What is Contemplative Christianity?

[Yoshua]

Joel Osteen claims he should be followed. I don't need a bible to tell me that his "prosperity gospel" is bad theology.

Oh my" Mr. Osteen. Did his preaching focus on Christ? or what it makes to become in the light and feels good at it.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Fear of the Lord means reverence, not paranoia, not phobia. Willful ignorance is caused by phobia. You're a horrible apologist.

Prov. 9:10
10. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

The fear is wisdom & understanding, it is not the fear of anything, but understand what is for God and what is not for God. Knowing His will, and not trusting in our own will.

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.

Am I wrong with this? I thought you said you already believed in the Absolute truth is the Scripture/word of God? I showed you the Scripture and you deny the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom which is to obey and know God's will.

See. I think this is how the emergent and contemplative practitioner evade the word of God.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

We don't reject the Bible as Absolute Authority, and then turn around and find another to replace it with! by Windwalker

How true is this? Windwalker. After those comments against the word of God and your finale display of picture "book attached to man's face"?

The picture of the man with the Bible strapped to his face is to convey the closed-mindedness of fundamentalism. Why even read any book at all if the only book you will accept knowledge from is the Bible? You don't allow any points of view other than your own in, and put the Bible on your face like they put blinders on a horse so it cannot see any other thing in its field of vision. The reality is if you have no other point of view than your own when you read scripture, you learn nothing at all, but merely reinforce your own delusions. I actually consider it "Bible abuse", using it to hide from the world, as the picture portrays.

So exactly how is my posting that picture a contradiction to my saying I reject the belief we can know anything absolutely?

It is not a matter of believing of the word of God, it is how you treat the word of God.

How is understanding the Bible from a critical point of view disrespecting it? You mean I need to honor the mythologies about it you impose upon it? Hah! You mean really that you see me disrespecting your point of view. That's it, actually. You accuse me of rejecting God, because I dispute your very limited points of view.

In reality however, I actually find through critical reason and analysis, a greater depth of understanding and respect for it. It allows the jewels which do exist in it to shine through without being tied to outdated myths, dragging them down. Reason helps to free Spirit from myth, liberating the Baby from the bathwater.

Some claimed they are bible-based, but they followed the Scripture literally and unsound to the point of compromising already the teaching's of Christ.

Such as yourself?

It is so easy to say and claimed anything by the word of mouth, but the application is the test.

You mean, "By their fruits you shall know them," like I've been arguing from the start? Yes, you're speaking truth, but you don't realize how it points the fingers at yourself.

 

[Windwalker]

Prov. 9:10
10. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

The fear is wisdom & understanding, it is not the fear of anything, but understand what is for God and what is not for God. Knowing His will, and not trusting in our own will.

First of all, this does not speak to my referring to your willful ignorance which is based on your fears, and phobias to the point of paranoia even, that propel you to ignore and blind yourself to any other point of view than the one you hide yourself behind. That is NOT the fear of the Lord being spoken of in these verses. That "fear" is one of reverence, "revere the Lord", is not the same as "be afraid"! Being phobic, as you are, is NOT the beginning of Wisdom at all! It's the beginning of sickness and disease.

Where the Bible speaks of the sort of fear I mean that leads to this willful ignorance and burying your head in sand, strapping a Bible on your face like blinders on a horse, is the fear mentioned when it says, "Perfect love casts out fear". That's the fear that's got to go, be gotten rid of. That's not the "fear of the Lord" in the verses you quote. Hiding your face from truths, is not faith. It's FEAR. Bad, unhealthy FEAR.

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.

Sure, if you did then you wouldn't be afraid of knowledge and build up all these paranoid conspiracy theories about others who don't affirm your mythologies for you. You are not showing faith in your heart, but fear in your mind that you escape into fundamentalist blindness to avoid facing.

Am I wrong with this? I thought you said you already believed in the Absolute truth is the Scripture/word of God?

Yes, you are wrong in pretty much everything you have posted this 55 some pages so far now, and even more wrong for not listening to the words of others who have the information you lack. I have never said I believe Absolute truth is the Scripture, meaning the Bible. I certainly accept the Absolute, but it is not a propositional truth that you can lay claim to with your mind. It is not anything that can put put into words that you they can lay claim that you "believe it it", such as you attempt to do twisting scripture to fit your beliefs so you don't have to question yourself about anything regarding your faith.

I showed you the Scripture and you deny the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom which is to obey and know God's will.

I most definitely do not deny this! I say it very clearly myself. To empty yourself into God, to lay your ego down for the sake of Love itself, is to in fact "revere" the Lord, with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, as Jesus said was the first great commandment. Absolutely. BUT, the fear you show, is phobia, a disease of the spirit, not the "fear of the Lord" that Jesus meant. Perfect love casts out the fear that prevents Wisdom, the sort of FEAR that leads one to strapping a Bible on their face, as in that picture.

See. I think this is how the emergent and contemplative practitioner evade the word of God.

And this shows your ignorance.

 

[Windwalker]

How about the Bible/books of Buddhist and Muslim, would you think your picture will do the same thing? answer me.

Yes. I believe some Buddhist and Muslims, and Hindus, as well as Christians, and any religion or belief system the world over may abuse their sacred texts in the manner shown in that picture, hiding their faces behind it, closing their minds out of fear and paranoia of facing themselves and the world and subsequently knowing God. Fundamentalism exists wherever unhealthiness in people exist. It's a spiritual pathology, a sickness of the heart and mind.

 

[Yoshua]

How do you know? Tell me how Peter was praying. Show me the scripture that describes what he was doing.

When we look at Acts 10, the Scripture stated that Peter prayed at the housetop. There is no mention on what and how he prayed. We may also check with the Lord’s Prayer on how to pray and prayer of Jesus at Gethsamene. In Acts 4:23-31, this has been the prayer after Peter and John’s release from custody.

Acts 10:9-10
9. And on the next day, as they were on their way, and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.
10. And he became hungry, and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;

Acts 4:23-31
23. And when they had been released, they went to their own companions, and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them.
24. And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, "O Lord, it is Thou who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them,
( They all prayed with praise to God & quoted Ps.2:1-2 )
25. who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy servant, didst say,
`Why did the Gentiles rage,
26. `The kings of the earth took their stand,
27. "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
28. to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur.
29. "And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Thy bond-servants may speak Thy word with all confidence,
(They were asking for help from God about the threats, and that they may have the courage to speak with them )
30. while Thou dost extend Thy hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Thy holy servant Jesus."
(and used signs and wonders, to let them see so people will believe on what they’re saying)
31. And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak the word of God with boldness.

This is clear example on how they pray to God. I don’t think the contemplative steps and procedures such as choosing the sacred word, breathing technique, repetition/recitation of words, chanting and others could be compared to this Disciples prayer. It is not the same.

Fear of the Lord means reverence, not paranoia, not phobia. Willful ignorance is caused by phobia. You're a horrible apologist.

The reverence was already given. When we worship and prayed to a God, there is reverence. The meaning of “reverence” is a deep respect of something. This is a shallow definition for the “fear of the Lord.” You just give respect to your God, and not loyalty or commitment?

How can we become a paranoid and a phobia, if we are not afraid to dwell on the Scriptures? We are in complete dependence to God.

I think it is better to define what is commitment and submission to God than reverence.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Sure. There too. I can also hear them in the breeze on a cool day. I can read them in the rays of the sunset across a still lake. I smell them in the scent of the lilies of the field. Everything is scripture. But only to those who have ears to hear, eyes to see, and an opened heart to receive.

A New Age concept. How can you know that words in the breeze, the rays and the lilies is Scripture? Did Jesus practice those acts as hearing, reading and smelling to know the Scripture?

How will I know what I will meditate? This question makes no sense.

Yes it make sense. As simple (humble) prayer on what you want tell to God by your own words, and not by smelling.

Because it's a BS doctrine invented in the last 100 years. I disbelieve a lot of stuff that is not a requirement of Christianity. If you judge a man by his beliefs, and God judges the truth in the heart of man, you are not in agreement with God.

Oh. The last statement that you stated is quite good and nice to hear. What specific doctrine that you are pertaining?

Yes it is. It means exactly that.

Jesus said “Seek ye first His kingdom and His righteousness” and not “Seek ye first His kingdom in a mystical awareness/mystical way, and His righteousness.” By Yoshua

Then you obviously change the statement of Jesus Christ.

Why should that matter??? Are Paul's epistles narratives? No. Goodness me. You don't know much about these, apparently. You do realize that there was no narrative Gospels in the first 40 years of the Christian movement? How, oh how did they manage?

We are talking about the life, word and works of Jesus Christ, and we are not living in the past. I did not ask about Paul’s letters. The scenario that transpired about the life of Jesus Christ--is still preserved despite of its gap. There is no excuse for that. Why seek the gospel of Thomas? Did the teachings of Jesus can’t be accepted by contemplatives?

You miss the point, of course. The fact is these were used by Christians in their communities, but some later editor decided to chop them up and spit them out. So much for "preserving God's word". Your Bible is the work of editors. It's not "infallible".

Why hear those issues without validity in your mind? You may have to dwell on those things to check if those are true. Whose that editor?

You're right, you can't. You can claim it all you want, but if you have no knowledge of it yourself, it's worthless theology, worthless apologetics.

You are mistaken. I know what is the Spirit of God so I trusted the Spirit of God. May I ask you what is the Spirit of God? What Jesus is telling about the Spirit of God?

Yes, but it's you who says it's the Protestant Bible. Not Jesus.

Luke 21:33
33. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Ok. What Bible can you present to prove your point to show me the statement of Jesus is false? Roman Catholic Bible? What is your reference?
The picture of the man with the Bible strapped to his face is to convey the closed-mindedness of fundamentalism. Why even read any book at all if the only book you will accept knowledge from is the Bible? You don't allow any points of view other than your own in, and put the Bible on your face like they put blinders on a horse so it cannot see any other thing in its field of vision. The reality is if you have no other point of view than your own when you read scripture, you learn nothing at all, but merely reinforce your own delusions. I actually consider it "Bible abuse", using it to hide from the world, as the picture portrays.

Of course. We should read the Bible. Why? do you think we can memorize all the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation? As I said before, what is the difference if a follower of Christ have in mind (memorize) the Scripture in compare with those who need the (physical) Bible as their guide?

We can clearly see what is outside the Bible, the Bible itself told, and warned us about false teachings (not in accord with the Scriptures). Of course, we should follow and heed that word. It is awareness and not blinded by the word of God. No one can say that he is blinded and abuse by the word of God; it guides you and lead your spiritual sanctified life.

In reality, Windwalker, no one is born to seek God’s word. We are human; we have this tendency of not loving and seeking God in the first place. It is the Holy Spirit who kept pushing us to read the word of God. There are times that when we cannot read the word of God anymore due to busyness, we experience the hunger for His word. This is similar with the Chinese who are hungry with God’s word due to the extreme persecution in their spiritual freedom to Christ. May we learn from their experience.

We are not limited to learn the different religion by religious studies. Why not?. It is nice to know their culture, and how they revere their deities. (But) take note of the word “but,” to embraced and practice another religion other than Christianity is not the right thing to do at the feet of Jesus Christ. We can’t deny Jesus Christ and turn our back to him—if we are truly a loyal follower of Christ. No compromise.

So exactly how is my posting that picture a contradiction to my saying I reject the belief we can know anything absolutely?

We don't reject the Bible as Absolute Authority, and then turn around and find another to replace it with!

Because when you say you don’t reject the Bible as Absolute Authority is a very strong statement that you are accepting and following what the Scripture has to say to you. It is because the Bible is authority.

In compare with your posted picture, as what you are confessing shows non-consistency on your part.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

How is understanding the Bible from a critical point of view disrespecting it? You mean I need to honor the mythologies about it you impose upon it? Hah! You mean really that you see me disrespecting your point of view. That's it, actually. You accuse me of rejecting God, because I dispute your very limited points of view.

In reality however, I actually find through critical reason and analysis, a greater depth of understanding and respect for it. It allows the jewels which do exist in it to shine through without being tied to outdated myths, dragging them down. Reason helps to free Spirit from myth, liberating the Baby from the bathwater.

It does not need to say it but it shows. If a person does not love the word of God, it shows.

Such as yourself?

Oh my, I don’t turn back and practiced other faiths like the emergent and contemplatives.

You mean, "By their fruits you shall know them," like I've been arguing from the start? Yes, you're speaking truth, but you don't realize how it points the fingers at yourself.

The testing is not your favorite "By their fruits you shall know them," that you did not even have a clear idea where is the fruit is coming. The application on what you do by being faithful, obedient with a submissive and committed heart by following His will rather than yours is the TEST. Therefore, we should be faithful until the end before Jesus Christ’s coming.

2 Tim. 2:11-13
11. It is a trustworthy statement:
For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him;
12. If we endure, we shall also reign with Him;
13. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself.

1 Thess. 5:2-6
2. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.
3. While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief;
5. for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness;
6. so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober.

First of all, this does not speak to my referring to your willful ignorance which is based on your fears, and phobias to the point of paranoia even, that propel you to ignore and blind yourself to any other point of view than the one you hide yourself behind. That is NOT the fear of the Lord being spoken of in these verses. That "fear" is one of reverence, "revere the Lord", is not the same as "be afraid"! Being phobic, as you are, is NOT the beginning of Wisdom at all! It's the beginning of sickness and disease.

Is Prov. 9:10 to be afraid of? This is the Scripture speaking and not me. Fear of the Lord is wisdom. What wisdom can you bring inside our mind if it is not the wisdom coming from the Lord? How will you have the wisdom if you did not know what the Lord’s will? What should be afraid of—if this is the beginning of wisdom?

Where the Bible speaks of the sort of fear I mean that leads to this willful ignorance and burying your head in sand, strapping a Bible on your face like blinders on a horse, is the fear mentioned when it says, "Perfect love casts out fear". That's the fear that's got to go, be gotten rid of. That's not the "fear of the Lord" in the verses you quote. Hiding your face from truths, is not faith. It's FEAR. Bad, unhealthy FEAR.

I’m not talking about the whole Scripture of the Bible. It is just Prov. 9:10, take note of this. Is the Scripture not the truth, then, what Scripture can you give to me relating to the fear of the Lord?

By following those who claimed he has the Higher Self leader? Quotation of man or man-made practices?

How about this verse, should we fear if the Lord is my strength? Of course not.

Ps. 28:7
7. The Lord is my strength and my shield; My heart trusted in Him, and I am helped; Therefore my heart greatly rejoices, And with my song I will praise Him.

God did not say because He is love, we compromised that love into something not the will of God for His followers. Did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Joshua and Moses display the kind of fear same as yours? Absolutely not! God displayed love, it is His nature to love. They’re all SUBMIT themselves to obey God’s command. When you SUBMIT, you TRUST God and have FAITH in Him. When you have faith in Him, you OBEY.

Sure, if you did then you wouldn't be afraid of knowledge and build up all these paranoid conspiracy theories about others who don't affirm your mythologies for you. You are not showing faith in your heart, but fear in your mind that you escape into fundamentalist blindness to avoid facing.

I’m not showing faith? Why? Is not reading the Scripture, the basis of one’s faith?

Rom. 10:17
17. So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

So, you are saying that I will practice Buddhism and Roman Catholicism, and not concentrating on the Scripture. Well, I’ve been there before surrendering myself to God. I find peace, love and assurance of salvation through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. Christian spirituality is not a cheap spirituality. Jesus did not compromised his faith to other belief, how much more of His followers?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Yes. I believe some Buddhist and Muslims, and Hindus, as well as Christians, and any religion or belief system the world over may abuse their sacred texts in the manner shown in that picture, hiding their faces behind it, closing their minds out of fear and paranoia of facing themselves and the world and subsequently knowing God. Fundamentalism exists wherever unhealthiness in people exist. It's a spiritual pathology, a sickness of the heart and mind.

Then how could you share your faith to others if your belief is a mixture of embracing and practicing others belief?

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

When we look at Acts 10, the Scripture stated that Peter prayed at the housetop. There is no mention on what and how he prayed.

That's right. So you cannot say how he did not pray either. He could have been sitting lotus position, chanting the Lord's Prayer for all you know. You cannot say either way.

All I know, according to what it says happened, Peter had a subtle-level state experience in the prayer he was engaging in. When was the last time you had one of those in your prayer practice? When you engage in the type of prayer that is contemplative in nature, this sort of thing is fairly common, as you are opened to God as opposed to stuck in the separate mind. The fact that the Apostles had mystical state experiences leads me to believe what they practiced in prayer went beyond simply asking God for stuff. It was far more communal in nature, whatever techniques they may have used.

We may also check with the Lord’s Prayer on how to pray and prayer of Jesus at Gethsamene.

Sure, that's used in contemplative practice, to be sure. Jesus' instructions did not go into the manner with which one says them. Clearly, Jesus' prayers took him further than just asking for stuff. But we don't know how he prayed as the Bible is not an instruction manual on prayer. So you can't claim how you pray is taught in it either, nor say how others pray is disallowed by it, except through fits of your logic jumping around quoting verses you think fits your anti-everything-but-your-own approach.

In Acts 4:23-31, this has been the prayer after Peter and John’s release from custody.

Yes, that's one example of how they prayed. Who says it was limited to that? Obviously not, since Paul had mystical experiences through his prayer. Speaking to God as the Holy Other, is in fact a valid form of prayer. So are others. Why must you attempt to deprive others of that which works for them in their relationship with God. Again, what is wrong with you? Who does that serve? God, or your ego?

This is clear example on how they pray to God. I don’t think the contemplative steps and procedures such as choosing the sacred word, breathing technique, repetition/recitation of words, chanting and others could be compared to this Disciples prayer. It is not the same.

That's right, it's not. But is it wrong? No. It's effective in what it does to bring someone into closer relationship with God. If your goal was to promote that, then you should learn the practice yourself and promote it, rather than be some self-appointed grand-inquisitor who destroys the work of God in his religious illness.

The reverence was already given. When we worship and prayed to a God, there is reverence. The meaning of “reverence” is a deep respect of something. This is a shallow definition for the “fear of the Lord.” You just give respect to your God, and not loyalty or commitment?

Well, that's stupid. Of course, if you are not committed, you really aren't showing reverence now, are you? Duh.

How can we become a paranoid and a phobia, if we are not afraid to dwell on the Scriptures?

There are lots of reasons for why you become paranoid. You'll need to go to a therapist to help you sift through the specifics for yourself in your own case. But dwelling on the Scriptures doesn't mean you don't have a problem with paranoia and a list of fears and anxieties, such as believing demons are around every door and you have to pray them away.

"Dwelling" on the Bible actually can be understood as obsessing about it in your illness. Mentally ill people obsess over religion all the time. It's common. So the fact you bury your face in scripture, does not mean you don't have other problems. It's not a magic fix, buddy. "How can I have a problem if I trust in God with all my heart?", the reasoning goes. You actually do have to do some work on yourself, and that is very clearly taught in scripture. Otherwise, the obsession with the Bible or religious fundamentalism in general is a form of escaping yourself, avoiding doing the work and being made whole through the healing of Spirit.

We are in complete dependence to God.

Are you?

I think it is better to define what is commitment and submission to God than reverence.

Thanks

It's all in the word "revere".

 

[Windwalker]

A New Age concept. How can you know that words in the breeze, the rays and the lilies is Scripture? Did Jesus practice those acts as hearing, reading and smelling to know the Scripture?

HAHAHAHAHA!! Oh my, this is too funny. Now, not only am I "New Age" according to your messed up criteria, so are King David and Jesus Christ, as well as the Apostle Paul, as well as others of the Bible! Too funny.

Let's start with David.

Psalm 19:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.​

Psalm 8

When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?​

Clearly, for David, the Word of God could be heard and seen in the manifest world! What about the Apostle Paul?

Romans 1:20

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."​

What about Jesus? Did he say anything about reading the Truth of God in nature?

"Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these."​

So, what can we see here? Jesus said to ponder with the mind of the heart these things of nature which speak of God's love and glory. He's reading the word of God in nature! So is Paul, and most clearly David was!

The fact you don't know this, says to me there is some serious lack in your awareness of God in the world. I think that post with the "facehugger bible", is probably the reason why. "New Age". Ha! Too funny.

 

[sojourner]

I believed every experience should glorify God, and not full of God.

So, God is not imminent. Got it.

Sin is a big reality to humankind. Why it is not?

Because sin isn't our real nature; sin is a lie about who and what we are.

If you born perfect (not sinning) like God, I will believe on what you’re saying?

We are all born as perfectly human as can be...

If you’re against the infallibility of the Bible, how about the Buddhist and Muslim texts? Are they written by human hands and not infallible?

No ancient text is infallible.

Just to inform you that I’m not the one who ‘s being deluded; I’m not the Absolute Truth. God is the Absolute Truth. Hence, you’re saying that you have the truth, you’re owning truth for yourself. I don’t think highly of myself, God’s will be done, and not my own will.

This doesn't address my post. At all.

Where did you get those layers?

Where did you get the idea that there aren't layers of truth? Let me guess: from the bible. I get the idea of layers of truth from the bible. You interpret the bible one way; I interpret it another. But I think my interpretation is supports the concept of god's love more completely.

When Jesus said He is the truth, that is the full truth.

Yes -- the full truth for Christians. Other faiths get the full truth from another perspective.

There is no truth for a sinner.

That's what I said above, and you disagreed with me. Sin isn't reality. Sin is a lie. Sin is not the truth.

Then, give me an example and proof, then let us check it out with those definitions. Give me one.

Asked and answered.

If you say not in the distant past, but right now, you are saying that the actual scenario of the Lord’s Supper becomes the actual scenario of the Lord’s Supper of Jesus. Now, if I use the scenario of the suffering of Jesus Christ carrying the wooden cross down to Golgotha, and uttered “it is finished.” How would I transfer that scenario when it is in the past already?

Jesus is always sacrificing himself and is always being resurrected.

Now in the Lord’s Supper, we do the communion in our church same as Jesus did with His disciples. That is an experience in physical, and doing it in remembrance of Him. Therefore, the action is experiential—as doing it, and why doing it, because it is a command by Jesus in remembrance of Him.

But you're not experiencing the Eucharist, you're only experiencing a shade -- a memory -- not the meal, itself. My idea is like seeing an old friend face-to-face, embracing and looking each other in the eyes. Your idea is like looking at a faded, old photograph. I experience the person; you experience an old picture.

Approach to the Scriptures can be in literal sense because the text itself is literally conveying the truth in literal form. Some of the text cannot be in literal because it is in metaphor statement. The “ I am the way” as pertaining to Jesus--as the only way to the Father—is not in metaphor same as the "There is no other name under heaven…”

Why? How do you know? Jesus isn't a "way." Jesus was a human being. "Human being" is literal. "Way" is metaphorical.

Ah Ok. A Roman Catholic doctrine. When you say become, could it mean transform into the real body of Christ, as in that bread should not fall on the ground, and you will be in grave offense as sinning?

No, it's not "Roman Catholic doctrine." It's historic church doctrine. All the historic denominations -- Roman, Anglican, Eastern, most Lutherans, even, believe in the real presence of Christ within the elements, when those elements are consecrated. That's the vast majority of Christianity that has always believed that. Your belief departs from the historic belief of the church -- not mine.

Can you explain your theory of bringing together the body of Christ?

Jesus called his disciples to come together into an intimate community. Jesus called us -- the ekklesia -- the assembly (what do you think "assembly" means, but "people brought together?) his body. We are all called together into community.

I see, anthropology is prioritized rather than the Scripture as the authority.

Anthropology is supported by falsifiable evidence. Scripture is not.

Anthropology can help in relation with the Scriptures, and not to the point of discarding the Scriptures.

It can -- and does -- if the scripture is factually wrong.

 

[sojourner]

Of course, you’re good at semantics, because you believe in mysticism and using the terminology for your faith/beliefs.

Semantics has nothing to do with mysticism. It has to do with theological understanding.

Let us try to put your meaning of “believe” here, I will remove the word “believe”:

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 (make that love and wholeness a reality for oneself, deep in the core of who we are) in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

This sounds awkward and smells like new doctrine.

I know it does to you, but that's because you've believed something else your whole life. But John makes perfect sense the way you just put it. Belief isn't an academic agreement, it's experiential.

The love comes from God first, it is not ours. No man is born loving God, we are all sinners. If we are born full of love to God, then you’re mistaken, contrary to the reality. It says "For God so loved the world”, imagine, He loved the world.

Jesus told us that we love one another. It shows that man does not love one another, we are not born to love. The world truly hates Christians—the follower of Christ. God chose us to keep us away from the world.

This, IMO, is sick. Sick and scary and wrong.

Yes, love comes from God first, because God is first and God is love. God loved the world into existence, and we are born loving God because we have God's very Breath within us. To believe like you means that infants who die, die in sin and go to hell. Do you believe that?

No, we are born loving God, since God said that, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you," and the Psalmist says, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." We are made perfectly human, and God says that we were made "very good." That's the theological reality. We are born in love, and we are born to love. Paul says that God chose us to be in the world, to show the world how to love.

What is your proof about this?

What is your "proof" about what you think you "know?" This is a theological debate -- not an ontological debate.

In the New Testament narratives, God love us, so by that love, He sent His Son Jesus Christ as atoning sacrifice to save us from the penalty of sin.

That's one way to view the message. But it's not the only valid way -- nor is it, IMO, the best way. Why? Because, if God loves us, there's no need to "save" us from God's wrath -- especially through blood appeasement.

How the love of God becomes the love of human? Why generalized Jesus as metaphor? He exist in the past in human flesh and not a metaphor.

Did he? Prove it. Prove that Jesus existed in the past. We're reasonably sure that some man named Jesus lived in ancient Palestine during the Roman occupation, but we're not at all sure that the mythic, miracle-working Jesus existed. The man became the myth -- just as other great men have become legendary. That myth is metaphorical -- like other myths.

Your terminology that are using and the emphasis of love is a very superficial way of loving God. Why participate? when you participate in a contest, it is either you win or lose in the game. Then after that game, you are not participating anymore. The word is “commitment” that comes from the word “believe” or “entrust.” The love of God is never participated, (that is superficial commitment) but by dedication of our lives to Him as the controller of our life. If you want more deeper than that, the word is “loyalty.”

I think it's real funny that someone for whom English is either obviously a second language, or has not mastered English grammar enough to write clearly, is pontificating about the meaning of English words. No matter. When we participate in God's love, we do so through commitment to the love of God, and through loyalty to what it means to be in that love relationship. It's not "shallow."

How can you heal by that love if the love is not a commitment?

Love, by its nature, is a commitment. Do you not know this?

I have nothing against the evangelism to all people of different races, and beliefs. They have a chance to hear about Jesus. It is beyond their choice if they will believe in Him and commit their lives to Jesus.

What they need to hear about is the way of Jesus -- the way of love. What they need to hear about is the truth of Jesus -- the truth of love. What they need to hear about is the life of Jesus -- the life of love. If they live the way of love, then they have the truth of love. What they really don't need to hear (or accept) is the Christian mythology of Jesus. Why? Because love is love is love. Christians obviously don't have a corner on that market.

For no. 1 To reconcile humanity from whom? from what?
For no. 2 To share God’s love with us. Is it only by sharing by informing his love?
For no. 3 If disciples loved Jesus, do the disciples submit and obeyed Jesus?

1) Things are not reconciled "from." They are reconciled "to." You need to fix your prepositions.
2) Love is not fostered by "informing." it's fostered by "living." We live and walk in love with each other.
3) Only inasmuch as that submission represents a healthy "I-Thou" relationship.

When you say “represent,”do you mean that this is the meaning as “to serve to stand for or denote, as a word or symbol”?

That depends on your theological stance. In one sense, Jesus is the wholeness of creation. In another sense, Jesus is a visible representative of the whole of humanity that is, in a theological sense, the wholeness of creation. I know that doesn't make much sense to you, but theology is a highly nuanced subject.

Who said that “believing” in Jesus is through deep experience as meditation? Did Jesus taught that?

Did you physically walk, eat, sleep, speak, and fish with Jesus? No? The disciples did. the disciples knew Jesus personally. We do not. We come to know Jesus in a different way. Jesus now lives, not on the earth, but in our hearts. And it is through the heart -- IOW, deep, spiritual experience -- that we come to know Jesus. Not primarily through reading *about* Jesus in a book.

Of course, I know it from the life of Jesus narrated in the New Testament. If not everything was taught by Jesus, I presume that we should be contented with His NT teachings.

This is petty, cheap scholarship. And since "scholarship" is the vehicle by which we read and understand these ancient texts, You're not doing a very thorough job of learning about Jesus, IMO.

Jesus may have? So that means you’re not sure. Then we should’nt conclude He teach yoga.

We have no record of him "teaching Yoga," but that's immaterial, inasmuch as Yoga teaches the same principles of wholeness that Jesus taught.

Can you prove Jesus teach about wholeness? Please cite the Scripture about wholeness.

Really? Srrsly?! Dear God! The whole, entire corpus of the gospels is about wholeness, for Pete's sake! What do you think the healings and exorcisms were all about? Wholeness!!

It is not regarding the “wholeness” as the truth that Jesus is pertaining. The "truth that will set us free" is not referring to that kind of embracing what is not Christianity. Let us check the Scriptures.

John 8:25-32
25. Then they said to Him, "Who are You?'' And Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning.
26. "I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him.''
27. They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father.
28. Then Jesus said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things.
29. "And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.''
30. As He spoke these words, many believed in Him.
31. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.
32. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.''

How then you shall know the truth, it is clearly say that it is by abiding to His word; it continues saying that—to be able to be His disciple, a true follower should abide to His word. That means they will not only accept Jesus’ teaching as the truth, but they will also obey His teachings. Disciples of Jesus will know the truth and that truth will set him free.

And that truth is the truth of love. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and the Law is based in ... love. "...All the Law and the Prophets depend upon these two..." And love, Dear One, is wholeness. Paul tells us that without love, we are nothing -- broken -- not whole.

Still, we should stick to His teaching’s as the priority before we dwell on the disciples and other teachings of the church.

Priority, but not exclusivity.

I believe that the veracity of the writings is more important than the anonymous writers because by his writings, we can somewhat know if the anonymous writer can be trusted or not.

And you, of course, know that the writers were later members of ... the church, right? Just as the other later members, to whom you don't give "priority." So, upon what, then, is your "veracity" of the texts based?

 

[Windwalker]

Yes it make sense. As simple (humble) prayer on what you want tell to God by your own words, and not by smelling.

I pray by groans of the Spirit, not by blathering on and on about what I think I need or want. Such words come from the small mind. "We know not how we ought to pray," says Paul. Sounds to me like you believe you have this all figured out however! Congratulations!

Oh. The last statement that you stated is quite good and nice to hear. What specific doctrine that you are pertaining?

The doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy and Infallibility. You should familiarize yourself with it, since you conflate the doctrine itself with the Bible itself. And yes, you judge a person's faith based on the "fruits of doctrinal belief", which is of course not what the Bible teaches.

Jesus said “Seek ye first His kingdom and His righteousness” and not “Seek ye first His kingdom in a mystical awareness/mystical way, and His righteousness.” By Yoshua

It says to seek God with all your heart and your spirit. If that is not a mystical reality, then I don't know what is! You exclude the heart and spirit in your soulless form of "worship", mistaking Biblical literalism for faith.

We are talking about the life, word and works of Jesus Christ, and we are not living in the past. I did not ask about Paul’s letters.

You said Thomas isn't of any value because it's not a narrative! I brought up Paul, because neither are his letters! So that argument falls into the pile of other worthless arguments you continue to invent and don't take ownership of after the fact.

Why seek the gospel of Thomas? Did the teachings of Jesus can’t be accepted by contemplatives?

I know you have a hard time following lines of reason that are presented to you, so I'll just bring you back. The point of bringing Thomas up was that it was a valid document used by Christians in their early Christian practices, yet, for some reason, never managed to be included in what became your Bible today. All this points to a group of men, not the Apostles, but some church councils in the 3rd century, who through politics decided what they felt should and should not be added. These men were not prophets. These men were not "divinely inspired", and so forth. Do you even understand any of this at all?

Thomas has nothing to do with whatever the heck this nonsense reply of yours is trying to challenge. I have no idea how your thinking makes this up like this. It's a mystery, for sure.

Why hear those issues without validity in your mind? You may have to dwell on those things to check if those are true. Whose that editor?

What do you mean without validity in my mind? Of course it has validity in my mind, because these are the facts of what happened! You don't understand how the Bible was canonized, do you? You don't understand Church history, do you? Are you aware of what happened in Nicea? Have you ever heard of it before? Do you imagine the Bible just pulled itself together magically, one day it was just there, a miracle, a book that dropped from the sky? I seriously question why you don't know these things. Could it be that bible strapped to your face that doesn't seek any understanding outside of what you put on like blinders against reality?

You are mistaken. I know what is the Spirit of God so I trusted the Spirit of God. May I ask you what is the Spirit of God? What Jesus is telling about the Spirit of God?

I am very hesitant to even talk about this, considering the nature of your thoughts and replies. What do you think the Spirit is? Let's start there.

Luke 21:33
33. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Wonderful! This means your Protestant Bible is NOT the Word of God! Why? Because it will pass away with earth. It's a book! Books will go bye-bye. And the words in them, history, people, names, faces, ideas, thoughts, beliefs, faith, all of it, every last bit of it will pass away. But the Word will not. Think about that, if you can.

Of course. We should read the Bible. Why? do you think we can memorize all the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation?

Yes, of course it can be memorized. That's doesn't mean you understand a damn thing you're reading in it. You look at the same verses day in and day out, and never fathom them. Doesn't matter if you call yourself a believer or not. I see the same verses, but I hear something quite different than you do. The Bible does not say, "By their beliefs you shall know them". But in your version of truth, it does.

As I said before, what is the difference if a follower of Christ have in mind (memorize) the Scripture in compare with those who need the (physical) Bible as their guide?

Because if the mind is not illuminated by Spirit, through engaging with Spirit, mind you, the words are merely a reflection of their own dim ideas. Your use of it, clearly reflects that.

We can clearly see what is outside the Bible, the Bible itself told, and warned us about false teachings (not in accord with the Scriptures).

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. "No, YOUR views are false teachings! There! I'm right, and you're wrong, and the Bible says so. Nah!" (How juvenile).

Of course, we should follow and heed that word.

Not if your mind is blind.

It is awareness and not blinded by the word of God.

It's not the Word of God, when it's what you think is true.

No one can say that he is blinded and abuse by the word of God; it guides you and lead your spiritual sanctified life.

I said YOU abuse the Bible. Not that the Bible abuses you.

 

[sojourner]

How can the Holy Spirit become the Counselor and Helper of those who are not a follower of Christ? That is a contradiction and non-consistent.

In the first place, Jesus is telling about the Holy Spirit with His disciples and not any yoga practitioner.

John 14:16-18
16. "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever,
17. "even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
18. "I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

When people abide in love, they are "following Christ."

The emergent church is honorable to God? Did Jesus say something about denying Him?

Missing the Point About the Emerging Church
Scholars who are now critiquing the emerging church may be missing the most important element of all.

Many think that one of the big problems with the Emerging Church is their view on relativism (the belief that there are no absolutes). But they may be wrong, very wrong. Brian McLaren rejected relativism in a Powerpoint presentation we viewed last year. Relativism does not describe the Emerging Church. As McLaren himself said, it has to go beyond that ... and indeed it does. Where do we go from relativism, according to McLaren ... what else .... interspirituality. But remember interspirituality is the outcome of contemplative prayer and is the uniting of all religions and the denial that Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation. So many of the scholars who are analyzing the emerging church may be missing something that is right under their noses. Want to find out where the emerging church is really heading ... you are going to have to look beyond the obvious. When you reach that destination, you may be in for the shock of your life. ligthouse trails

Matt 10:32-33
32. "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.
33. "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

To say that the Emergent conversation "denies Jesus" is disingenuous. It doesn't "deny Jesus." It does deny a narrow interpretation of 1) just who Jesus is, and 2) what "following Jesus" means. IOW, it denies what these fundie clowns believe, and that pisses them off.

"Interspirituality" is, indeed, the outcome of deep, spiritual understanding (that normally comes about through contemplation). People (like Jesus, for example) who are deeply spiritual can let go of the specific trappings of religion and see God and humanity more clearly. They see that all religions point to the Divine -- each in a unique and special way. In that way, all religions may be seen to be unified -- in that they are "pointers to the Divine."

As for "the denial that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation," it depends upon what one means by "way." If, as is true of every narrow-minded fundie, "only way" means that one must believe in Jesus-of-the-bible-as-fundamentalist-Christianity-portrays-him, then their accusation is true. If, however, "only way" means that Jesus is an avatar for love, then their accusation is false. Emergents tend to see "only way" as the way of love and acceptance, and not as some draconian, legalistic belief in a mythical Jesus.

Emergents do confess Jesus, because they confess love. It's a different form of confession than fundies are used to, and it pisses them off.

I did not understand the movement? Why? Do I need to be a doctor if I’m sick?

Because you're claiming to be the doctor here, and doctors do understand physiology and psychology well enough to know whether one is truly sick.

"The church has been preoccupied with the question, "What happens to your soul after you die?" As if the reason for Jesus coming can be summed up in, "Jesus is trying to help get more souls into heaven, as opposed to hell, after they die." I just think a fair reading of the Gospels blows that out of the water. I don't think that the entire message and life of Jesus can be boiled down to that bottom line."—Brian McLaren, from the PBS special on the Emerging Church

What do you think Jesus will say about this? Is Jesus as the truth seems to be forgotten?

I think he's bang on the dot here. Jesus wasn't so worried about the eternal dispensation of our souls as he was about how we lived and treated others right now. Jesus didn't come to "get us into heaven." Jesus came to teach us how to live our lives.

Do you think people of different faiths will deny themselves and follow Jesus? Even if you define it and pound it repeatedly on the ground that humanity will be one with God, it will not happen. Not all people will seek God and deny themselves to dedicate their life and obey Jesus. How about you, did you deny yourself and follow Jesus only?

This is about hope. We hope for that for humanity, just as Jesus prayed that we would all be one, as he and the Father are one.

Yes, I follow the life of love as best I can.

The mere fact that you allows Buddhism, Hindus and other religious faiths is already an invitation and opening to one world religion. This is the truth.

No, it's not. It's an opening to a conversation and a relationship. The religious landscape is like a quilt made of vastly different pieces. All the pieces are necessary in order to have a complete quilt, such that the Divine is reflected in a whole humanity.

No. The God of Christianity is not the same God of all. Jesus would’nt accept other teachings contrary to his word. Why Jesus should bow to other faiths?

Divinity is Divinity. Jesus doesn't "bow" to any faith. Jesus espouses love of God and love of neighbor as oneself -- however that is expressed. Being Jewish, himself, Jesus worked within that particular framework. But the framework is, in the grand scheme of things, relatively unimportant.

That is what you think. It is already riding. Allow me to post this article.

The Emergent Church Teaches One World Religion!
Brian McLaren, recognized as the major leader of the Emergent Church, is not too sure what he believes about the essential truths of Scripture (except to doubt many of them). He is not too sure what he is but we know what he is not—sane, sensible, or scriptural. Note the confusion of the poor man: He characterizes himself as “a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian.” (Subtitle of A Generous Orthodoxy.) Well, that seems to cover the waterfront! He seems to be a little bit of everything, except a Christian!

McLaren is a fevered ecumenist who has met with major Jewish leaders from a group known as Synagogue 3000’s with the purpose to break down walls of separation. He wrote, “We have so much common ground on so many levels.” He notes. “We face similar problems in the present, we have common hopes for the future, and we draw from shared resources in our heritage. I’m thrilled with the possibility of developing friendship and collaboration in ways that help God’s dreams come true for our synagogues, churches, and world.” (From Doug Pagitt’s website, “Emergent Christian/Jewish Leaders Meeting News Release,” 12-7-2005.) Emphasis added.

The Emergent Church leaders are working closely with Jewish leaders in an attempt to find ways to work together in bringing about “God’s dreams” for His Kingdom on earth. God’s dreams! Brian did not get that from Scripture but it made the Jewish leaders feel good that an “evangelical” was reaching out to them after breaking down and climbing over the walls that separated them.

EC leaders pitch this cooperation between Jews and “Evangelicals” as a real spiritual awakening, unique to history as they share their respective faiths to do God’s work together! You will look in vain to find even a suggestion of that in the Bible. In fact, you discover the opposite. When Jesus told the Jews the truth, they crucified Him. When Stephen spoke to the Jewish council as recorded in Acts 7:51-52, he did not “dialogue” with them but charged: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers.” They stoned him! Maybe that’s why these pitiful “Evangelicals” don’t preach Christ to modern-day Jewish councils. They also just don’t understand that it is a sign of love to tell people the truth.

Brian McLaren reveals his twisted view of ecclesiastical separation in his book A Generous Orthodoxy when he says, “I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts.” (Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 260.)


McLaren declared that if Muslims, Buddhist, Jews, or atheists, are “happy being Muslim, or Buddhist or Jewish or atheist,” then he says we should not “shoe-horn them out of their religion” into Christianity. (Impact News, “Sojourners Chairman: Jesus Cared More About Earth Than Heaven,” 6-4-07.)
McLaren wrote, “…many Hindus are willing to consider Jesus as a legitimate manifestation of the divine…many Buddhists see Jesus as one of humanity’s most enlightened people…. A shared reappraisal of Jesus’ message could provide a unique space or common ground for urgently needed religious dialogue—and it doesn’t seem an exaggeration to say that the future of our planet may depend on such dialogue. This reappraisal of Jesus’ message may be the only project capable of saving a number of religions….” (Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth that could change everything, p 7.) Emphasis added.

Of course, the Christian message and motive is not to save religions but to spread the message of Christ. And I wonder if Brian is a little hyperbolic to suggest that the future of the planet rests upon various pagan religions getting together for a religious powwow—which is exactly where all this is headed with the help of people like EC spokesmen.

You don’t think that is their motive? Let Brian speak even more clearly: “Today, he [Apostle Paul] might speak of reconciliation of the war veteran with the pacifist protester. The tattooed and pierced granddaughter with her prim and proper grandmother…. Christians with Jews and Muslims and Hindus.” (Ibid p. 99.)
McLaren declared that the Hindu leader Gandhi “sought to follow the way of Christ without identifying himself as a Christian” (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 189). No, Gandhi was a pagan and McLaren and his co-conspirators in the EC are merging the Emergent Church with paganism.

McLaren swallowed the Kool Aide when he wrote, “My knowledge of Buddhism is rudimentary, but I have to tell you that much of what I understand strikes me as wonderful and insightful, and the same can be said of the teachings of Muhammad, though of course I have my disagreements. … I’d have to say that the world is better off for having these religions than having no religions at all, or just one, even if it were ours. … They aren’t the enemy of the gospel, in my mind….” (A New Kind of Christian, pp. 62, 63). How in the world can a sane man declare that pagan religions that deny all the essential doctrines of Christ are not the enemy of the Gospel? Muslims deny the divinity of Christ and even reject the fact He died on the cross! Brian had better understand that it is bad to be wrong but disastrous to be wrong for all eternity.

Alan Jones, wrote, “The image of the child Jesus sitting on the Buddha’s lap appeals to me and captures the spirit of this book. It is an image of the Kingdom. ‘The Kingdom’ is a sort of shorthand signifying an inclusive community of faith, love and justice.” (Alan Jones, Reimagining Christianity, p. 12.) He declared on page 16, “The phrase, ‘I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian’ is extraordinarily wise.” Such a person, taking that position, is as lost as a goose in a snowstorm!

On page 88, Alan shows that he is a one-worlder when he comments on a “Eucharist” service in Australia. “Aboriginal dancers led the procession into the cathedral and later led the offertory procession to the altar. During communion, representatives of the Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and Baha’i faiths read passages from their sacred writings, and after communion an aboriginal leader offered a dream-time reflection. Was this Christian? The answer, as far as I’m concerned, is ‘Of course.’ ” But I say, “Of course not!”

At Jones’ Episcopal church in San Francisco, he said “we ‘break the bread’ for those who follow the path of the Buddha and walk the way of the Hindus.” (Reimagining Christianity, p. 89.) Then he breaks bread with pagans! Obviously, Episcopalians have more problems than whether or not to ordain women as priests!

To prove that anything goes in the EC crowd, Jones even endorsed witches on page 22! “I discovered that the nice woman next to me on a plane recently is a witch who values the spirits in trees, rivers, and mountains. She struck me as strong and gentle and full of love. I thought, ‘How great to be a member of such an interesting and caring family.’” Hand me a barf bag!

EC leaders are so gracious, kind, thoughtful, even sweet to all kinds of heretics, mystics, one-worlders, witches, and other oddballs and very unkind, uncivil, and unrelenting to Bible-believing Christians! EC leaders love to hate Fundamentalists! EC tolerance does not reach that far! No doubt, many will charge me with being unloving, jealous, bigoted, Pharisaical, and hateful; and I wonder what those same critics think about Paul’s warnings in his charge to church leaders to “reprove, rebuke, exhort.” Moreover, what of Jude’s command to contend for the faith?

It is also noteworthy that our critics in the EC can make outrageous statements about us and they are never unloving, hateful, etc. Note McLaren’s statement (put in the mouth of his fictional character Neo): “I don’t dislike fundamentalists, taken individually—they tend to be pretty nice folks. Get them together in a group though, and I get nervous. I start to twitch and break out in a rash” (p. 9). Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, p. 9.) Every real Bible believing Christian should be offended by that outrageous statement.

EC people love every weirdo and all pagan religions with all their cockamamie teachings but are not loving, kind, and gracious toward Bible believing Christians! EC leaders have a warm embrace for the pagans and vicious umbrage for true believers. And they talk about returning to the teaching of Christ!

Copyright 2008, Don Boys, Ph.D.
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 13 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. His most recent book is ISLAM: America’s Trojan Horse! These columns go to over 11,000 newspapers, television, and radio stations. His websites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com.)

1) McLaren is absolutely right here.
2) The article is nothing more than fundamentalist hate mongering and narrow-minded propaganda and deserves no further comment or treatment.

Oh come on. Don’t say that God does not hate; He hate sin.

I said anyone. Is sin a person?

What do you think of God? a compromising God?

In matters of love and justice? No. In matters of faith and practice? Yes!

I think you are confused about the teachings of Jesus Christ in relation with the other beliefs. You cannot determine what is Christianity and what is not.

Again: narrow-minded hate-mongering. Of course I know what Christianity is! Christianity isn't a religion, primarily -- it's a way of being in the world. It's a way of living love.

I’m very clear what is an idol, and what is not. I’m a former baptized Roman Catholic.

Bully for you. So am I.

Sin is a lie? How come it is a lie? So you are not a sinner—a complete person? Wow. The word “sin” seems unknown to you. A person cannot be one to God without acknowledging he is a sinner.

Luke 18:10-14
10. "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer.
11. "The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, `God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer.
12. `I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.'
13. "But the tax-gatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, `God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'
14. "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted."

Those who are whole are very humble. But you don't seem to be...
Sin is a lie, because sin is not our normal condition. It's a condition we mistakenly place upon ourselves, and believe about ourselves. Sin is a fake condition that we must work our way out of, with God's help. Underneath the mask of sin, we are whole, human beings.

 

[sojourner]

The world is the corrupted world; it says here that if we are from God, we are not adhering to the world.

If "the world is the corrupted world," then it follows logically that there must be a world that is good and not corrupted. That second world is the real world. It's the world God intended for us. Only when we perceive that the "corrupted world" is false, and that we are part of the real and good world, will we be whole. The "corrupted world" is a, inner world of our own, egotistical perceptions. The "whole world" is the real, physical and natural world in which we live.

Did “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” is not love in preaching them the good news?

The "good news" is that we are one, whole human family in God.

Why you distort the gospel into oneness?

Oneness is the gospel message. Because the gospel is a gospel of love, and love binds us into unity.

Jesus does not proclaiming New Age as “All is one.” I believed that your past experience with bible believing Christian gives you a false notion about the gospel.

I believe you're wrong.

The loving of neighbors and enemies is the result of being a Christian. Who’s beating people with conformity?

It's also the result of being a member any number of other religions. You're beating people with conformity when you insist that, in order to be "right with God," people must be Christian.

You are actually facing with the Scripture of Jesus rather than me. It’s very clear that Jesus said “Make disciples, that means make a follower of Christ.” What do you mean by following Christ?

One follows Christ when one learns to love in the way Jesus taught us to love, that is, to make laos (us) out of the ethne (them), IOW, to make all people one people.

Then Prove it. Show me your evidence that Paul did something partaking sacrificed meat for idols.

1 Cor. 8

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

'I'm deeply impregnated with Sufism.'" Thomas Merton, from The Springs of Contemplation, p. 266

So? Your point? Merton is one of the spiritually deep people for whom religious boundaries are very loosely held, because he's able to see the Divine in other religions. are you so blind that you cannot? Pity.

I think you’re being blinded from identifying what Jesus Christ’s Christianity is? Christianity for you is to practice Buddhism, Oh my.

When did I ever say that I practiced Buddhism???

uddha and Jesus differed a lot.

People differ a lot, yet there is still one, human family.

You believe in a man’s philosophy and concepts rather than the Son of God sent by the Father.

No, I don't. I'm not Buddhist.

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.

I don't think you understand either one very well, if that's what you think.

’m a former believer of Buddha, and I know what is to God, and what is to Buddha.

I thought you were a former Catholic.

I know what is to God, and what is to Buddha.

It doesn't sound like you know much of anything about either, since you never adhered to anything long enough to understand it. "Seems to me like you're being blown around by every wind of doctrine" without finding firm theological footing anywhere. Now, IMO, you're strung out on fundamentalism.

How can I be confused?

Easy, if you don't know what to believe.

A person who can define what is Christianity and what is Buddhism is not confused, but vividly see their differences and distinction.

You haven't managed to adequately define either one. Because of that, you can't see similarities.

I’m not embracing any belief other than Christianity. I’m a monotheist and not polytheist.I have no double standard of spirituality.

Bully for you, but that still doesn't address my argument.

anyone who embrace Buddhism will self deny (himself) to whom? What is the purpose and relevance of his self denial?

To the cosmos -- to God -- to the Divine -- to ... whatever a person perceives as That Which Holds Us in Existence.

 

[sojourner]

How can you submit to Christ when you adhere and embraced Hindus, yoga, mantra, Buddhism etc…….?

Because "Christ" isn't a religion. One can be a member of the religion, and still not subject to Christ. One can be a member of another religion and be subject to Christ. The boundary line isn't religion, but state of heart.

That is your theology. Not a solid theology. If the foundation of Christianity came from Jesus Christ, the theology that adheres to it is not fragile.

Jesus was fragile. Jesus was captured, tortured, abused, and crucified. His body was broken. God forsook him.

Panentheist think God is finite and not infinite.

No they don't. Read your little article again very carefully.

Is it because they are in the East, Christianity is rooted with Hinduism?

I didn't say Xy is "rooted in Hinduism." I said they were both Eastern religions, so they're both based in mysticism.

There is a meditation for Hindus and for Christian, but they don’t have the same principles and God. Therefore, attached the flavor of Hindus is not a sufficient evidence to link it with Jesus’ Christianity.

The aim is the same: mystical union with the Divine. Only the particulars of the mythos differ.

Wow. Did I idolize the Bible?

Yes, because you hold that the bible is supernatural, in that it is infallible, in that it is the "word of God," in that, by reading it, one becomes "ascended," or more Christlike. You have maintained that it is only through reading it that one can be saved, because only therein can Jesus be encountered and believed in.

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

Incomplete, and unclear. This is the gospel:

1 Cor. 15:1-4
1. Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2. by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4. and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

That's patently not the gospel that Jesus preached, though. You have to look at what is at the heart of each gospel statement. What is at the heart of each is God's unconditional love for the human family.

That is man initiated to mysticism, and not God initiated.

In mysticism, God does initiate. We respond.

Way of love? That is New Age. The love of God is innate to Him. No doubt about that.
He is the way to the Father, the mediator and the only name which salvation can be found.

Well, then New Age has it right.

Don’t over-emphasized about the word “love,” we both know that God is love. It is better that you meditate on this Scripture. Don’t forget the v.9, why there is love and what is that love.

God Is Love
7. Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
9. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
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.
11. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

Right! It's about God's initiation of love and showing of love toward us. Therefore, we respond to that love, with love. That's how a love relationship is built, after all. The cross points to God's love -- but it is not that love, itself.

Then it is included. This should be the primary goal. How can you preach without action? It is the Holy Spirit who leads you to action. Reading the Scriptures is an action; we act the right thing that is in accordance with the will of God.

Just as in contemplation. We act the right thing that is in accordance with the will of God -- that is, that we come to know God intimately.

 

[sojourner]

Believing in Jesus Christ is obeying, thus by obeying is a commitment. This is the same as your commitment with your wife at the stage of marriage. You become loyal to your wife same as with your kids. Why not for God?

Spending eternity in hell is true, that is the truth. The Scripture mentioned about hell. There is no such thing as you don't commit and surrendered your life to Jesus partially, and seek yourself any spirituality that will make you feel good and full of mysticism. This is not what Jesus is saying.

James 4:7
7. Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

Ps. 40 :8
8. I delight to do Thy will, O my God;
Thy Law is within my heart."

Matt. 12:50
50. "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

If Jesus does the will of Hid Father, He submitted to His will. What is the reason why we could 'nt submit to His will.

John 7:17-18
17. "If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself.
18. "He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.

Heb. 13:21
21. equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

As I said earlier: Fear. "Believe in God, or else!

If that will be your standard, then you may allowing your flesh to trigger in sinning. The notion that you got from other believers is a cult-like claiming Christians. Who say that you cannot dance, sing, and go to movies? You're mistaken about this one. Now, about the smoking, our body is God's temple and we should take care of our body and offer it to God as a living sacrifice.

No, I'm not. I've literally heard this a thousand times from fundamentalists.
As to smoking: a lot of burnt sacrifices and burning incense happened in the temple. Just sayin'...

For pre-marital sex, I believed this is not allowed by God. How can you testify as the follower of Christ if you're a pre-marital sex advocator?

Depends on the definition of "marriage," and when such occurs. The biblical definition and time frame was far different from ours.

 

[sojourner]

We don't put an excuse to other evangelicals who embraced emergent. Is this prophesied by Jesus? Isn't it. That there will be false prophets, and false teachings; strange doctrine that is not of Jesus teachings. The relationship is the basis of our doctrine and not by name of the who you are in the denomination or your title.

This yardstick could apply to fundamentalist evangelicals, as well. Be careful the rocks you choose to throw.

What we are trying to unfold here is the emergent practice and not who's who.

You're not doing a good job of exposing Emergent practice At. All. You are doing a very good job of libel, however.

 

[sojourner]

As I posted earlier, it is not a reason of not having a NT or no gospels as you commented, the mere fact that Paul is addressing His defense to Agrippa is already about the gospel whether it is not yet written or about to be written. The good news is we have the gospel, the words of Jesus & Paul handed down to us to read and meditate it as our guide to righteousness.

What is the difference if the underground chinese in China memorized the Scriptures without the physical Bible in their hands? Will you accused them being a fundamentalist or rather rejoice that they have the word of God in their heart and mind? Which of the two?

Thanks

None of this addresses my point. Try again.