what He said? Logically and practically, we follow His command to do the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist) by partaking the bread and fruit/wine as remembering what He commanded us to do. By remembering Him, we remember what Jesus did in shedding His blood for the forgiveness of our sins, including what He had done for us on the cross.

No, I just know a lot more about biblical anthropology than you do.

Ya. Your long years of studying biblical anthropology hold you to understand the simplest Lord’s Supper understanding. Jesus cannot be affected by any biblical anthropology because He is the Son of God, He has the authority over any anthropological principles and concept.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I'm not God.

Then the God is All, All is God is a wrong doctrine. As you said before, “OW, the fullness of humanity becomes the Divine nature.” is only applicable to Jesus Christ, and not for a man (human being). You and me cannot be a God.

Truth is in Christianity because of Jesus. There is no "the" truth, as in something exclusive and absolute. Truth isn't exclusive -- it's inclusive.

If God is the absolute truth, the truth that is in Him is inclusive. You and Windwalker believed that the love of God is for all. Yes, I agree with that in the initial statement of the Scripture at John 3:16 and 1 John 4:6-10.

Let me point you this:

John 3:16
16. "For God so loved the world (your relative view is up to here only & it stop) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

The love of God has truly given to us. It does not stop there, it continue by saying we must believe in Him. The “believe” here is following and obeying; commitment and submission to God’s will.

What we can see here were the underlined phrase or sentence that pertain to your beliefs as the love of God is for all, there is no distinction when it comes to love. But the Scripture does not allow that concept or principles which will dictate God’s word.

1 John 4:6-10
6. We are of God. (your relative view & it stop here) He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
It is clear that we should know God, so He may hear us; we should know the spirit of truth, not only that but the spirit of error.

7. Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. (This verse is your relative view & it stop here)

8. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

The next verse explain what is that love.
9. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, . (This verse is your relative view & it stop here)

that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.
What’s the use of God’s love if there is no begotten Son who came into this world?

10. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

He sent His Son Jesus Christ as the propitiation for our sins.

Therefore, the relative view of the truth of God and the “God is All, and All is God” is contrary with the Scripture. We can clearly see that this kind of logic, principles, concept and its doctrine does not came from the truth of the Scriptures.

I disagree. Jesus taught unity through love of the other and respect for differences as being surface identifiers only. Fundamentalism and evangelicalism teach uniformity though conformity to an idealized identity. The first goes to the heart. The second gives lip service only. The first is recognizing the Source and Ground of Being. The second is crying "Lord, Lord!" but not engaging the heart.

The mission of Christians and the New Age is totally different. New Age is All is One. Christianity is All must be submit, obey, and draw near to God through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.By Yoshua

The above Scriptures already prove the unchristian view of the New Age. Do I need to become a New Age to agree with your statement about love and respect for differences?
Did Jesus see the differences between the Jews and Gentiles?

May I ask you the following questions:
1. What do you think the purpose of Jesus here on this earth? Please answer this.
2. What Jesus main focus of His mission? Please answer this.
3. Did the disciples submit and obeyed Jesus? Please answer this.

You're misunderstanding the process. That misunderstanding is confusing you into thinking that something other than what is happening is happening.

It’s not confusing me. I see the errors and inconsistency of your logic in applying non-christian practices to transform it to a Christian practice. Did yoga and mantra (in yoga posture) focus on Christ through meditating, and emptying the mind?

You're still confused. When we meditate, God is already there, waiting for us! In meditation, we listen for God to speak. God is doing the actuating

John 3:16
16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

How do we have an eternal life? Through meditating?
God wait for us—to believe Him.

He obviously didn't understand how meditation works.

The example is not about meditation but about mystical scenario. Man never initiated the mystical, it is God who initiated the mystical, thus, man is just responding to that experience.

In the asking for bread. Bread is the need in that context.

Thanks for that answer. This is reconciled.

Prove that they can't. Otherwise, your assertion is unsubstantiated.

Yoga and mantra cannot be mixed nor attach with intercessory prayer--quoted with Scriptures By Yoshua
Prove it

Ok. You throw back my question to you. It seems it is hard for you to prove that yoga and mantra with the Scriptures. Well, my answer is a very simple, a logical and practical answer that Jesus did not teach yoga and mantra nor eastern religious beliefs. Jesus is Christianity; yoga is not Christianity. You know this, yet it is hard for you now to accept it. Even wikipedia can answer you right away. This is the truth, and it will set you free.

I don't need to check the validity of contemplation as a valid Christian practice. I have over 1700 years, at least, of accepted, orthodox Christian practice as proof of its validity.

This is not a valid proof with Jesus who existed at 30BC. Jesus say He is the truth. It is better to follow Jesus Christ teachings.

From reading what the writer wrote. We do know what the writer wrote. We don't know that what the writer wrote was historically factual.

If you are pertaining to the Apostles who wrote, as the author, we may do studying it. I thought your biblical studies include those whole New Testament.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

The bible is not this ^^^. Because we know that the bible is mistaken about many things, when held up to the light of scientific, historic, sociological and geographical fact.

Then you have a lot of questions about the Bible, and haven’t reconciled yet with the Scriptures.

"Authority of scripture" is too ephemeral to be used as an absolute measure.

How about Jesus teachings, His words in the four books?

Discerning the Holy Spirit, though, is a highly subjective -- not objective -- practice.

How can you say that the Holy Spirit is not an objective? Did every beliefs have the Holy Spirit? You need to prove that.

No. It's not. The Emergent Movement is HIGHLY respectful of diversity.

Yes, you may it is respectful, but is it respectful and honorable to God? it is not. I encourage you to do research more about this.

So, God isn't One?? Isn't that what the bible says: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one?"

If you want to say that “God is one,” you should not use “All is one.” God is not a God of New Age. You mixed others (all different faiths) to be one with God. Yet you are denying about Utopian-one world religion. Your belief “All is God, All is One” was already ride-on in the one world religion. The relative truth, higher self-consciousness, non-authority of the Scripture etc..

Did God use the formula of “All is one”? answer me, why he destroyed the asherah poles, and hates those who believe in idols?

Take that scenario on our current discussion about different beliefs/faiths; the Buddhist and Hindus have idols (a carved image, statue). Do you think that God will accept and pleasing with that?

If God purpose is all people of different beliefs/faiths become one with him? Why need to send His Son Jesus Christ to give us the hope of salvation. That would mean one thing, that we are all not deserve of having—an eternal life. That means people are not one with God.

Translation: "If you will believe what we say the bible is saying."

That is an atheist statement, and not Jesus follower.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

You misapprehend and twist the meaning of the great commission, making into some kind of conformity thing, instead of an inclusive thing. It's vile and disingenuous, IMO.

Did the Bible stated with conformity, yes. Even our mind should be conform to God’s will.

Rom. 12:2
2. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

That would mean that the pattern of this world is not pleasing to God’s eyes. The New Age, and other practices are not acceptable to God. It is much better to know what are not acceptable to him rather than believing in a practice that are not acceptable to Him.

Matt. 28:19-20
19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'' Amen.

The Great Commission is a command. I don’t think I need to explain all about order or command to follow. Once a follower submits to Christ, he should obey and follow. It’s clear, Jesus said that His teachings must be observed—that is conformity, and more than conformity.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

He was Christian, who had a broad concept for humanity and human spirituality -- who didn't attempt to place people in boxes of "right" or "wrong."

Quotes by Thomas Merton:
“I’m deeply impregnated with Sufism.” (Merton, The Springs of Contemplation, p. 266)

“And I believe that by openness to Buddhism, to Hinduism, and to these great Asian traditions, we stand a wonderful chance of learning more about the potentiality of our own traditions, because they have gone, from the natural point of view, so much deeper into this than we have.” (Quote by Merton from the book, Lost Christianity by Jacob Needleman)

“I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity … I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can.” (Merton in David Steindl-Rast’s “Recollection of Thomas Merton’s Last Days in the West” – Monastic Studies, 7:10, 1969)

Did the Apostle Paul and Jesus’disciple follow Christ in the same way with Thomas Merton?

I think you’re being blinded from identifying what Jesus Christ’s Christianity is? Christianity for you is to practice Buddhism, Oh my. Buddha and Jesus differed a lot. You believe in a man’s philosophy and concepts rather than the Son of God sent by the Father. It’s theologically delusional in understanding and perspective. Buddha is self seeking, self help and dependency of oneself. Jesus is dependency to Him/God, submitting to God’s will. God is a jealous God. Ex. 34:14 “for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God,” you cannot serve two Masters. I’m a former believer of Buddha, and I know what is to God, and what is to Buddha.

Luke 16:13
13. "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.''

Luke 9:23-24
23. Then He said to them all, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.
24. "For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.

How about the word of Jesus at Luke 9:23-24, did Jesus put you inside the box of right and wrong? Pls answer. If you said No, prove it.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

You don't have a solid understanding of the scope of Christianity

Your Christianity’s understanding has no obedience, and submission to God’s will. This is not my version or my own words. Take a look above with my supported Scriptures. Those are the command and the Scripture talking.

Panentheistic theology is solid.

It is fragile. You believed in trinity, and now you believe God is changing, and deny incarnation of Christ. I think it is a contradiction.

I believe so.

Did Jesus, a panentheist?by Yoshua

No. Penentheism confuses creation with God. The universe is changing, denies miracle and not not believe in incarnation. Do you really think Jesus is?

Panentheism
Panentheism, literally "all-in-God-ism", "affirms that although God and the world are ontologically distinct [i.e., not the same] and God transcends the world, the world is 'in' God ontologically." ^ [1]^ This is not to be confused with pantheism, which understands God to be the world. For most panentheists, God is intimately connected to the world and yet remains greater than the world. In this view, events and changes in the universe affect and change God, and he is therefore a temporal being. As the universe grows, God learns as he increases in knowledge and being.

Panentheism has been associated with process theology and aspects of open theism, including theologians such as Paul Tillich, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jurgen Moltmann, Robert Jenson, and possibly Karl Rahner.theopedia

Panentheism, (also known as Monistic Monotheism), is the belief, similar to Pantheism, that the physical universe is joined to God, but stressing that God is greater than (rather than equivalent to) the universe. Thus, the one God is synonymous with the material universe and interpenetrates every part of nature (as in Pantheism), but timelessly extends beyond as well. The universe is part of God, but not all of God.

The Neoplatonism of Plotinus (in which the world itself is a God) is to some extent panentheistic with polytheistic tendencies, and philosophical treatises have been written on it in the context of Hinduism for millennia (notably in the "Bhagavad Gita" and the "Shri Rudram"). Many North American and South American Native religions are panentheistic in nature, and some elements of panentheism arise in Hasidic Judaism and Kabbalah, some Sufi orders of Islam, and Eastern and Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christianity.

However, the word "panentheism" (which can be translated as "all in God") was not coined until 1828, by the German philosopher Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781–1832), in an attempt to reconcile Monotheism and Pantheism, and this conception of God influenced New England Transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, and was popularized by Charles Hartshorne (1897 - 2000) in his development of process theology in the 20th Century, and has also been adopted by proponents of various New Thought beliefs.www.philosophybasics.com

Does it matter? Christianity -- like Hinduism -- is, at its roots, an Eastern religion.

You may just easily say that Christianity has its roots like Hinduism, prove to me when in the time of Abraham and Jesus that Hinduism was rooted with Christianity? Can you give God’s teachings in the Old Testament and Jesus teachings in the New Testament in relation with Hinduism?

That's a real good overview. Did you understand any of it, and why it's an important part of the constructive theological conversation? Or are you simply dismissing of it because you don't understand it, and it doesn't fall in line with what conservative Evangelicals have to say? Before you proceed too far down the "uninformed criticism" pathway, you might actually pick up a copies of McFague's Models of God and The Body of God and give them a good read. At least then you can formulate some solid critique, as opposed to your signature, "Nuh-uh!" approach.

What more I can say, if that is not what Jesus Christ taught us. Is that a display of the gospel of Christ? You may attach a lot of beliefs or display in your system but loose something.

Mark 8:35-37
35. "For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it.
36. "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?
37. "Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

Thanks