What is Contemplative Christianity?

[Yoshua]

The fundamentalist view of the gospel is, yes.

Because your gospel is different, can you try to tell me what is the gospel?

a more liberal, less narrow view of the gospel.

That’s it. Of course, liberal, so you have the liberty of believing about enlightenment and modernism.

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

Why? are you against what Jesus had said about the way?

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

Yes. It reconnects. Why not straight to the point? He came here to save who are lost. This is scripturally-based.

Luke 19:10
10. "for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.''

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

I agree that the cause is the love of God, but it is not by saying it, but whoever believes (obey) in Him. I don’t think John 3:16 is a very hard scripture to understand.

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.

How about preaching the gospel/good news, is that not included?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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.

Hi Orbit,

What is your basis that God is in your heart as non-believer of the Bible?The Bible is a universal and a consistent book.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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.

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

Hi Windwalker,

Why? Is there another Christ teaching’s with the ignored Bibles? Can you name some of it?

Redefine? I think that is more applicable with JW’s bible. You have a problem with redefine. Seek the original text. That will solve you doubting problem.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Hi Orbit,

What is your basis that God is in your heart as non-believer of the Bible?The Bible is a universal and a consistent book.

Thanks

Wow, this question answers why you are in the position of ignorance about mystical awareness. You need a book to tell you you have God in you, otherwise it's not obvious to you in your own awareness. Others however, don't need a book to tell them that. They just know it because it's overwhelmingly obvious to them, like asking them "How do you know you are alive"? The fact that you have to have someone tell you this, and that you only accept it because you just have to trust what they say, is not spiritual life. Spiritual life, knowing God, is an internal knowledge. If someone has to tell you it "theoretically" for you to believe in it as a propositional truth, it is not Truth living in you. Simply put, you either are aware of it and know God, or you aren't and don't know God.

Believe in the Bible all you want. It doesn't translate into knowing God. Your faith is in your belief, not in God. Faith in God is an internal knowledge, like knowing you're alive.

 

[Windwalker]

Hi Windwalker,

Why? Is there another Christ teaching’s with the ignored Bibles? Can you name some of it?

Yes, there are many teachings of Jesus in the other texts. Go pick up a copy of the Nag Hammadi texts if you wish. Go read the Gospel of Thomas for a start. Are you even aware of these things existing?

My point is the "editors" who picked and chose what they thought should be included or excluded from the Bible that you have, versus the other Bibles out there, such as the list that Sojourner earlier in this thread laid out for you, were these committees who chose which texts to include or exclude "divinely guided" in the process? If so, prove it! Show me scripture that says these committees were inspired by the Holy Spirit, infallibly. Does scripture say, "We are built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, as well as the divinely guided church committees in the 3rd century AD who preserved the Bible for you"? No?

You can't, because it is not a "Biblical belief", as you are fond of demanding of everything that doesn't fit your beliefs. So, the very Bible in your hand, how do you know that is the "right" set of texts? How do you determine this book as your "infallible" source of authority? On what basis? Show me scripture that says that collection is the right ones. Prove it.

Redefine? I think that is more applicable with JW’s bible. You have a problem with redefine. Seek the original text. That will solve you doubting problem.

Thanks

Actually, the JW Bible is only a translation. I'm talking which books got included or not in theirs, and your Bibles. Was that process a magical miracle? And if so, tell me what evidence you have to support that belief? You only can simply say you "choose" to believe it. At which point, every criticism you make of others not having "scriptural support" falls apart in your hands. You will discovery you are holding sand as it falls through your fingers.

 

[sojourner]

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

Don't you know that God is everywhere, that the world belongs to God, and that every breath you take, every bit of ground you walk on, every experience is full of God? You think sin (separation) is the Big Reality for humanity, but it's not. It's the Big Lie. Where's the danger? Only within our own minds.

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."

Written by believers for believers. These represent truth from a certain perspective -- as we've been telling you. Other perspectives speak of other paths to truth.

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

We're not talking about other texts. We're talking about the bible. In fact, no human text is infallible -- and every text is a product of humanity.

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

"Infallible" = "without error." No ancient, sacred document is without error.

By the way, let me know what do you mean by a solid in exegetical grasp?

If you had such a grasp, you wouldn't ask the question.

 

[sojourner]

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

Uh, don't go there. Don't tell me "what I believe." I know what I believe.

Everyone has her/his own truth. To claim that one has Absolute Truth is to delude oneself.

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

For Christians, yes. But Christians only have their part of the larger truth. Other faiths have another part.

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.

This is nothing more than hubris and entitlement. It closes one's mind.

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)

Christianity has embraced mysticism since the beginning. Wishing it were different doesn't make it different. Perhaps your "brand" of Christianity doesn't embrace it -- but the core of Christianity always has.

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.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Your own posts are proof enough.

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.

Correct. The blood is a metaphor. You're uncomfortable with the metaphor, so, instead of dealing with it and making it part of your scared experience, you simply dismiss it as "unimportant." You hold the Eucharist at arm's length -- only in "memory" of some distant, past event -- just as you seem to hold every spiritual circumstance at arm's length by simply "reading about it." Do you not realize the significance of christ's sacrifice is in our immediate and visceral present, not in our hoary and distant past? Christ's blood always drips -- not in the distant past, not in some indeterminate future, but Right. Now. And we participate in that sacrifice -- not in some "memory" of it -- Right. Now.
It's experiential -- not memorable. I don't think you've ever had an experience of God's imminence, and wouldn't know what to do with such an experience. Probably label it a s "evil" and "dangerous" and retreat to a safe distance, I'm guessing. More's the pity.

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.

Then why can't you see that "I am the way..." and "There is no other name under heaven..." are metaphorical statements, too?????

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.

It becomes the body of Christ when it's consecrated in the Eucharistic prayer. The bread becomes for us, the body of Christ. But you don't understand that, because you dismiss what has been done in the Eucharist since the beginning.

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

Everywhere. It's a movement for the wholeness of the world.

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.

It is always happening, and it is always finished. God operates on spiritual time -- not temporal time.

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.

As I've pointed out before, anamnesis carries a far different connotation for the ancients who wrote the text than it does for you.

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.

But the bible has no such authority, nor does the early church. Both are bound by the laws of humanity, and we can understand who they were and what they did through such anthropological study.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Don't play semantic games. You're not very good at them, because you don't understand the theology out of which the semantics arise. We are divine, because we contain the breath of God, and we are the reflection of God. The reflection isn't the thing itself. We are the finger that points to the moon. Don't make the semantic mistake of saying that the finger is the moon.

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.

Ah, but what does "believe in him" mean? Does it mean to utter some formulaic statement of faith? Does it mean to engage in some mawkish, "five finger exercise" of repentance, baptism, etc.? Or does it mean to make that love and wholeness a reality for oneself, deep in the core of who we are -- no matter who we are?

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?

Let me point you this:

What is Jesus, and how do we participate with Jesus? You seem to think that Jesus was a human being, who lived in a certain point in time. But that's not how the Beloved Disciple sees it. For John, Jesus is the love of God personified, in an always-happening, mystical interaction between humanity and Divinity. God's love is manifested in us, whenever -- however -- we abide in wholeness. It's tied to our state of being -- not our cognitive belief-forms.

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.

What we can clearly see is that You. Don't. Get. It. God's love becomes human. It's a metaphor. Jesus is a metaphor. An avatar for what happens when God's love is manifested in us. Our sin is propitiated when we heal what has become sundered in us, by drawing near to God through love. When we participate in the love of God, we are healed by that love, and our sundering is knit together into wholeness.

The above Scriptures already prove the unchristian view of the New Age.

Only in your eyes.

Did Jesus see the differences between the Jews and Gentiles?

Only in terms of culture. But Jesus saw them all as one human family. Why do you suppose that he sent Paul to preach the gospel of love to them?

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.

1) To reconcile humanity with God.
2) To share God's love with us.
3) The disciples loved Jesus, which, as Jesus tells us, is the ground of all the Law.

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?

Yes. Christ represents the oneness of humanity and creation. That's what Yoga focuses on. The oneness of all creation.

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.

And we can come to believe fully through a deep experience, such as meditation.

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.

I really wish you understood this. You're going in circles, like a dog chasing its tail, chasing ghosts that have nothing to do with mysticism.

Well, my answer is a very simple, a logical and practical answer that Jesus did not teach yoga and mantra nor eastern religious beliefs.

How do you know that? Not everything "Jesus taught" is "in the bible." Jesus may have practiced Yoga, for all we know. It's relatively unimportant, though, because the spiritual aim is the same. Jesus taught wholeness, did he not? Wholeness is certainly supported by scripture. And that's what Yoga facilitates: wholeness. Remember: Christianity is, at it's core, an Eastern religion.

Jesus is Christianity; yoga is not Christianity. This is the truth, and it will set you free.

Jesus is Christianity. Yoga is Hindu. Both aim for the larger, more fundamental truth of wholeness. That's the truth that will set you free.

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.

The teachings, though, are not from 30 BCE. They are from 70+ CE to about 100 CE. It is better to recognize the teachings for what they are: the teachings of the church -- of which subsequent spiritual practice is part.

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.

Most of the NT is anonymous. We don't know who wrote the gospels -- or many of the epistles.

 

[sojourner]

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

No, I'm fully aware of what the scriptures are and are not.

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

Asked and answered.

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

This doesn't even make sense. The H.S. is subjective -- that is, experienced within oneself -- not within "multiple beliefs."

but is it respectful and honorable to God?

Of course it is!

it is not. I encourage you to do research more about this.

ROFLMAO. Dear God!! I know these people -- I've met them and conversed with them. How much more research do you think can be done, than by going to the source?! You are misrepresenting the Movement. You don't understand the Movement. Your claims about the Movement are Utterly. FALSE. I don't know how much clearer I can be. You're talking to someone who is part of the Movement and understands it thoroughly. The Emergent Movement is not what you claim it to be. Period.

If you want to say that “God is one,” you should not use “All is one.”

God is all.

You mixed others (all different faiths) to be one with God.

Of course. God is one. Humanity is one. All are one. Why do you seek to divide what God seeks to unify? (Isaiah 25:6-8)

Yet you are denying about Utopian-one world religion.

Correct. God is engendered in many ways, through many different religions. All religions deal with divinity, do they not? Is God not the same, no matter what we call God?

Your belief “All is God, All is One” was already ride-on in the one world religion.

Nope. Many different faiths believe in the oneness of God. It's a thread of larger truth that permeates differences.

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

God doesn't hate anyone.

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?

I think God is pleased with their sincere religious practices. I think that idolatry supplants the Divine with some contrivance, rather than points to the Divine. I think you're confused about what an idol actually is.

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.

People perceive that they aren't one with God. Sin is present as a lie. When the lie is dispelled, oneness will be the result.

That is an atheist statement, and not Jesus follower.

Then why, pray tell, are you saying it?

 

[sojourner]

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.

I think you're confused with regard to what is meant by "this world."

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.

And just what was that command? It means to go out and break down barriers. That's the Whole. Point. of Matthew's gospel -- that God's kingdom is one, and that our divisions aren't real. Sheep/goats -- wheat/weeds -- it's all one in God's kingdom. The "Us" and "them" of the great commission? Go and make "us" out of "them." Oneness. The command is to follow the teaching of love and acceptance: loving enemies, loving neighbor as self, loving God, who is life and truth and love. Not to beat people into conformity.

 

[sojourner]

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?

Sure! Paul advocated participating in eating meat sacrificed to idols. he advocated participation in Pagan festivals. He simply gave them new meaning. Just as Merton did.

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.

I think you're woefully confused and pitifully misinformed.

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.

This passage has nothing to do with what you're talking about -- because you don't know what you're talking about. Buddhism is about denial of self. Therefore, the Luke passage supports my argument, not yours.

 

[Orbit]

Hi Orbit,

What is your basis that God is in your heart as non-believer of the Bible?The Bible is a universal and a consistent book.

Thanks

Your only basis for spirituality is what imperfect men wrote and then imperfectly selected and imperfectly translated? That's sad.

 

[Windwalker]

I really wish you understood this. You're going in circles, like a dog chasing its tail, chasing ghosts that have nothing to do with mysticism.

I know what you mean! When I read him say this, "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," I thought he speaks a truth, but doesn't understand it! Of course the mystical is initiated by God, and all we do is respond to it! But if you are not receptive to God, then it's not going to happen! And that's the point they all miss. It's nothing we are doing. All we do is allow it. That's what meditation does. It opens the door... not to the devil, but to God. The mystical experience is that of God, not from ourselves.

Peter was in prayer when he had his vision of the great sheet come down to him and the voice. He was in prayer. He wasn't watching TV, or some other non-spiritual practice. He was engaging in a spiritual practice. Meditation is a spiritual practice. Prayer is in fact a form of meditation. He was open to the mystical experience from God.

How hard is this to understand? I honestly am flummoxed why there is any confusion at all here. Willful ignorance?

 

[sojourner]

Your Christianity’s understanding has no obedience, and submission to God’s will.

Patently untrue.

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.

It is "your version." I understand the passages differently.

It is fragile.

Theology is always fragile, in a sense.

You believed in trinity

Yep. It's a valid theological construction that makes sense to me.

now you believe God is changing

I do?? When did I ever say that?

and deny incarnation of Christ.

Hold on there, Cochise! I never claimed to deny the Incarnation. Never.

Penentheism confuses creation with God.

No. It doesn't. The article is wrong.

prove to me when in the time of Abraham and Jesus that Hinduism was rooted with Christianity?

Immaterial. Ur is in the East, just as is India.

Can you give God’s teachings in the Old Testament and Jesus teachings in the New Testament in relation with Hinduism?

We're not talking about specific, cultural or religious teachings. We're talking about the mystical flavor of both.

What more I can say, if that is not what Jesus Christ taught us.

It is "what Jesus taught." It's a particular way of understanding what Jesus taught.

Is that a display of the gospel of Christ?

I believe it is a very thorough and particular display of the gospel.

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?

The bible is, apparently, your life. Lose your idolatry of it, and you will save your life.

 

[sojourner]

Willful ignorance?

Of course.

 

[Windwalker]

Of course.

And willful ignorance comes from.... drumroll..... fear.

 

[sojourner]

Because your gospel is different, can you try to tell me what is the gospel?

Love. Period.

That’s it. Of course, liberal, so you have the liberty of believing about enlightenment and modernism.

And ancient and mysticism.

Why? are you against what Jesus had said about the way?

I'm not "against what Jesus said." Jesus' way is the way of love. Can you prove that it's not?

I agree that the cause is the love of God, but it is not by saying it, but whoever believes (obey) in Him. I don’t think John 3:16 is a very hard scripture to understand.

"Obey" isn't in there. "Believing" means to take into oneself and to make part of oneself. It's not just an intellectual, academic agreement. He who believes in love believes in God, because God is love.

How about preaching the gospel/good news, is that not included?

Preaching the gospel is more about action than words.

 

[sojourner]

And willful ignorance comes from.... drumroll..... fear.

OMG!!! Imagine that!!

 

[InChrist]

I have noticed that many (not all) of those with the postmodern emergent/contemplative/mystical mindset and approach to spiritual matters and the biblical scriptures have some common traits. There are several, but I will highlight a few:

1.They deconstruct language taking biblical words and passages, imposing upon them their own mystical/ metaphysical / culturally relevant/ postmodern interpretations making them mean whatever they choose, rather than accept the straightforward text and meanings accepted throughout historic Christianity.

“Postmodern liberalism, which has slithered into the Church with the Emergent movement, shares intellectual roots with fascism. One of the most popular postmodernist tendencies within aesthetics is deconstruction. Deconstruction is a postmodern and Emergent tactic of textual analysis, typically literary critique, that questions presuppositions, ideological underpinnings, hierarchical values and power structures within any given text. Deconstructive approaches apply techniques of close reading of the text without reference to information outside of the text or an authority over the text such as the author.”

"The Emergent method of deconstruction seeks to ridicule the ability of God and humans to communicate clearly through language, all the while they expect the readers of their books to understand what they mean through the use of conventional language. In other words, deconstruction is not convenient when applies to Emergent writings. It’s only useful to Emergents when applied to the Bible, religion, philosophy and morality.

"These irrational and deconstructive seeds and thoughts will inevitably lead to moral breakdown and apostasy in the church that will subsequently unleash a monster comparable to those fascist regimes of the 20th century unless Christians contend for the faith once delivered to the saints".
excerpts from:
http://www.holybibleprophecy.org/2013/07/02/emergent-deconstruction-train-tracks-auschwitz/



2.In an effort to persuade others, they often and repeatedly create strawman and false dilemma fallacies. After creating a distorted view of Christianity, which they claim is held by those adhering to the fundamentals of the biblical faith, they then attack this distorted strawman and proceed to lift up their practice and perspective as the superior alternative. For example, they may charge evangelical Christians with having a, “tightly defined system of "do's and don'ts" or “Fear”. Yet, anyone who knows the scriptures and beliefs of a born again Christian knows these to be totally erroneous and contrary to the Bible and the life of the believer. The fundamental, evangelical believer knows that life in Christ is not “do’s and don’ts, the law brings bondage, but the Spirit of Christ brings freedom to live the new life which God desires for us and that God’s perfect love casts out fear.

Or making blanket statements such as, traditional, fundamental Christianity is a “dysfunctional, diseased, system devoid of love and compassion in which no spiritual growth occurs”. Again, against this caricature they present their way, their community and movement as offering a higher alternative for spiritual growth, empowerment, love, and compassion. Yet, this is another fallacy and complete distortion since the entire message of the gospel revolves around Christ’s sacrificial love, the injunction to love God and one another, and to live victoriously over sin through a life transformed and empowered by Jesus Christ.

3. Another strategy Emergents/contemplatives use is brazen self-contradiction. I’m not sure if it is deliberate or they are simply lost in their upside down world of synthesis and confused unreality. They assert, for example, that truth cannot be known with any certainty. Therefore anyone’s truth can be truth (except fundamental biblical truth claims). They deny the historic, Christian perspective of absolute truth revealed in the scriptures as the Word of God. This claim of theirs they consider to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE and they are ABSOLUTELY certain! They say that it is wrong for any segment of Christianity to arrogantly claim the Bible holds objective truth doctrines or practices which can be understood and apply to everyone, yet they repeatedly claim to have a loftier, superior understanding of these things than conservative Evangelicals do. While they claim standing for conservative biblical moral standards is wrong, they often insist that their views of liberal morality and social causes are correct.

I see that because of the self-contradictory nature of the relativism they embrace, emergent writings abound with these and endless contradictions creating a mindset and community of confusion. Since the true God, the Creator God who inspired and revealed Himself in the biblical scriptures is not the author of confusion ( 1 Corinthians 14:33), He is certainly not present in their midst...so it must be another "god" who is leading this movement, the same one who has been questioning God’s truth and leading it from the beginning ( Genesis 3:1)

 

[InChrist]

More on the Emergent Church...