What is Contemplative Christianity?

[InChrist]

I just came across this and I think it's a great example of what can happen when some people read the Bible. Not only do they have demon-casting out services, but raising the dead services. At least it's "scriptural". Oh my.....

Bentley is a good example of one who reads the Bible and uses it for his own profit and glory.... which is certainly not scriptural.

 

[sojourner]

I think Meister Eckhart in his confused mystical panentheistic/ pantheistic view simply swallowed the greatest lie of all time.

To say that Meister Eckhart is "confused in his view" of theology is like saying Einstein was "confused in his concept" of relativity, or that Mozart was "confused in his creativity" of the serious opera. Your credibility just dropped by at least a factor of 10.

 

[sojourner]

What if God is GOD, and you are not? Do you care? If it is true that God alone is GOD, would you defer to this truth or prefer to remain in your own unreality?

It is a scientific fact that human beings are made of the same material as the rest of creation. It is a theological truth that God created the creation out of God's Self, and that human life was brought about through the breath of God. Therefore, we are part and parcel of God. Do you defer to this truth or prefer to remain in your own unreality?

 

[InChrist]

To say that Meister Eckhart is "confused in his view" of theology is like saying Einstein was "confused in his concept" of relativity, or that Mozart was "confused in his creativity" of the serious opera. Your credibility just dropped by at least a factor of 10.

I don't consider Eckhart in the same league as Mozart or Einstein. But, irregardless, I am not dependent on your credibility score.

 

[InChrist]

It is a scientific fact that human beings are made of the same material as the rest of creation. It is a theological truth that God created the creation out of God's Self, and that human life was brought about through the breath of God. Therefore, we are part and parcel of God. Do you defer to this truth or prefer to remain in your own unreality?

Does science claim to know what the breath of God is? Or what it is composed of? Or what it is capable of? Do you?

 

[InChrist]

My Lord! How in the world did you intepret that I said that people who believe as you do are mentally ill??? I never said that, and I do not believe that!! I said, to Yoshua, that mentally ill people can be attracted to religion, and that just because they are part of religion, it doesn't mean they are well! Dear Lord, how clear do I have to be? Frustrating.

That's great. It doesn't mean he isn't challenged in ways of understanding others, or that he is free of any struggles because he believes in the Bible. But that is what he was arguing. Perhaps you didn't read my posts very well. I know my posts may be "wordy", but they are in fact quite clear and precise in language, which is why I can't tolerate the quality of responses I've been getting from him. It's nothing but correcting his misinterpretations.

Say, speaking of misinterpreting! Here I am telling you my exact thoughts, and yet you didn't read them right! Don't kid yourself, it's the same with reading the Bible. You hear what your filters lets you here. The difference is, I'm hear to scream, "No, not right!" I hope one day you'll see this truth about your own subjective filters when it comes to everything, include the Bible.

Your post includes comments such as;

unhealthy.

do not have the proper foundations of good mental health

psychological disturbed

delusional and paranoid thinking.

who doesn't not have a relatively stable psyche deeper

self-dissociation and dysfunction. Religion attracts mentally ill

attractive it is to those who are already unbalanced.

all of which you used to insinuate that Yoshua specifically and in general those who believe the fundamental doctrines of the Bible fall into the category of the mentally ill, unbalanced, etc.

 

[InChrist]

There's a marked difference -- both biblically and scientifically -- between "resuscitation" and "resurrection." Resuscitation is a physical occurrence with measurable, quantifiable parameters and outcomes. Resurrection is a theological concept that, so far as is known, has no quantifiable, measurable, physical manifestations. This guy's a clown.

Well, we can agree on something.

 

[sojourner]

I don't consider Eckhart in the same league as Mozart or Einstein. But, irregardless, I am not dependent on your credibility score.

Of course not. He challenges your tightly-held convictions. People in the 1700s didn't like Mozart much, either. The great ones are always dissed by the bourgeoisie.

 

[sojourner]

Does science claim to know what the breath of God is? Or what it is composed of? Or what it is capable of? Do you?

Do you?

 

[InChrist]

Of course not. He challenges your tightly-held convictions. People in the 1700s didn't like Mozart much, either. The great ones are always dissed by the bourgeoisie.

No, he doesn't challenge my convictions, but he did promote views about God contrary to the scriptures, which classified him a false teacher and heretic.

 

[InChrist]

Do you?

I only know what the scriptures reveal.

 

[sojourner]

No, he doesn't challenge my convictions, but he did promote views about God contrary to the scriptures, which classified him a false teacher and heretic.

No. He didn't. You may believe he did, but his views are solid theologically.

 

[sojourner]

I only know what the scriptures reveal.

And the scriptures reveal that we are made with "God-stuff."

 

[InChrist]

No. He didn't. You may believe he did, but his views are solid theologically.

I don't think he was biblically sound, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[InChrist]

And the scriptures reveal that we are made with "God-stuff."

The scriptures say we were created by God, that does not make us (the created) God (the Creator).

 

[Yoshua]

Here's the pattern. I have been extremely patient with your responses, initially assuming you were just challenged by new ideas. But after so long of deliberate misrepresentations, lies, insults and attacks, calling me "New Age", constantly while I have explicitly rejected that term applied to myself, eventually you'll get a response that calls what you are doing on the floor. And then you act all "calm" and blame them for their reaction to your antics in this thread, telling me to take a deep breath and so on. I know those who do this sort of manipulation, pushing others, and then when they react to them they pass all the blame off to the one who reacted.

Hi Windwalker,

I'm always referring to the statement or wordings that were used by the New Age, same as the principles and teachings. They are similar, and I have my reference posted including the Scriptures. Please do not make me look that I'm doing this in personal, it's not. This is showing my views, proof and evidence on why those practices link with the contemplative practices. Just as you called me an idiot, fundamentalist, and some more which I would'nt need to mention (it's useless) because I fully believe, aware & accepted that this will be a part of General Debate discussion

The fact remains, you do not respond to the points, you consistently misrepresent and twist my words to make me say things I am not saying, you label me a religion I do not accept for myself, you say I worship the devil, and so on, and then you do not accept others correction when they point it out to you, you slam all other religions as satanic, and then you here cite the forum rules to me as if I am violating them in my response where I said you take the words other and pass them through the grist mill of your logic processes.

Please enumerate all the twisting of your words, I would like to see that. I did not say that you worship the devil. The standard of the word of God clearly pointing out that--in contrary with the Scripture teachings, they are outside of God's teachings.
Did I cited the forum rules here that you violated them? where?

I actually have learned a lot about the fundamentalist mode of thinking in this thread, and it has helped me realize the limits it has and the dysfunction inherent in it. I have learned that it is not simply a 'novice' idea about God and spirituality, but a bastion for those who are attracted to conspiracy theory and other forms of paranoia. I used to be in a fundamentalist group, and this discussion has help me see in a much more clear light the nature of what it is, now that I've had some years of distance from it. That is the only reason I have spent this amount of energy here. It's about looking into that world of my own past more directly, to see it for what it was and how poisonous it is to the human soul and the world. I understand clearly why the atheist who leaves such groups extolls how they have been "saved from religion". If anything is darkness masquerading as light, fundamentalism is. "By their fruits you shall know them".

Well, you are not talking to a fundamentalist here. I'm not. Sorry to say that. I see that you have been given a false notion about adhering to the Scripture especially in application.

Thanks

 

[Shadow of Liberty]

 

[Windwalker]

Although you may think the right word is transformed, the actual word used in the scriptures is... conformed to the image of His Son Romans 8:29

Yes, you're right. The word used was conformed, but I take it in the context of 2 Cor. 3:18 about being transformed into the image of the Lord. It is a process of transformation whereby the person, from the inside out, becomes a "new creature", which is again not just a matter of imitating or trying to look like Christ, but becoming that in the world in your being. It is about transformation of the person, not just conforming to external rules. I believe the word conform in Romans means the same thing as transformed in 2 Cor.

Again, this is about the idea of the difference between mere reflecting, and actual being. I believe Paul is speaking about actual being. From the pulpit commentary series on 2 Cor. 3:18:

No other instance occurs in which the verb in the middle voice has the meaning of "reflecting," and the words, "With unveiled face," imply the image of "beholding." They are, in fact, a description of "the beatific vision." An additional reason for retaining the translation of our Authorized Version is that the verb is used in this sense by Philo ('Leg. Alleg.,' 3:33). The glory of the Lord. Namely, him who is "the Effulgence of God's glory" (Hebrews 1:2), the true Shechinah, "the Image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). Are changed into the same image. The present tense implies a gradual transfiguration, a mystical and spiritual change which is produced in us while we contemplate Christ. From glory to glory. Our spiritual assimilation to Christ comes from his glory and issues in a glory like his (1 Corinthians 15:51; comp." from strength to strength," Psalm 84:7). (For the thought, comp. 1 John 3:2.) As by the Spirit of the Lord. This rendering (which is that of the Vulgate also) can hardly be correct. The natural meaning of the Greek is "as by the [or, from] the Lord the Spirit." Our change into glory comes from the Lord, who, as St. Paul has already explained, is the Spirit of which he has been speaking. No such abstract theological thought is here in his mind as that of the "hypostatic union," of the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is still referring to the contrast between the letter and the spirit, and his identification of this "spirit" in its highest sense with the quickening life which, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, we receive from Christ, and which is indeed identical with "the Spirit of Christ."
​

It is, in fact a mystical transfiguration that occurs. This is what is spiritual growth. And why those such as Sojourner and myself extol the virtues of meditation practice is that we have both in our lives experienced a great deal of what can be understood as accelerate growth through it. Meditation practices in fact give you that experience of beholding with unveiled faces. And the result is marked, progressive transformation, transfiguration of who we are in all of who we are. This is experience speaking. And when I read 2 Cor. 3 in this light, I can say it is spot-on in its language.

Below is an excerpt and link to an article which helps with understanding biblical interpretation. I have highlighted in bold a point which I think is very important.

You still don't see the point. Those those may be good tools of exegesis, you still have to interpret it through the lenses of your own eye. Those lenses vary from person to person, group to group. I have contexts of awareness by which I take what is read and interpreted, using whatever method of interpretation it may be or is being shared by others such as yourself, and place them within that context. So using the same methods of "how to interpret scripture", most definitely does not result in people interpreting them the same way! That is a fallacy, an illusion.

Even if a group of conservatives come up with a general "agreement" on what something means, they are doing so only because it is a general, not exact, consensus of that group. But that group shares similar filters. They share a common "mind" as it were. But if you have a group of liberals, the common filters they share will end up with a common consensus as well that reflects that group's filters. And what they see, ends up being different than what the other group sees. This is a phenomenon termed "consensus consciousness". And this applies to everything we see and experience, as individual, and as individuals within their respective groups.

“When it comes to making claims about what the Bible means, sometimes we hear comments from Christians or non-Christians like the following: “Well, that’s just your interpretation.”

So let’s just start with the most basic question. What does a text mean? The answer to this question is that a text means what the author intended it to mean. If there is only one thing you learn from this lesson this is it. For a simple example, if you wrote a letter with some statements in it that are a little ambiguous, then what does the letter mean? Does it mean what you intended it to mean or how the readers interpret it? Of course it means what you intended it to mean. The true meaning of a text resides in the authorial intent of the text. This leads us to the first primary and fundamental principle of interpreting the Bible

.
Again, you have me right here typing my words, and yet you are misinterpreting me all over the place. Rather, you are hearing only what is able to fit into your reality, or you try to make them fit into what you are able to comprehend though your filters, and you come up with a very different meaning than what this author, me, intended. You ascribe your own ideas to mine, and end up with me saying things I did not mean or suggest. So, this fails to overcome exactly what I'm talking about, which you have yet to fully appreciate.

Because you have already said you do not believe the scriptures are the literal, infallible revealed word of God. Therefore you do not look for the Author's intended meaning, but use them only to superimpose meanings upon them in support of your own brand of spirituality.

Not at all, I think understanding their intended meaning can be understood in different contexts, such as recognizing their fallibilities as humans on their own path spiritually, their own awareness culturally, their personality types which affect their views, their mystical awareness, there lack thereof, the fact of unknown authors writing as if they were the authors but from a later period with different motivations, the fact of the evolution of early Christianities into an organized administered body by later groups and myths of apostolic succession being layered on it, and so forth. All of those contexts place what is read into a different light than the context you place them in, which tends to be one a magically preserved bible as an owner's manual that is a direct dictation from God without any fallibility in it whatsoever.

You see the difference in contexts and how that will affect how one interprets what is read? How can you not?

I acknowledge the scriptures as God’s Word and therefore read them with the desire to know God’s intended meaning and have my spiritual views and life inspired, corrected and changed to be in line with His expressed communication and will.

All only within the context of what you have been exposed to or accept as reality. You have a context in which all this filters through, and it will fit within that, or not. I acknowledge the scriptures as the expression of man inspired by Spirit, reaching out in their understandings, in their frameworks of their cultures, languages, mythologies, and mystical experiences, and through that I find that which I can relate from my own experiences, which inspire and give me a language in order for me to continually be transformed from glory to glory into the image of Spirit.

Contemplative prayer violates the Bible because it is based in occult and metaphysical practices with the focus on having an esoteric, mystical experience with God which is purely subjective , rather than comprehensible communication with God as the scriptures instruct (Phil. 4:6; Cor. 14:15; Matt. 6:9-13;John 16;23-24; Is.1:18)

No, it violates your mind's understanding of reality, which you superimpose on the Bible and call that God's Word. You have a poor understanding of the facts of meditation as we have been privileged to look at your sources you shared, which Sojourner eloquently dismissed as a bunch of "bozos". Suffice to say they are rife with misinformation, biases, false analogies, and so forth. But it is through these unreliable sources you errantly conclude they are based in occult practices, and from that errant conclusion, you interpret the Bible to fit your prejudiced assumptions.

It violates the teachings of Jesus and does not produce good fruit because it promotes the idea that salvation is gained by many paths rather than through the Savior Jesus Christ alone, contradicting Christ Himself who stated that salvation comes only through Him (John 14:6). If one does not come to God through Jesus Christ then there is no Holy Spirit received or indwelling, no fruits of the Spirit, or any good fruit.

Here is where you greatly err. No only do you ignore the testimony of those who tell you unequivocally their own experiences of how it greatly deepens and awakens the fruits of the Spirit as listed in the Bible, "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control," effectively calling all of us a liar because you can't reconcile this fact with your beliefs. You additionally reject or ignore all the scientific research which shows the long list of positive benefits to those who practice it amplifying those fruits of the spirit in their lives as well, and conclude against scripture that an evil tree bears good fruit.

But here's the deeper problem even than that. You mistake beliefs with the fruit of the Spirit. I pointed this out to you before. You equate theological points of view, with spiritual fruit! That is a very deep problem. A serious problem in your thinking, and moreso a disconnect between the heart and the mind. To ask the question "What does your heart tell you", very likely will be met with an answer by you of, "It doesn't matter what my heart says because the Bible says the heart cannot be trusted! What matters is what the Bible says!". Am I right?

Aside from that profoundly glaring problem I just pointed out, who says there is only one path to God? Scripture doesn't say that! Your path has been a different one from your friend in this thread here, hasn't it? Don't you learn in different ways, through different means? Come on, be serious and reasonable here. No two people are alike! Therefore, there are as many paths as there are people. Each person learns a different way. These are very, very common sense things here. Can you at least agree with this?

It is evil because Satan’s greatest desire is to see as many people as possible destroyed and prevented from spending an eternity of joyful relationship with their loving Creator and mysticism is a tool he uses to turn people to their experiential spirituality and away from the Living God and His words of life (John 6:68)

But an evil tree cannot bear good fruit. I think the problem is in your expectation of how you think God should act, and how others should conform to your approach as the only valid one. You need to be very careful in your judging another man's servant by your own standards. And that is what you are doing. Satan divides. Spirit unities.

I am not the Judge, but I do believe God is the Judge and His word is the measuring standard of truth and error. We are called to test all things by the scriptures.

And this is the same error Yoshua says when he says, "It not me saying it, but the scripture", evading self-responsibility. It is in fact you judging, not God. You are using the Bible, reading it to support your views from your mind and from heart to judge another. It is not God, but you judging another from your own heart. Herein lies great error on your part.

I am glad you desire and prefer the truth of God. I think if you or anyone is sincere in that then I trust God to be faithful in leading and revealing His truth to all who are seeking.

You apparently do not trust God then! You judge the path that has been opened for me that works where nothing else was for where I was at, and am at, on my path. You instead seek to deny it to me because it doesn't fit your views of God and the Bible. If you trusted God, then you not be in the role of Grand Inquisitor over others.

 

[Windwalker]

Your post includes comments such as;

unhealthy.

do not have the proper foundations of good mental health

psychological disturbed

delusional and paranoid thinking.

who doesn't not have a relatively stable psyche deeper

self-dissociation and dysfunction. Religion attracts mentally ill

attractive it is to those who are already unbalanced.

all of which you used to insinuate that Yoshua specifically and in general those who believe the fundamental doctrines of the Bible fall into the category of the mentally ill, unbalanced, etc.

Again, I am not saying that those who are in fundamentalism all have mental illness. You're yanking out of context my words, which actually have meaning in the correct contexts in which I used them. The core of the discussion began with me saying that the sorts of materials you and he were citing, and the approach to understanding the nature of spirituality in general are laced with conspiracy theories and paranoia. A point of view I still stand behind. Then Yoshua responded with this logic in post 1086, "How can we become a paranoid and a phobia, if we are not afraid to dwell on the Scriptures?"

The rest of what I said was to refute that fallacious notion that just because you are reading the Bible it makes you immune to problems like paranoid thinking. Those are psychological in nature, and in fact are dysfunctional. The Bible doesn't magically fix these problems, which is what he seems to be suggesting in his response. That's how I read it to be sure, "How can we be if we dwell on scriptures". I then further explained that "dwelling on scriptures" in the manner he suggested, or what my funny image of the guy with the Bible strapped on his face would convey, a possible obsessive compulsive disorder. Not that everyone who values, cherishes, or reads, ponders, etc scripture is obsessive! But some in fact are. That's a fact. Some with disorders like this find religion quite attractive to them. That does not mean ALL who find religion attractive have mental disorders! I'm attracted to religion, and I'm quite stable psychologically.


So now to clarify what I mean when I say fundamentalism is a pathology, a spiritual-disease. First, I am not saying everyone within it is pathological or diseased. I was in it, and did not have a disorder. I'm saying the system itself is cancerous. This is a recent understanding that is occurring to me the deeper I look at it and understand it in context of the whole. People may be able to function within it, may even be helped by it, but at a point I believe it will begin to negatively affect those within it, or reinforce negative qualities they may already have rather than liberate them, or transform them on a path of spiritual growth.

I'll just lay this out there for those who are interested in my thinking on this and the context I'm saying this in. I believe there are stages of growth we all, without exception, must go through in order to move into more mature stages. This is true in stages of spiritual growth, or "stages of faith", as it is in lines of development for cognitive thought. One can be at a high stage of cognitive development, but a very low stage of moral development, or a stage of spiritual development. There are different lines of development, and they all follow stages of growth in each largely independent of other lines of development.

In spiritual development, or stages of faith we have various stages that people pass through as they progress in their growth. The basic stages are taken from the following link: http://www.psychologycharts.com/james-fowler-stages-of-faith.html

1. Intuitive-Projective: This is the stage of preschool children in which fantasy and reality often get mixed together. However, during this stage, our most basic ideas about God are usually picked up from our parents and/or society.
2. Mythic-Literal: When children become school-age, they start understanding the world in more logical ways. They generally accept the stories told to them by their faith community but tend to understand them in very literal ways. [A few people remain in this stage through adulthood.]
3. Synthetic-Conventional: Most people move on to this stage as teenagers. At this point, their life has grown to include several different social circles and there is a need to pull it all together. When this happens, a person usually adopts some sort of all-encompassing belief system. However, at this stage, people tend to have a hard time seeing outside their box and don't recognize that they are "inside" a belief system. At this stage, authority is usually placed in individuals or groups that represent one's beliefs. [This is the stage in which many people remain.]
4. Individuative-Reflective: This is the tough stage, often begun in young adulthood, when people start seeing outside the box and realizing that there are other "boxes". They begin to critically examine their beliefs on their own and often become disillusioned with their former faith. Ironically, the Stage 3 people usually think that Stage 4 people have become "backsliders" when in reality they have actually moved forward.
5. Conjunctive Faith: It is rare for people to reach this stage before mid-life. This is the point when people begin to realize the limits of logic and start to accept the paradoxes in life. They begin to see life as a mystery and often return to sacred stories and symbols but this time without being stuck in a theological box.
   
6. Universalizing Faith: Few people reach this stage. Those who do live their lives to the full in service of others without any real worries or doubts.

The simplified list by Peck following the above combines Fowler's stages 1 and 2 together, and stages 5 and 6 together:

1. Chaotic-Antisocial : People stuck at this stage are usually self-centered and often find themselves in trouble due to their unprincipled living. If they do end up converting to the next stage, it often occurs in a very dramatic way.
2. Formal-Institutional: At this stage people rely on some sort of institution (such as a church) to give them stability. They become attached to the forms of their religion and get extremely upset when these are called into question.
3. Skeptic-Individual: Those who break out of the previous stage usually do so when they start seriously questioning things on their own. A lot of the time, this stage ends up being very non-religious and some people stay in it permanently
4. Mystical-Communal: People who reach this stage start to realize that there is truth to be found in both the previous two stages and that life can be paradoxical and full of mystery. Emphasis is placed more on community than on individual concerns.

Each person must pass through the earlier stages in order to move to the next stage. No stage may be skipped. But not everyone progresses to the next stage above it. Those at the more developed stages, understanding the thinking of the earlier stage as they experienced it themselves. Those at earlier stages are incapable of understanding the thinking of the higher stages because they have no experience with it, Modes of thought and understanding to them which are above it hierarchically, are seen as foreign and or a threat to them. Those at the synthetic-conventional stage 3, may see those at stage 5 as opening themselves to Satan, as is being demonstrated in this thread. And so forth.

It is my view that a healthy spiritual system is one which emcompasses all the higher and lower stages and promotes and facilitates growth through the stages, encouraging and supporting growth to the next more developed stage. Each individual must pass through the mythic-literal and conventional stages. And in each of these earlier stages something vitally important is learned. Each stage offers a new, greater foundation for faith on which to build. Each stage needs to be supported and taught, until the individual has sufficiently learned the positive lessons, the necessary lessons of that stage in order to continue growing beyond it into the next.

Here is why I say Fundamentalism is not a stage of growth, but a dysfunction. It is a system that actively represses growth beyond an earlier stage, taking a normal, natural, and healthy "traditionalist" stage, and violently locks those in it to strict conformity through fear. It fruits becomes cultish in nature, exclusivist, distorting natural growth hierarchies, into a caricature of a stage of growth as absolutistic. It is not simply the mythic-literal stage, or the traditionalist stage, but is created around exploiting and reinforcing fears, distrust of others, an "us versus them" mentality, taking the healthy parts of the stage and not allowing them to grow. This is the behavior of a cancer cell. It kills healthy tissue. It is not part of the whole in healthy development, but acts to dissociate the individuals within it away from becoming more than itself.

In normal healthy growth an individual passes through a given stage of development, learning its lessons, making them a part of themselves, then they transcend that stage into a new one, bringing with them the best of what the previous stage taught them, while jettisoning the negative baggage that comes along with any stage of development. They "negate" the previous level, while preserving its valuable lessons as it begins a new stage of development, which is then repeated moving into the next stage beyond that stage, and so forth. Dissociation happens when one is unable to integrate what the current stage they are in, and the body, in this case the spiritual body, fails to thrive. It does not lead to growth, but repression and dissociation. This renders the individual unable to move to the next stage of growth. It distorts them psychologically, or spiritually as the case may be. Though they may learn how to function within the system, to 'cope' as it were, it is not the same as a healthy integration.

Is everyone who is in fundamentalist churches (as opposed to traditionalism) dysfunctional? No, of course not. Some may be simply at the traditionalist stage of growth, the mythic-literal and synthetic-conventional stages. But the structure of the system, the fundamentalist structure is such that it is itself geared to exploit and reinforce the negatives, rather than seek to heal them or help the individual grow beyond itself. You could call it traditionalism gone rancid.

Historically fundamentalism was a response of the traditionalist system to modernity. It shifts healthy traditionalism into a negative reaction to something. Rather than being about integration and growth, it becomes about a posture of defense. And it is the exact same thing you see in the neo-atheist movement. It too is fundamentalist in nature, being "right" contrasted with the the other as "wrong". The religious fundamentalist defines itself against progress. The atheist fundamentalist defines itself against religion. The atheist is actual moving into modernity, but doing so by rejecting the baby with the bathwater. The Christian fundamentalist is rejecting a movement into modernity, distorting traditionalist modes of faith into an "anti" movement wholly rejecting anything associated with modernity. It's the flip side of the exact same coin. Eventually, such a system designed around such a mentality will in fact infect those within it, either moving them from healthy traditionalist stages into unhealthy dissociation and blocking growth, or that it will require a break with the system wholly. The modern neo-atheist movement in all it's anti-religious sentiments, is the byproduct of the fundamentalist dysfunction.

But this goes deeper than just that. Fundamentalism itself is a product of a destabilized system of culture at large. It is a symptom of an implosion of the mainstream heralding its demise. For now, I just leave this at this, as it is really early thoughts about it. I know I'll be able to refine my thoughts into more concise points later. I'm not entirely satisfied with this at the moment, but I'm just putting it out there and see what sticks. Except some revision and clarification of thought. And least it lays the basic foundations of why I am saying what I am.

 

[InChrist]

Yes, you're right. The word used was conformed, but I take it in the context of 2 Cor. 3:18 about being transformed into the image of the Lord. It is a process of transformation whereby the person, from the inside out, becomes a "new creature", which is again not just a matter of imitating or trying to look like Christ, but becoming that in the world in your being. It is about transformation of the person, not just conforming to external rules. I believe the word conform in Romans means the same thing as transformed in 2 Cor.

It is, in fact a mystical transfiguration that occurs. This is what is spiritual growth. And why those such as Sojourner and myself extol the virtues of meditation practice is that we have both in our lives experienced a great deal of what can be understood as accelerate growth through it. Meditation practices in fact give you that experience of beholding with unveiled faces. And the result is marked, progressive transformation, transfiguration of who we are in all of who we are. This is experience speaking. And when I read 2 Cor. 3 in this light, I can say it is spot-on in its language.

I agree that a mystical work occurs and continues to occur through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer in Jesus Christ, as one is transformed and conformed to His image. What I am disagreeing with is that practicing meditation is a valid method to achieve this and the perspective that (1) anyone can have this transformation, whatever path or spiritual method they choose, without coming to Jesus Christ first, repenting of their sins and receiving forgiveness from Him as their Savior and (2) the idea that a human being actually is or is transformed into the Identity of the Person of Christ, which I think is taking the concept of being conformed or transformed into His image to an unbiblical extreme and is, in fact, blasphemy. The Hebrew word for “likeness” (demuth) means similarity or resemblance, not identity. Furthermore, the term itself actually “defines and limits” the word “image.”

You still don't see the point. Those those may be good tools of exegesis, you still have to interpret it through the lenses of your own eye. Those lenses vary from person to person, group to group. I have contexts of awareness by which I take what is read and interpreted, using whatever method of interpretation it may be or is being shared by others such as yourself, and place them within that context. So using the same methods of "how to interpret scripture", most definitely does not result in people interpreting them the same way! That is a fallacy, an illusion.

Even if a group of conservatives come up with a general "agreement" on what something means, they are doing so only because it is a general, not exact, consensus of that group. But that group shares similar filters. They share a common "mind" as it were. But if you have a group of liberals, the common filters they share will end up with a common consensus as well that reflects that group's filters. And what they see, ends up being different than what the other group sees. This is a phenomenon termed "consensus consciousness". And this applies to everything we see and experience, as individual, and as individuals within their respective groups.

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying and this is precisely why we, as individuals or groups, need to submit our eyes, lens, filters, thoughts, etc. to the word of God and let it transform and conform our minds and interpretation to His mind, thoughts, and will.

.

Not at all, I think understanding their intended meaning can be understood in different contexts, such as recognizing their fallibilities as humans on their own path spiritually, their own awareness culturally, their personality types which affect their views, their mystical awareness, there lack thereof, the fact of unknown authors writing as if they were the authors but from a later period with different motivations, the fact of the evolution of early Christianities into an organized administered body by later groups and myths of apostolic succession being layered on it, and so forth. All of those contexts place what is read into a different light than the context you place them in, which tends to be one a magically preserved bible as an owner's manual that is a direct dictation from God without any fallibility in it whatsoever.

You see the difference in contexts and how that will affect how one interprets what is read? How can you not?

I do see it and I have already acknowledged that I see the Bible as the word of God, while you see it as the work of fallible humans. I admit this does make for difficult communication on these matters we are discussing.

Here is where you greatly err. No only do you ignore the testimony of those who tell you unequivocally their own experiences of how it greatly deepens and awakens the fruits of the Spirit as listed in the Bible, "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control," effectively calling all of us a liar because you can't reconcile this fact with your beliefs. You additionally reject or ignore all the scientific research which shows the long list of positive benefits to those who practice it amplifying those fruits of the spirit in their lives as well, and conclude against scripture that an evil tree bears good fruit.

For years and years science has been saying “low fat” to prevent heart disease, but not only has cardiovascular disease increased, diabetes and obesity have skyrocketed. There is such a thing as bad science. Science is not the know it all, end all authority. The authority from my perspective is God’s word and anyone who denies the revealed truths of the Bible which exalt and distinguish God as the One God and Creator over His creation and Jesus Christ as the only Son of God and Savior of humanity has no claim on those fruits of the Spirit listed in the pages of the same Bible. This same Bible says the Holy Spirit comes to indwell only those who have expressed repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior.

But here's the deeper problem even than that. You mistake beliefs with the fruit of the Spirit. I pointed this out to you before. You equate theological points of view, with spiritual fruit! That is a very deep problem. A serious problem in your thinking, and moreso a disconnect between the heart and the mind. To ask the question "What does your heart tell you", very likely will be met with an answer by you of, "It doesn't matter what my heart says because the Bible says the heart cannot be trusted! What matters is what the Bible says!". Am I right?

The fruits of the Spirit, those character/behavior qualities of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control are revealed truths of the scriptures concerning those born again through Jesus Christ. I don’t believe anyone can receive or display fruits of the Spirit if they are not indwelt by the Spirit of truth ... But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:14-16).

I definitely think the heart and emotions are important gifts from God, yet they are always to be submitted to the Lord’s revealed will (2 Cor, 10:5; Romans 8:7). I have noticed those into contemplative/mystical practices seem to think “love” makes everything right. At least Sojourner certainly comes across that way. But I believe the scriptures, which say that the heart is deceitful. All you have to do is look at reality in yourself and others to know we do deceive ourselves for a variety of reasons. For instance, say a husband just doesn’t feel love for his wife any longer, but does love another woman. His heart says leave his wife and be with the other woman. Should he follow his heart? The unregenerate world says yes, even a lot of Christians living in the flesh rationalize and say yes...follow your heart, follow “love”. But a Christian who desires to submit their heart to God’s word is to choose God’s type of love, self-control, longsuffering, faithfulness in serving and sacrificing one’s own feeling to love and serve another.
http://www.gotquestions.org/follow-your-heart.html

Aside from that profoundly glaring problem I just pointed out, who says there is only one path to God? Scripture doesn't say that! Your path has been a different one from your friend in this thread here, hasn't it? Don't you learn in different ways, through different means? Come on, be serious and reasonable here. No two people are alike! Therefore, there are as many paths as there are people. Each person learns a different way. These are very, very common sense things here. Can you at least agree with this?

The Bible and Jesus said there is only one path to God, plain and simple. This does not negate the fact that each person’s walk with the Lord is personal and unique within the context of that one path (Jesus Christ) because as you have pointed out, no two people are alike.

And this is the same error Yoshua says when he says, "It not me saying it, but the scripture", evading self-responsibility. It is in fact you judging, not God. You are using the Bible, reading it to support your views from your mind and from heart to judge another. It is not God, but you judging another from your own heart. Herein lies great error on your part.

You apparently do not trust God then! You judge the path that has been opened for me that works where nothing else was for where I was at, and am at, on my path. You instead seek to deny it to me because it doesn't fit your views of God and the Bible. If you trusted God, then you not be in the role of Grand Inquisitor over others.

I am not judging YOU. I am judging a METHOD. There is a big difference even if you do not want to acknowledge it. I don’t think you would consider it negative or judgmental if I was warning you not to take a mislabeled bottle of something you thought to be a health supplement, but was actually poison. Would you?

I certainly do not, nor can I deny you anything! Do you really think that is within my power? And exactly who am I over as Grand Inquisitor? Not you or anyone else. You are free to believe anything or take whatever path you feel like. I’m just conversing with you and expressing my perspectives. Isn’t that what we do here? You don’t have to listen. You don’t even have to respond. I do trust God to be faithful in your life, though as He was in mine and I believe He is in each and everyone's life.

“A.W. Tozer once said "It is no sin to doubt some things but it may be fatal to believe everything."

“If those who are teaching would preach the Word in purity, they would not have to be concerned or afraid of their listeners or others checking their teachings with the Word of God, because they would be on target and accurately conveying the Truth of the Bible. Only those who know they are off-course will cry, “Don't discern or judge!”

Excerpts from:
http://www.letusreason.org/pent6.htm