What is Contemplative Christianity?

[sojourner]

I don’t pushing it for a circle here. It is saying that the sun has orbit.

No it's not saying that. "Orbits" were unknown at that time. Even if it were saying that, it's scientifically wrong, because the sun does not orbit the earth.

 

[sojourner]

I know that the Bible is not an astronomical book, but some of the Scriptures stated about planetary (sun, moon, stars, orions……..). Therefore, it can be a fact or evidence that God created those planets, stars, moons etc..

No it can't. In order for it to be a fact, there would have to be verifiable evidence to that effect. IOW, someone would have had to have observed God in the creative act. No such evidence is available. This is belief, not fact.

 

[sojourner]

Not all Scriptures are hard to understand, it is self-understandable as the Scripture interpret itself.

The scripture doesn't "interpret itself."

 

[Shadow of Liberty]

 

[Windwalker]

That's awesome! I was just thinking over dinner to ask Yoshua if he has ever listened to a poet, or a true musician, or seen and heard great works of art. From everything I am reading, it makes me wonder if that is what is lacking?

Meditation is like music. It's like art. It the Spirit of Creativity itself. Philosopher, poet, teacher. That's who changes the world. I believe Jesus was all three.

 

[Yoshua]

Jesus is the embodiment of God's word. Jesus taught us to love. God's word is love. God's commandment is to love.

Hi Sojourner,

Therefore, Jesus teachings is God’s word aside from teaching about love.

Because you (mistakenly) think that Christianity is the only real pie. Unfortunately, your example of truth is not applicable for the rest of the world.

Yes, of course, Christianity is the real pie because it is coming from God. If you make the other pie as real, then there is inconsistency and contradiction in you part –as you’re saying Jesus is the embodiment of God’s word.

How could the truth of Christ becomes cheap as selling hotcakes? Jesus came here to give us eternal life to all WHO BELIEVE HIM.

The article is biased, mistaken, and not very noteworthy.

Can you identify and prove where the article is mistaken or biased? It is easy to just comment and nothing to prove.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

No. This is in fact not true. What you are describing is only one type of organizational structure, one which is very hierarchical. There are others far more versed in the different types of organizational structures that can go into the differences, but be clear here you are mistaking what you see in certain types of organizations as the "natural order". That is a false assumption on your part.

Hi Windwalker,

Not true, and false assumptions? How come this is not true. It is reality. I thought you like reality, isn’t it? Do you pay taxes? Do you submit to your parents? How about to your boss when you’re working? We cannot eradicate those reality. Jesus Christ also submit to His Father. How can you erase that reality?

For a quick example, if you look at some of the more common types of church organizational structures, you have episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational. To look at the Congregational model in comparison to what you cite let me quote from here,

"The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines "congregationalism" as "that form of Church polity which rests on the independence and autonomy of each local church." According to this source, the principles of democracy in church government rest on the belief that Christ is the sole head of his church, the members are all priests unto God, and these units are regarded each as an outcrop and representative of the church universal." ( Who Runs the Church?: 4 Views on Church Government, Steven B. Cowan, gen. ed., p. 135, Zondervan 2004)

Churches organized with a congregational polity may be involved in conventions, districts or associations which allow them to share common beliefs, cooperate in joint ministry efforts and regulate clergy with other congregations. Churches organized with a congregational polity generally disapprove of acknowledging authority in councils or other proceedings involving delegates or representatives from outside the local congregation. However, congregational polity does not prevent a local congregation's leadership from adopting the decision or position of another congregation or a council or other gathering.

Anything that you will name has authority on top of it. In a church, there are members, layman, ministers, Associate pastor, Senior pastor, and above them is God. Some have Board of Directors inside the organizational structure of a church. In summary to that, there is still authority, and that is God.

When you get back into the early church there were many whose organizational structures had no leaders, where they drew lots at the beginning of each gathering as to who would lead that day. In decision making you also have various "consensus" models, such as "Consensus minus one", or "Consensus minus three", etc. In these types of structures you do not have a top down authoritarian model. And yet, they function well. Each types of systems of governance has pluses and minus. But make no mistake, even organizational models are organically, and creatively grown -- just like the various religious practices which naturally emerge.

God started his creation, He created angels. Those angels submit to God because He is the Creator. Jesus Christ submit to the Father. Now, what’s the use of saying the early church’s organizational structure that has no leaders? The early church is still under the authority of God.

This is what the world looks like when you fling open your doors and windows to understand the world outside. Not everything fits your model of reality you've adopted from others, which in your case is one which seeks to control others authoritatively; anything but liberate them.

If you are created as a man that has “no submission” since when you are born, I think you are a rare and extra-ordinary man who make himself as self-authority.

All this to say, your idea of needing a "final word" is bogus. It's only valid if you say, believe in the model that has the Pope at the top of the order. That "Christ is the head of the church", does not in any way, shape, or form, mean that is the "final word", because again, it is humans who interpret it, and therefore a human's voice that is acting as the "final word", such as the Pope speaking "from the chair", or ex-cathedra. Do you accept the Pope's final word as to matters of interpretation? Five people reading Jesus' words have five different interpretations. Which one of those is final? Which mode of interpretation is authoritative? Whose point of view dominates? That's the inherent problem with your model.

When it comes to biblical interpretation, there is also a submission and authority. How?

First, we received and submit to the Holy Spirit—as the Spirit of truth that guide us in biblical interpretation.

Second, we submit to the biblical standard of interpretation. You may do research about this if you’re not familiar. That standards should be followed to make sound interpretation with consistency and without contradiction.

The Pope is still under God’s authority. No man is over the authority of God. Regarding the gospels in the New Testament, we (naturally) saw their narration in a different angle/views. But if we collect those narratives, they are a complete and assembled narratives into one. One thing that we can assure with the synoptic gospels are their consistency and non-contradictory narration in the same setting.

What you fail to understand or realize at the point in life you are at is that Spirit does not have a "final word". It is infinite, living, and growing. A final word means there is an end point, a stopping point of understanding, and that is contrary to the "Living Word". You know what the "final word" is? Death. It has a stopping point, an end point. And that is death. It is a corpse. The "Living Word" on the other hand has a continual unfolding of meaning and potential. It reflects the very nature of Life itself. I choose Life over death.

If you believe that the “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” does not have the final word (as authority), then that shows what you are claiming as your light (as the Spirit of truth) is not God, the Creator. Now, who is that Spirit that is spoken to you?

If we apply your interpretation of “final word” is the stopping point of understanding, then who is that “final word” who is making you to stop?

You may have your own doctrine about “death,” but the “death” for me (in biblical) is separation from God.

Rom. 6:23
23. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

You follow your interpretation of what you believe Christ wants. You follow your belief. Make no mistake, this is in fact the case.

Of course, what Christ wants is what I should follow—as what the Father want for Christ—is followed by Christ. Who are you following if not Christ?

Did Christ tell His disciples not to follow Him? It seems you are outside the boundary of Christ.

Why can't they be the same? Because you understand how God works in everyone's life? I think you err, you sin greatly to place yourself as Judge over another man's servant, contrary to Jesus' teaching to not do so.

How can I be in error and make myself as judge, if Christ words were laid unto us to listen and follow what He wants. Like this one:

John 16:13
13. "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come

The Holy Spirit is the one who operates within Christ followers. As I said above, if you follow what Christ wants, then you have the same in spirit; a follower must received the Holy Spirit.

Rom. 8:9
9. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

Obeying according to how you interpret it. You cannot escape accepting you are in facing interpreting what his word is, using your own mind and how it thinks and conveniences of truth. You cannot escape your subjective mind in how you read it. Period. This fact destroys all your arguments against others, in which you offend the Spirit of Truth itself.

Offend the Spirit of truth? Am I to offend the Spirit of truth if I received and accepted the Holy Spirit as my guide and counselor? I followed what Christ wants. You may take out my explanation and my word, but please do not take out the statement of Christ. I just posted it, and truly it is speaking in its literal sense for us.

God does not make mistakes because God is not relative. You are, and you are mistaken about a very long list of things, many of which you demonstrate in all of these posts of yours proclaiming yourself know what truth is and proclaiming yourself as Judge over others,though you hide from this saying it's not your interpretation. The fact is, you are judging in God's stead, and sin greatly in doing so.

Am I sinning if I shared the word of Christ? I would be sinning if I’m not being transparent and speak not in accordance with Christ’s truth. I don’t proclaim that I’m the truth. I said it is Jesus who is the truth. Is that a hard thing to understand?

Sure Paul did. Is Paul the final word? No. There is much I agree with Paul on, and much I find him to be a flaming egotistical control freak about. Paul was imperfect, just like any of us. There is no reason to accept Paul's word as final. The other Apostles certainly didn't. It's Christianity after all, not Paulianity.

Then that means you may go with God/Jesus Christ as the final word.

Amen. I see the Word as all manifest Truth of Spirit, in every living thing. You only see it in a book. So does your friend InChrist. That is the major difference between us. God only speaks to you with paper and ink.

No. Not in ink and paper. You cannot use the ink and paper as your reason, you know why? Did Centering prayer is also printed in a book, how about psychology books, mystics authored books…….Therefore, it is like saying it with your own words, just for you—same as you are doing it. It is a matter on what is printed on that book. Is it divinely inspired, a God’s word? Or a man-made authored books like history, psychology, mystical books, new age etc..

Anyway, we're back to you stuck on the idea you're not interpreting things. I really can't help you see the truth of the matter as you're stuck in your own mind as reflective of all reality. It's like me yelling at a bone to get longer, whereas it's simply a matter of growth. The fact is, I have no reason whatsoever to consider your criticism of these things we do as having any validity whatsoever. They are invalid, and cannot be supported reasonably. The only take away from this for you, is to try, really try to listen to what your heart says and quit placing yourself as Judge over others, calling that which is good evil.

God is the judge, not me. May the truth of Christ will be upon you.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

That's an oxymoron. There is no "false" truth. There is only truth.

Let us see if it is oxymoron. If there is right, there is error. If there is moral, there is immoral. If there is good, there is evil. If there is God, there is a false God/evil. If there is cause, there is effect. If there is truth, there is a false truth whether you like it or not. That is reality.

Jesus didn't promote Christianity in the first place.

Then take out the word Christianity, and replace it with the true follower of Christ.

Yes -- to the love he taught. That is the love we are to obey.

How about loving His word is also to obey?

Of course you don't. Whoever loves and participates in love, believes.

It is whoever believe, received, and obey.

Here's where you're wrong. IMO. The emphasis is communal, because that's how the ancients who wrote the texts thought -- in terms of community, not in terms of individuals -- especially when it came to acts of God.

Who are those "ancients" you are referring? If you like "ancient" as an example, my example of ancient is Jesus Christ Himself. He said “Follow Me” and walked with His disciples. They are individually chosen as His followers. Again, it says “whoever,” that is a personal one. You don’t believe when Jesus uttered His statement about the Counselor, Isn’t it?

John 14:26-28
26. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
27. "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.
28. "You heard that I said to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

The “you” is personal and individually addressed.

If you "love theology," you wouldn't dabble in it without treating it with the respect it deserves. Any time one speaks theologically, one speaks "as a theologian." Therefore, you'd better know what you're speaking before you speak it. I just don't see any theological depth to your posts -- nothing uniquely experiential -- only parroting what you've heard or read others say.

Why? a person who talks about theology should display and announce about his theology degree? For facebook, it can be done but not in the RF. There are a lot of so-called theologians and yet have their false view in the doctrine of Christ. The “theologian” term is not a guarantee to the truth of Christ.

Why measure theology with experience? Do you think that to become a follower of Christ should be based in experience? I don’t think so. When a person become a follower of Christ, he is assured having an experience with Jesus Christ, because He is a new creation, the old has gone, the new has come (2 Cor. 5:17).

What experience do you think to categorize as deep in theology, the extra-ordinary experiences and mystical? If you would count those as qualification for theology, then you may start naming a lot of minor and major religions who are experiential—including the cults.

The covering of himself was sin. The feeling that he could not stand as he was in front of God was sin. That feeling is false. We can always stand as we are before God and be honest about ourselves with God.

Sin caused us to separate from God, this is the reason why God sent His Son Jesus Christ. Being honest with ourselves should come to a point acknowledging that he is a sinner.

Luke 18:13-14
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."

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Through contemplation. And considering the metaphoric and symbolic meaning.

Can you explain and prove that the bereans examined the Scriptures through contemplation?

No it's not saying that. "Orbits" were unknown at that time. Even if it were saying that, it's scientifically wrong, because the sun does not orbit the earth.

Ps. 19:4-6
4. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
5. Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.
6. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat

Ok. But the sun orbits (revolves) around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. This passage proves there is a sun, a line, sun rise from one end, and its circuit to the other end. The sun has heat. Amazing!

No it can't. In order for it to be a fact, there would have to be verifiable evidence to that effect. IOW, someone would have had to have observed God in the creative act. No such evidence is available. This is belief, not fact.

The constellations were mentioned on this passage. It is just so nice to hear how this is stated in the book of Job.

Job 38:31-37
31. "Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades,
Or loose the cords of Orion?
32. "Can you lead forth a constellation in its season,
And guide the Bear with her satellites?
33. "Do you know the ordinances of the heavens,
Or fix their rule over the earth?
34. "Can you lift up your voice to the clouds,
So that an abundance of water may cover you?
35. "Can you send forth lightnings that they may go
And say to you, `Here we are'?
36. "Who has put wisdom in the innermost being,
Or has given understanding to the mind?
37. "Who can count the clouds by wisdom,
Or tip the water jars of the heavens,

God shows his mighty power, and who He is when He spoke to Job

Job 38:16-21
16. "Have you entered into the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in the recesses of the deep?
17. "Have the gates of death been revealed to you?
Or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
18. "Have you understood the expanse of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know all this.
19. "Where is the way to the dwelling of light?
And darkness, where is its place,
20. That you may take it to its territory,
And that you may discern the paths to its home?
21. "You know, for you were born then,
And the number of your days is great!

The scripture doesn't "interpret itself."

Yes, it is. Whether you like it or not. It is given for us to understand God.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

That's awesome! I was just thinking over dinner to ask Yoshua if he has ever listened to a poet, or a true musician, or seen and heard great works of art. From everything I am reading, it makes me wonder if that is what is lacking?

Meditation is like music. It's like art. It the Spirit of Creativity itself. Philosopher, poet, teacher. That's who changes the world. I believe Jesus was all three.

Hi Windwalker,

I love art, I used to have skill in drawing in charcoal painting/portrait. I love music, I used to be in a choir, and I love to teach. I used creativity from applying it in problem solving especially in the administration side of work. All artists, musicians, poets, teachers.........makes an impact to the world we lived in. I believe that we should always remember that all the skills that we had should give it back for God's glory. For He is our master musician and artist. He is our God and King.Though we both have differences, we humbly ask God to guide us with our skills so this may expand and glorify His kingdom.

Amen.

 

[sojourner]

Therefore, Jesus teachings is God’s word aside from teaching about love.

Jesus' teaching is always founded on, and wrapped in, love.

Yes, of course, Christianity is the real pie because it is coming from God. If you make the other pie as real, then there is inconsistency and contradiction in you part –as you’re saying Jesus is the embodiment of God’s word.

Other religions make the same claims. The only criterion, therefore, for determining "which is 'right'" is belief. Using that as the criterion, then, either all believed religions are "right" or they're all "wrong."

How could the truth of Christ becomes cheap as selling hotcakes?

You tell me -- you're the one trying to "sell it."

Can you identify and prove where the article is mistaken or biased? It is easy to just comment and nothing to prove.

One doesn't look at a rusty, '62 Ford pickup truck, with dents and blue smoke pouring from its tail, and have to nitpick to "prove" that it's a s$itbox. Its condition is plain for anyone to see.

 

[sojourner]

If there is good, there is evil. If there is God, there is a false God/evil.

That doesn't follow. Your logic is faulty. "False" is a subjective opinion, and not an objective qualifier.

If there is truth, there is a false truth whether you like it or not.

If there is truth, there is falsehood. That's the reality. Whether you like it or not.

Then take out the word Christianity, and replace it with the true follower of Christ.

That creates a completely different scenario, in which anyone of any religion could be considered a "follower of Christ," so long as they practice the love Jesus taught. Thanks for proving my point.

How about loving His word is also to obey?

"Loving love" is to "obey?" How about practicing love and making love the basis for one's life?

It is whoever believe, received, and obey.

And it's all based on love. What I don't understand is why you're so against love as the basis for Jesus' teachings?

Who are those "ancients" you are referring? If you like "ancient" as an example, my example of ancient is Jesus Christ Himself. He said “Follow Me” and walked with His disciples. They are individually chosen as His followers. Again, it says “whoever,” that is a personal one. You don’t believe when Jesus uttered His statement about the Counselor, Isn’t it?

You don't get it. I can't help you here. Your post is evidence that you are completely immersed in modern thinking and, therefore, are unable to understand what these ancient texts are saying. You don't have an exegetical leg to stand on here, and, therefore, have no business telling others "what the bible says" or "what the bible proves," as if you're an authority on the matter.

Why? a person who talks about theology should display and announce about his theology degree? For facebook, it can be done but not in the RF. There are a lot of so-called theologians and yet have their false view in the doctrine of Christ. The “theologian” term is not a guarantee to the truth of Christ.

No, it's not a guarantee, any more than the "commercial airline pilot" term is a guarantee that the the plane will take off and land safely. But it indicates a far, far better chance of survival than "unaware layman with a personal agenda, who believes faith will fly the plane."

Why measure theology with experience?

Because theology (like piloting skills) are born of experience, not reading a book.

Do you think that to become a follower of Christ should be based in experience?

Yes!

I don’t think so.

Your loss.

When a person become a follower of Christ, he is assured having an experience with Jesus Christ, because He is a new creation, the old has gone, the new has come

When a person experiences sacrificial love, that experience is a transformational one.

What experience do you think to categorize as deep in theology, the extra-ordinary experiences and mystical? If you would count those as qualification for theology, then you may start naming a lot of minor and major religions who are experiential—including the cults.

The difference between cults and bona fide religion is that cults seek to control people through lies and manipulation.

Sin caused us to separate from God

Sin is separation from God.

this is the reason why God sent His Son Jesus Christ.

This is the reason why God became one of us -- in order to effect reconciliation.

 

[Windwalker]

Hi Windwalker,

Not true, and false assumptions? How come this is not true. It is reality. I thought you like reality, isn’t it? Do you pay taxes? Do you submit to your parents? How about to your boss when you’re working? We cannot eradicate those reality. Jesus Christ also submit to His Father. How can you erase that reality?

You apparently did not read my words, yet once again. That or your reading and comprehension skills are challenged here. Yes, that type of organization exists. No, it is not the "natural order of things". There are other types of organizational models as well. The hierarchical model you citing is only one type, not the only or all types. I said all this, yet you did not understand.

Anything that you will name has authority on top of it. In a church, there are members, layman, ministers, Associate pastor, Senior pastor, and above them is God. Some have Board of Directors inside the organizational structure of a church. In summary to that, there is still authority, and that is God.

I've never said it doesn't exist. I said it is not the only model. I cited several examples. Here's another example that doesn't follow the line model, http://www.psychology-lexicon.com/cms/glossary/36-glossary-c/1578-consensus-model.html Perhaps @Orbit could offer other examples for your learning. I'm pretty sure she is aware of other social structures that do not follow the head warlord or CEO at the top hierarchical models. As I said, there are others more knowledgeable than I in these areas, but at least I am aware they exist and your One Ring to Rule Them All model is not the natural order of things. Monarchies are only one type of organization structure.

God started his creation, He created angels. Those angels submit to God because He is the Creator. Jesus Christ submit to the Father. Now, what’s the use of saying the early church’s organizational structure that has no leaders? The early church is still under the authority of God.

You missed what I said, of course. I'm tired of having to retype all this because you don't read what I say. Go back again and read it over.

If you are created as a man that has “no submission” since when you are born, I think you are a rare and extra-ordinary man who make himself as self-authority.

Never said it doesn't exist. Go back and read it over again.

When it comes to biblical interpretation, there is also a submission and authority. How?

No. There are other modes of approaching scripture, not just the model you were programmed with.

I shared this story over in another thread I'll add here as example of a different approach which is totally foreign to the mode of thinking you were programmed with. There is a story of a well-respected Jewish Rabbi around the time following the destruction of the temple who was a master of reimagining and reinterpreting the Torah. In fact, that practice was common in Judaism. The story tells how that Moses decided to come down from heaven to hear this famous Rabbi himself. He sat in the 8th row back so as to be inconspicuous. As he listened, he couldn't understand anything the Rabbi had said about the Torah which had been revealed to himself! Moses then stood up and exclaimed with great joy saying, "My sons have surpassed me!", and he made his way back to heaven.

You see, I think that story really speaks to the validity of how it is acceptable to reimagine and reinterpret things, and why in fact we should. The best students are those who surpass their own teacher's understandings! The mark of a good teacher is having students who do! Your model of "authority" squelches the spirit of creativity and imagination. Life creates and unfolds. You preach death, a finality of meaning. You kill God.

First, we received and submit to the Holy Spirit—as the Spirit of truth that guide us in biblical interpretation.

Bull****. The Spirit of Truth does not guide us in biblical interpretation. Where is THAT taught in scripture? The only thing it says it the Spirit will guide you into all truth, and that it will bring to mind the things Jesus said. It is your interpretation that that means good bible interpretations! Ridiculous. It doesn't say that anywhere.

Having the words of Jesus come back into mind takes on many and varied understandings of them, as his words bristle with meaning. Your model of how the Spirit works is curious, strange, and non-biblical to say the least. Magical thinking is the best description.

Second, we submit to the biblical standard of interpretation.

There is no such thing. You are going beyond what the Bible teaches.

You may do research about this if you’re not familiar. That standards should be followed to make sound interpretation with consistency and without contradiction.

That's a modern methodology that was invented by men. That is a fact. Accept it. And also accept it is flawed, faulty, and the method leads to inconsistent results. It does not escape the fact that it is still an interpretation, even if it is a group-think consensus interpretation.

The Pope is still under God’s authority. No man is over the authority of God.

And who interprets God's word above the Pope? Again, you need to read my posts more carefully. I'm tired of having to repeat these points when they were clear the first time around. You need to take more responsibility for reading carefully.

Regarding the gospels in the New Testament, we (naturally) saw their narration in a different angle/views. But if we collect those narratives, they are a complete and assembled narratives into one.

No, they are not. There are irreconcilable contradictions of events and things said. Those contradictions cannot be interpreted away using your man-made modern interpretive approaches from the conservative schools of thought.

One thing that we can assure with the synoptic gospels are their consistency and non-contradictory narration in the same setting.

Only if you ignore evidence and make convoluted interpretations of the stories to make them "fit" together into some strained narrative, making two donkeys and one donkey mean the same thing by saying it was a single magical donkey with 12 legs and 2 heads kind of beast that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on. Of course, that's a new "Mashup" Gospel and none of the ones in the Bible. Talk about interpretation gone wild!

If you believe that the “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” does not have the final word (as authority), then that shows what you are claiming as your light (as the Spirit of truth) is not God, the Creator.

No it does not. Your black and white modes of thinking assumes this. That assumption is wrong.

I am, and did say, that Spirit is the Groundless Ground. There is no final end to it, as if it were it would not be Infinite, it would not be the Living Word. Truth unfolds into truths, again and again and again. The notion that truth is static, such as the model you espouse with your mind, does not apply to the Absolute. God is not a fixed point. Truth is not a single truth. I made the case how that if you make it that, then you kill God. Only death is final.

Now, who is that Spirit that is spoken to you?

There is only Spirit. It's not a "who". And it doesn't work the way you imagine coming from your own ideas and interpreting the world around you to fit into those. It's nothing I could communicate that you would be able understand.

If we apply your interpretation of “final word” is the stopping point of understanding, then who is that “final word” who is making you to stop?

This question makes no comprehendible sense.

 

[sojourner]

Can you explain and prove that the bereans examined the Scriptures through contemplation?

Can you explain and prove that they didn't?

Ok. But the sun orbits (revolves) around the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

OK. But the Milky Way galaxy was unknown at that time. You're engaging in eisegesis here, and it produces false results.

The constellations were mentioned on this passage.

That doesn't prove that belief is fact.

Yes, it is. Whether you like it or not. It is given for us to understand God.

Fine. I urge you to pick up a copy of, say, John, as originally printed in Koine Greek, all caps, no punctuation, no sentence or paragraph structure, and try to make sense of it without interpretation -- and try to have it magically interpret itself.
ITSTOUGHENOUGHTOUNDERTAKETHISENDEAVORWHENMODERNLETTERSSCRIBEDINALINGUISTICSYSTEMYOUATLEASTUNDERSTANDAREEMPLOYEDTOPROPAGATEACERTAINPARTICULARMESSAGENOWIMAGINEALLTHISBEINGSAIDBYSOMEONEINALINGUISTICSYSTEMYOUNEITHERUNDERSTANDNORCANDECIPHERONYOUROWNWITHOUTPROFESSIONALINTERVENTIONTOGIVEANAPROPOSEXAMPLELETSTAKEALOOKSTAYINGWITHINTHEPARAMETERSOFOURESTABLISHEDMETHODOFWRITINGATSOMECULTURALSPECIFICLINGUISTICPHENOMENACOMMONLYCALLEDJARGONARGOTORSTREETLINGOWITHWHICHYOUAREPROBABLYNOTFAMILIARANDSEEIFTHETEXTINTERPRETSITSELFMANUPNANCYIMTALKINGTOHERTIPABLUNTWATCHBENSONGRANNYDUMPINGABOUTHALFRIDETHEWILDBALONEYPONYMILKTHELIZARDFUBARCINCHOUSEPLUSNUMEROUSOTHEREXAMPLESDOYOUSEENOWHOWIMPOSSIBLEITBECOMESFORTHESEANCIENTTEXTSTOINTERPRETTHEMSELVESISITBECOMINGCLEARERTHATMUCHSCHOLARSHIPISNEEDEDINORDERTONOTONLYMAKESENSEOFWHATHASBEENWRITTENBUTWHATINTENDEDMESSAGETHEWRITERHOPEDTOCONVEYUSINGUNKNOWNCULTURALSPECIFCEXPRESSIONSSELFINTEPRETATIONISSISYPHUSESQUEATBESTANDIRRESPONSIBLEATWORST

 

[Windwalker]

One doesn't look at a rusty, '62 Ford pickup truck, with dents and blue smoke pouring from its tail, and have to nitpick to "prove" that it's a s$itbox. Its condition is plain for anyone to see.

This is seriously a funny, and perfect analogy! I needed that laugh this morning.

 

[sojourner]

This is seriously a funny, and perfect analogy! I needed that laugh this morning.

I was picturing 'Mater when I wrote that. And my neighbor's truck...

 

[Windwalker]

I was picturing 'Mater when I wrote that. And my neighbor's truck...

Perfect. Great visualization. Maybe there is a metaphor in here to use for these types of cited authorities that are offered? We can call them Materistic source material or a Materesque type response. People will do Google searches wondering what the term means, while its referent is buried in a Pixar film character. Just another term to add to our elitist vocabulary.

 

[Orbit]

Christianity, and Judaism before it, grew out of a society where monarchy was the type of government, so the religion naturally reflects that culture. The tendency to see things hierarchically is not inevitable, it is the result of growing up in a particular culture and learning to see things in those terms, as the authors of the Bible did. They wrote in terms of monarchy and "God as boss" because those were terms that made sense to them given their cultural context. There are other cultures that are not set up to have kings or rulers (hunter-gatherer societies, some pastoralists). I bring this up by way of pointing out that monarchy is not an inevitable state of human affairs. There are other ways of thinking about how society runs. There are also other ways of thinking about divinity that are not monarchical.

One difference between literalist evangelical religion (you) and other Christian traditions like Orthodox Christianity is that Orthodox Christianity does not say that ONE interpretation of the Bible is correct, rather God himself can reveal interpretations to anyone in their meditations. What God chooses to reveal to another person isn't up for your criticism. God speaks to us all in a way that we are ready and prepared to hear. Yoshua you do NOT have the ONE right answer, the ONE correct interpretation of the Bible. That's false pride. I think this conversation would be at an end if you would simply say "This is MY interpretation of the Bible, your interpretation may be different but who am I to say it is wrong?" I think that's a more honest thing to say rather than cutting and pasting Bible verses and trying to ram your view down others' throats while simultaneously condemning their experience as "false". Cast the mote from your own eye before criticizing your brother.

 

[Windwalker]

Wow, fantastic response!

An interesting thought occurred to me reading about the Monarchy view of God, that aside from whatever ideas Jesus's followers had and imposed this model upon their thoughts about God, which would be inevitable as they were products of their culture, when it comes to Jesus himself I wonder if the reason you hear much more egalitarian modes of thoughts is because of the fact he expresses more cutting edge social consciousness, which of course would have been tied into religion and views of God? I mean, when one is part of a pluralistic society which is what happens in cosmopolitan settings, you end up with conservative arms trying to hang on to their cultural identities, and those on the progressive or liberal arms advancing into the future.

I very much see Jesus as a founding figure of a hippie-type movement in its early inceptions, moving towards pluralism, rather than some radical right wing conservative fundamentalism. Jesus vision of the church, was not as a new religion, it was not to form Christianity, a religion in his name, but to see God in all others, even the Romans over the pious Jews, "Greater faith have I never seen in all of Israel", he say to the enemy Roman centurian! That's a very, very powerful statement. He was inclusive, not exclusive with the exception of excluding the self-righteous and hypocrites who proclaim the name of God while judging others. Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God was not a monarchy, but one where everyone was a priest! What a radical. What a non-hierarchical vision of the "church" he had, which was not an organization, but a living body bound together as One through Spirit, that Groundless Ground.

Thoughts?