What is Contemplative Christianity?

[Yoshua]

Nor are there any restrictions against contemplative prayer anywhere in scripture.

How can you compare watching movies with contemplative prayer? It is very clear and obvious that The Lord’s Prayer was taught by Jesus Christ, I have not heard nor read that Jesus teach us to do repetitive breathings, centering prayer with procedures/method.

But otherwise you do judge them? Tsk, tsk, tsk. That's against scripture. But you've been told you're doing that to us all along. I know knowing judging another man's servant is against scripture isn't going mean anything to you as you feel justified somehow anyway.

Do you think that when you read the posted Jesus’ statements (from the Scripture), is already judging? Or any statement that is coming from one’s own word without basis is judging?

Perhaps you should apply that same logic to us? Maybe you should drop this whole thread rather than insist you know what is truth instead of letting each person stand before God who judges according to the heart, instead of judging in accord with whether it matches how you believe? Doing otherwise would be hypocritical of you, right?

Oh. This is a second call. Don’t worry about dropping this thread. I may not achieve like your friend Sojourner who reached the number of post that he had. I believed that he still around in the Rf.

I know what is truth because that truth is not me/mine, it is the truth that Jesus Christ claimed that He is the truth. Is it bad to believe in the truth of Christ?

Proclaiming the truth of Christ is not hypocritical, it is biblical and logical.

What make you think I don't see forgiveness as coming from God? Are you judging me? More importantly, do you ignore everything we post?

No. I’m not judging. I’m asking you. How can you forgive people by not coming to God? Where did you get your “forgiving heart” if it does not come from God? Where?

Kindly refresh your post. You said this:
Absolutely, I believe that. I would love to really open the door on that discussion in relation to the whole value of "forgiveness" in Christian faith. That forgiveness, directly goes into the things we hold inside our minds, which affect our heart, which affect our abilities to grow spiritually and live a liberated life. Absolutely it's essential for spiritual growth. But to come to God? No, we come as we are, every time. Each time, we learn that we can love ourselves. Eventually, we actually believe it. By Windwalker

I don’t ignore your post, I remember them and learned from it.

Yes there is. Do you understand what that difference is?

There is a difference with dependency of oneself and dependency on God.By Yoshua

What? Can you explain it briefly their differences?

Well, that's bull****, of course. Forgiveness is within us, because we are created in the image of God. Absolute forgiveness comes from God. Through God, we can forgive ourselves. Very few actually do. It's harder that you realize, lie as you may to yourself. But you wouldn't know how subtle that is, because you never look inside your own heart. It's there that you will see where you lie to yourself, and there you will see how you do not accept yourself. If you never look within like this, you live in self-deception, not standing naked before God.

If absolute forgiveness comes from God and through God, then what is the reason that you do not agree to come to God? why? Are you saying that we should depend on ourselves rather seek the forgiveness of God so we may know how to forgive others?

How can you stand naked without coming to God? What makes that gap and what is that gap (between God and you)?

That's why folks like you resist meditation. That's why they fear it and imagine all sorts of boogie-man reasons to avoid it. Because they are afraid to see themselves this way. All the arguments you present against are completely irrational, betraying that deep-seeded fear of confronting our own self-loathing, or own guilt and shame. This is why people fear meditation. They fear seeing themselves naked before God. You say it's fear that keeps of from not meditating. I say it's fear that keeps us from doing it. I know what I am talking about. You don't.

I don’t fear meditation. Prayer is a part of meditation, and meditation with the Scriptures (which you think is not included in the meditation if I’m right).

Loving oneself as God loves and accepts them is something very few realize. And how can they when they spend all their time looking outside themselves? God see you in your secret places. If you never go into those secret places, you don't know what God knows of you, and allows you to let go of, if you first acknowledge it. But you can't acknowledge what can't see, what you cover up through simply believing it's all just magically taken care of for you. No, if you don't see what is there, you haven't truly known forgiveness, and cannot forgive yourself. It's one thing to say God forgives me, it's another to know it.

Matt.6:15
But if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

The forgiveness always (initially) comes from God and not by our own self. If we forgive, God forgive us. Now you have secret places, I don’t need a secret place because the Holy Spirit is always in the side of the followers. No secrets that can be hide by man in the sight of God. You are pointing to another place somewhere. God simply said “Follow Me.”

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Oh. Starting with this one. I don’t think I have to agree to look in my mind. What would I get from looking it to my mind? Can you give your insight about this?

Oh course I can give some insight into this. First the fact you ask this, underscores the entire reason why you should. You have no idea how your own mind works. You have no idea how your ideas of reality, your ideas of what others say and mean (which clearly includes reading scripture) is affected by your own thought processes. In other words you are blind to yourself. What do you get from looking at your own mind? An understanding of who you are. You begin to see that how you think and interpret the world is dependent on the things you tell yourself are true. You begin to let go a little of you hold on the things you've believed as reflective of the actual reality of them. In other words, you begin to gain Wisdom.

It's very hard for me to tell you what you will find, as each individual is unique, but what I can say definitively, is that what you will see is an entire universe you had no idea existed! There is as much exploration of the inner world as there is the outerworld. Most are oblivious to themselves. Never once pulling back that veil to see what lies beneath. What would you get from looking within? Everything.

My mind is fed with the word of God because this served as our guide and spiritual food. Apart from God, we are nothing.

It is not the only place where God lives. God is both without, and within. If you don't look within, God remains an object of belief, not the Subject of Love.

 

[sojourner]

My point is to refer on these definition rather than debating what is psychology.

Thanks

None of it speaks to my point, which was that psychology can inform theology, but not supplant it.

 

[sojourner]

It is very clear and obvious that The Lord’s Prayer was taught by Jesus Christ

What's clear and obvious is that the Lord's Prayer was taught by those who wrote the gospels long after Jesus (just as mysticism was taught by other early church people).

 

[Windwalker]

We already discussed how we understand Christ’s teachings before, Isn’t it?

No, you've quoted some conservative claptrap hermeneutic approach of so-called 'allowing scripture to interpret itself' that you believe in. None of that is relevant to me. I take a very different approach, one which includes higher criticism and the tools of modernity and postmodernity.

My approach to Christ’s teachings is by understanding its literal sense as in reading the Scriptures in what was written.

Yes, which is what gets you into so much trouble reading the Bible, not being able to understand why Jesus told us to consider the lilies of the field, for instance.

Secondly, the principles of interpretation—as diligently studying the Scriptures in the right context with several tools of interpretation.

Whose "right" tools? What you cited before I consider the "wrong" tools.

Thirdly, dependency (not of self) with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Which amounts to what? Magic? How do you know the Holy Spirit is guiding you? Because it makes sense to what you believe? Hah!

So, is it true that you agreed Psychology and science should not override the teachings of Christ?

I agree that we must let the tools of modernity and postmodernity inform how we understand all these things, including how we interpret the teachings of Jesus. Unlike you, I do not believe truth lies in the past, but the present.

No. It is not my belief. We may check it out if science contradicts with the Scriptures. Scriptures are not my words. We believed the Scriptures are inspired word of God. We may try to check it out, if you can give me a scientific concept or example with Scriptural support. Then, we can assess how “balance” played in religious belief.

So, if you believe the Bible teaches the earth is 6000 years old, and science shows us it's 4.5 billion years old, which do you accept as true and which do you question or reject? Please answer this truthfully.

 

[Yoshua]

What's clear and obvious is that the Lord's Prayer was taught by those who wrote the gospels long after Jesus (just as mysticism was taught by other early church people).

Sojourner,

What’s the problem with that? How could they wrote it without recording or remembering it? It is still a writings that is inspired by God.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Whose "right" tools? What you cited before I consider the "wrong" tools.

Of course, you did not know the tools for interpretation just as you did for making lilies as basis referring to submission.

Which amounts to what? Magic? How do you know the Holy Spirit is guiding you? Because it makes sense to what you believe? Hah!

By believing, receiving, and accepting Christ as my Lord and Saviour, you also receive the Holy Spirit. That the promised Holy Spirit. We believe in the word of Jesus regarding the Spirit of Truth. The transformation of life; delight in God’s word; acknowledging Christ was sent by the Father to save us from our sins; faith in God; follow God’s will; making disciples and proclaim the truth of the gospel.

John 14:15-18
15. "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
16. "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
17. that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you.
18. "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Acts 1:8
8. but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

Acts 2:38
38. And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

For further understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit: http://www.gotquestions.org/Spirit-today.html

I agree that we must let the tools of modernity and postmodernity inform how we understand all these things, including how we interpret the teachings of Jesus. Unlike you, I do not believe truth lies in the past, but the present.

Just think if modernity or post-modern is the will of Jesus Christ for us. How can you believe in the present where the truth was exhibited and proclaimed by Jesus Christ in the past?

Would that mean that you believe more on the sprouted beliefs/religion lately as modernity like Jehovah’s Witnesses, LDS, 7th Day-Adventist, Scientology etc….?

So, if you believe the Bible teaches the earth is 6000 years old, and science shows us it's 4.5 billion years old, which do you accept as true and which do you question or reject? Please answer this truthfully.

Oh. According to some data. if we based it on the Scriptures, that will be 6,000 yrs old and for science is 4.5 billion yrs. Though this is a very hard question, and not very familiar with it. I may leave it to the one who’s expert on this question. What I’m very sure is the place, character, culture, things that created by God as now existing and God’s word as truth.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Of course, you did not know the tools for interpretation

What? Why would you assume that? I went through a fundamentalist Bible college and I have a degree in theology from it, graduated top of the class even. You don't think I was aware of that twaddle you linked me to? That's theology 101 in Bible college. I just came to understand later how flawed it is. In reality, the person unaware is yourself. You think that's that right and only way to do things, like it's all that exists out there. You believe it, and that settles it for you. The naivety is yours, not mine.

You're at a distinct disadvantage in these conversations with both Sojourner and myself. We know everything you're trying to "teach" us already. We're more familiar with it than you are. What we say on the other hand is stuff outside your wheelhouse. We share it with you in the hopes that being an open and inquisitive soul deep down inside you will take the time to learn for those who are more aware in these areas than you are. For the most part it's an issue of overcoming your resistance to being open to it that's the only issue at hand.

Just think if modernity or post-modern is the will of Jesus Christ for us. How can you believe in the present where the truth was exhibited and proclaimed by Jesus Christ in the past?

Because truth is always filtered through the lenses of the our worldviews inherited through culture. I can say the exact same truths Jesus did in a mythic context, by using other words in a modern and postmodern context. The truth isn't the context, the context is the vehicle for truth. It's all relatively understood. The true measure is not the ideas. The true measure is the heart. That is something that escapes you right now.

Would that mean that you believe more on the sprouted beliefs/religion lately as modernity like Jehovah’s Witnesses, LDS, 7th Day-Adventist, Scientology etc….?

Wow. I'm sorry. You really don't know what modernity or postmodernity is. Just because something exists today, does not make it part of modernity. All of those churches you cited are NOT reflective of Modernity. They are stuck in the mythic systems of the past, as are you with the addition of the magic systems mixed in with mythic. I'm sorry, you don't understand what we are talking about. Your response proves that.

Oh. According to some data. if we based it on the Scriptures, that will be 6,000 yrs old and for science is 4.5 billion yrs. Though this is a very hard question, and not very familiar with it. I may leave it to the one who’s expert on this question.

So, you will go with the Bible over science if you find some expert on the Internet you agree with then. For me, I'll go with science because I do not start with the belief the Bible is a book of science. I believe people read it to fit their beliefs, even to the point of denying all the evidence before them to the contrary - such as you have done for the last 74 pages of this discussion against meditation in Christian practice.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner,

What’s the problem with that? How could they wrote it without recording or remembering it? It is still a writings that is inspired by God.

Thanks

How does anyone create any kind of writing -- like poetry or stories? "Inspired by God" isn't the same thing as "Jesus taught." It isn't even the same thing as "God said."

 

[Yoshua]

What? Why would you assume that? I went through a fundamentalist Bible college and I have a degree in theology from it, graduated top of the class even. You don't think I was aware of that twaddle you linked me to? That's theology 101 in Bible college. I just came to understand later how flawed it is. In reality, the person unaware is yourself. You think that's that right and only way to do things, like it's all that exists out there. You believe it, and that settles it for you. The naivety is yours, not mine.

You're at a distinct disadvantage in these conversations with both Sojourner and myself. We know everything you're trying to "teach" us already. We're more familiar with it than you are. What we say on the other hand is stuff outside your wheelhouse. We share it with you in the hopes that being an open and inquisitive soul deep down inside you will take the time to learn for those who are more aware in these areas than you are. For the most part it's an issue of overcoming your resistance to being open to it that's the only issue at hand.

Windwalker,

We’ve been undergone several Scriptures in our discussion before. Just as your example on how you use the Bible as the resources of proof-texting, then tried to connect it with the contemplative doctrine. You may have a degree of theology, that’s good but it does not guarantee a sound interpretation.

Because truth is always filtered through the lenses of the our worldviews inherited through culture. I can say the exact same truths Jesus did in a mythic context, by using other words in a modern and postmodern context. The truth isn't the context, the context is the vehicle for truth. It's all relatively understood. The true measure is not the ideas. The true measure is the heart. That is something that escapes you right now.

Ok. Let us talk about Jesus and get into detail. What are those truths in mythic context in relation in modern or post-modern?

Wow. I'm sorry. You really don't know what modernity or postmodernity is. Just because something exists today, does not make it part of modernity. All of those churches you cited are NOT reflective of Modernity. They are stuck in the mythic systems of the past, as are you with the addition of the magic systems mixed in with mythic. I'm sorry, you don't understand what we are talking about. Your response proves that.

We’r coming on the discussion of truths of post-modernity as we start it with Jesus.

So, you will go with the Bible over science if you find some expert on the Internet you agree with then. For me, I'll go with science because I do not start with the belief the Bible is a book of science. I believe people read it to fit their beliefs, even to the point of denying all the evidence before them to the contrary - such as you have done for the last 74 pages of this discussion against meditation in Christian practice.

Not all in the internet is agreeable. And I did not say the Bible is a book of science, but science can be seen in the Bible as evidence that they exists a long time ago.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

How does anyone create any kind of writing -- like poetry or stories? "Inspired by God" isn't the same thing as "Jesus taught." It isn't even the same thing as "God said."

Sojourner,

If you believe that there is God and Jesus exists, do you think God will allow his word to cease in proclaiming His kingdom after Paul?
There is a poetry, narratives, songs, lamentations, prophecy in the Bible. If God had prophets in the past, how it is not possible that the Scriptures are not inspired?

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

We’ve been undergone several Scriptures in our discussion before. Just as your example on how you use the Bible as the resources of proof-texting, then tried to connect it with the contemplative doctrine. You may have a degree of theology, that’s good but it does not guarantee a sound interpretation.

It does prove however that you were wrong in assuming I wasn't familiar with the "how to interpret the Bible correctly" nonsense you posted to, saying I was unfamiliar with it. I am familiar with it, and I find it lacking. I would never claim I have the "right" interpretation, which is what you argue you have. But I will argue I have a broader understanding of these things than you do, and therefore my views are more informed and more aware than yours, leading to a better, more fuller point of view than your limited, narrow, and shallow ones.

Ok. Let us talk about Jesus and get into detail. What are those truths in mythic context in relation in modern or post-modern?

Nothing you would be capable of understanding because you lack the requisite context. It would be like me speaking to you in a language to you you don't understand. It would all go sailing straight over your head. The last 75 pages of this discussion is proof of that.

I actually should do a separate post showing comparisons side by side like this, but I'll do that later rather than in this post.

We’r coming on the discussion of truths of post-modernity as we start it with Jesus.

Not sure what this statement is supposed to mean. I believe Jesus is understood at every level of development at that level. You see Jesus as an autocratic dictator at the warrior level. I see Jesus at the postmodern and integral levels. You see Jesus as strict legalistic obeyer of the law of God. I see Jesus as the cosmocentric mystic, etc.

Different people, different contexts, different Jesuses. The only difference is I recognize the validity of this, whereas you can't see points of view other than your own as having any validity. That's a developmental issue, not a theological one.

Not all in the internet is agreeable.

I know. And the stuff you choose to accept as valid is only that which supports your points of view. Truth for you is measured by whether or not you can fit it into how you already believe.

And I did not say the Bible is a book of science, but science can be seen in the Bible as evidence that they exists a long time ago.

Such as evolution being taught in it?

 

[Yoshua]

Not sure what this statement is supposed to mean. I believe Jesus is understood at every level of development at that level. You see Jesus as an autocratic dictator at the warrior level. I see Jesus at the postmodern and integral levels. You see Jesus as strict legalistic obeyer of the law of God. I see Jesus as the cosmocentric mystic, etc.

Different people, different contexts, different Jesuses. The only difference is I recognize the validity of this, whereas you can't see points of view other than your own as having any validity. That's a developmental issue, not a theological one.

Hi Windwalker,

Postmodern religion[1][2] is any type of religion that is influenced by postmodernism and postmodern philosophies.[3][4] Examples of religions that may be interpreted using postmodern philosophy include Postmodern Christianity,[5] Postmodern Neopaganism[citation needed], and Postmodern Buddhism.[6] Postmodern religion is not an attempt to banish religion from the public sphere; rather, it is a philosophical approach to religion that critically considers orthodox assumptions (that may reflect power differences in society rather than universal truths).[7] Postmodern religious systems of thought view realities as plural and subjective and dependent on the individual's worldview. Postmodern interpretations of religion acknowledge and value a multiplicity of diverse interpretations of truth, being and ways of seeing. There is a rejection of sharp distinctions and global or dominant metanarratives in postmodern religion and this reflects one of the core principles[8] of postmodern philosophy. A postmodern interpretation of religion emphasises the key point that religious truth is highly individualistic, subjective and resides within the individual.[9]

Postmodern interpretations of religion
Interpreting Christianity using theories of postmodernism usually involves finding the balance between acknowledging pluralism, a plurality of views and historical influence on doctrine and avoiding the extremes of postmodernism. John Riggs proposes that postmodernism and Christianity have much to offer each other. He asserts that Christians who have adopted elements of postmodern thinking still need to acknowledge that some notions of reality need to be fixed and real in order to have "meaningful claims about vital topics such as ethics and God".[18] An example of a specific religious movement that uses postmodern thinking is the Emerging Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_religion

Jesus is not a postmodernist and integral. You have to prove more of this. Logically, if He is a postmodernist, He will not say He is the way, the truth and the life. He did not told His disciples to be dependent on individual’s worldview when it comes to faith and obedience to God.

I know. And the stuff you choose to accept as valid is only that which supports your points of view. Truth for you is measured by whether or not you can fit it into how you already believe.

No. Anything that claimed something in related to science should be tested with the Scriptures. Evolution is a man-made theory inconsistent with the creation of God.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Postmodern religion[1][2] is any type of religion that is influenced by postmodernism and postmodern philosophies.[3][4] Examples of religions that may be interpreted using postmodern philosophy include Postmodern Christianity,[5] Postmodern Neopaganism[citation needed], and Postmodern Buddhism.[6] Postmodern religion is not an attempt to banish religion from the public sphere; rather, it is a philosophical approach to religion that critically considers orthodox assumptions (that may reflect power differences in society rather than universal truths).[7] Postmodern religious systems of thought view realities as plural and subjective and dependent on the individual's worldview. Postmodern interpretations of religion acknowledge and value a multiplicity of diverse interpretations of truth, being and ways of seeing. There is a rejection of sharp distinctions and global or dominant metanarratives in postmodern religion and this reflects one of the core principles[8] of postmodern philosophy. A postmodern interpretation of religion emphasises the key point that religious truth is highly individualistic, subjective and resides within the individual.[9]

Out of curiosity, did you understand what was posted in that article? Do you understand the basis behind the views? I would be curious to have you demonstrate an understanding by articulating it back to me using your own words. Can you do that?

Postmodern interpretations of religion
Interpreting Christianity using theories of postmodernism usually involves finding the balance between acknowledging pluralism, a plurality of views and historical influence on doctrine and avoiding the extremes of postmodernism. John Riggs proposes that postmodernism and Christianity have much to offer each other. He asserts that Christians who have adopted elements of postmodern thinking still need to acknowledge that some notions of reality need to be fixed and real in order to have "meaningful claims about vital topics such as ethics and God".[18] An example of a specific religious movement that uses postmodern thinking is the Emerging Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_religion

Yes, thanks to you and your friend in this thread I am now familiar with the Emergent Church movement. I found one local to where I live and have gone to it several times now over the last couple months. I must say, I am impressed by it and consider it a very positive step in the right direction for the Christian faith in modern times. Well overdue and can help give a place for rationally minded individuals who have a deep spiritual heart who otherwise cannot swallow the whole sever-your-mind-for-faith movement of right-wing premodern mythic-literal forms of religion.

In reality however, I am not strictly postmodern. I identify more with Integral. But what that means is I am able to integrate the best of postmodernism, as well as the best of modernity, as well as the best of premodernity, and so forth. If you want to understand Integral in a nutshell, it's the preserving of the best lessons of each of these previous stages, while negating the bathwater elements such as exclusivity which do not fit any longer at the higher or more inclusive levels.

Jesus is not a postmodernist and integral. You have to prove more of this.

Technically not, of course. He wasn't living in the 1960s and beyond. That doesn't mean that the ideals of postmodernism cannot be related to the things Jesus taught in his day. I believe they are quite easily related. Jesus was very world-centric. Whereas your religious philosophy is very anti-world-centric. Your religious philosophy is very ethnocentric. I don't see ethnocentric in Jesus myself.

Logically, if He is a postmodernist, He will not say He is the way, the truth and the life.

That saying is very consistent with postmodernist thought. You interpret that to mean, "Christianity and no other religion". I interpret that to say that as Jesus spoke in such a voice he was speaking as the Manifestation of God incarnate. So as that Manifestation, he is saying "I, Love, am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. To come to the Father you must come through me, which is Love". In other words that Way which was in Jesus, transcends all religions, including the Christian one. You cannot come to the father through religion. You come through Love.

Postmodernist views understand the relative nature of religion and realizes Love transcends all religions. You on the other hand absolutize religions in their practices and doctrines, discerning truth from error based upon rules, not based upon Love. Again, I see much more of postmodernist thought in how Jesus realized Spirit in the world, than I do some exclusivist, rule-based, group-centric Jesus of right-wing fundamentalist philosophy.

You see Jesus as the autocratic Law-Giver. I see Jesus as a progressive, deconstructivist hippie who wants people to overcome the religious world to find eternal Love within themselves, and therefore bring that unique Love into the world through themselves. Same Jesus, two entirely different understandings of him.

He did not told His disciples to be dependent on individual’s worldview when it comes to faith and obedience to God.

I absolutely do not believe our worldviews is what we should depend on! Absolutely not. You on the other hand do believe that. Your beliefs are nothing but an obsessive focus on believing correctly, following the rules, sticking with a book, and so forth in order to find a sense of security in your life. But I understand that true obedience is an obedience to Love. If you are in love with your beliefs, you are not in love with God.

No. Anything that claimed something in related to science should be tested with the Scriptures. Evolution is a man-made theory inconsistent with the creation of God.

Ah, the truth comes out!!!! This is pure rubbish. Evolution is not inconsistent with the creation of God. It's inconsistent with your terribly weak and antiquated reading of the book of Genesis as an actual scientific description. I could happily decimate any arguments you could present to the contrary, but this is not a science versus religion thread. Feel free to start a topic on that and I'll gladly show how I feel evolution is consistent with creativity of God. I think I could just scrape all the rest of your anti-anything-but-your-own-beliefs of this entire thread and dump it into this same anti-reason bucket as your thoughts on science and the Bible here.

Anyway..... I digress.

 

[Yoshua]

Out of curiosity, did you understand what was posted in that article? Do you understand the basis behind the views? I would be curious to have you demonstrate an understanding by articulating it back to me using your own words. Can you do that?

Hi Windwalker,

Postmodernism is relative truth. This is non-objective and no absolute. Every beliefs has its own truth, or individual truths. When it comes to interpretation, there is no standard. Postmodernism is pluralism. There is no right beliefs or faiths, one cannot claim that their belief is the truth.

That saying is very consistent with postmodernist thought. You interpret that to mean, "Christianity and no other religion". I interpret that to say that as Jesus spoke in such a voice he was speaking as the Manifestation of God incarnate. So as that Manifestation, he is saying "I, Love, am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. To come to the Father you must come through me, which is Love". In other words that Way which was in Jesus, transcends all religions, including the Christian one. You cannot come to the father through religion. You come through Love.

Oh. What a distortion! Why you add the word “love” in the statement of Christ to prove your point? If you are a writer and have a book, would you like people to add words to your statement, and tell other people that you wrote it?

Why not go direct to the point on what Jesus said. This is an obvious twisting the word of God. Oh My!

It is right that Jesus is the way to the Father, and you forgot one thing in Acts that says only though Jesus Christ which we can be saved (Acts 4:12). Jesus said the invitation “Follow Me.” The love that you are pertaining is the love of the Father that sent His Son Jesus Christ for the offer of salvation. The transcending is still dependent on the will of man to follow or receive Him. It does not mean when a religion or beliefs show their love to a God, it is automatically mean that is the way, the truth and the life of Jesus Christ. Spiritist also love their co-spiritist. I believed that the love of God was given to all people who are in different beliefs/faiths. That does not mean they are all accepted the love that God has given to them.

If anyone will come to God through love, they must show something that they truly love God. But, as for others who does not believe in the word of God as authority (Bible). The love that they claimed do not have any basis at all. They thought the love that they possessed from God was already what the gospel is. The big question here is: Do your love carry you to salvation of your soul?

Postmodernist views understand the relative nature of religion and realizes Love transcends all religions. You on the other hand absolutize religions in their practices and doctrines, discerning truth from error based upon rules, not based upon Love. Again, I see much more of postmodernist thought in how Jesus realized Spirit in the world, than I do some exclusivist, rule-based, group-centric Jesus of right-wing fundamentalist philosophy.

You see Jesus as the autocratic Law-Giver. I see Jesus as a progressive, deconstructivist hippie who wants people to overcome the religious world to find eternal Love within themselves, and therefore bring that unique Love into the world through themselves. Same Jesus, two entirely different understandings of him.

I see Jesus as the Lord, Saviour and God. God is moral. He commands and He has a plan for humanity, that is the gospel.

Since the postmodernist has no error and received that beliefs are all truths. That would mean that they don’t acknowledge and recognize the saving act of Christ for mankind.

I absolutely do not believe our worldviews is what we should depend on! Absolutely not. You on the other hand do believe that. Your beliefs are nothing but an obsessive focus on believing correctly, following the rules, sticking with a book, and so forth in order to find a sense of security in your life. But I understand that true obedience is an obedience to Love. If you are in love with your beliefs, you are not in love with God.

If a man lived by himself. He is lost. Man is born as insecure people, they need to be loved.

Why should I not seek to believe correctly? I don’t want to believe blindly. Of course, I find security in Christ, that is His promise to protect us as well being guided by the promised Holy Spirit.

I’m not in love with my beliefs because no beliefs is perfect for man’s thinking. It is only through Christ that I’m in love with because that love is the truth—the love coming from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Ah, the truth comes out!!!! This is pure rubbish. Evolution is not inconsistent with the creation of God. It's inconsistent with your terribly weak and antiquated reading of the book of Genesis as an actual scientific description. I could happily decimate any arguments you could present to the contrary, but this is not a science versus religion thread. Feel free to start a topic on that and I'll gladly show how I feel evolution is consistent with creativity of God. I think I could just scrape all the rest of your anti-anything-but-your-own-beliefs of this entire thread and dump it into this same anti-reason bucket as your thoughts on science and the Bible here.

Anyway..... I digress.

Majority of those who believed in evolution are agnostic and atheist. Evolution lead us that life evolved without a higher being. Did the evolution believed that God created man?

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

When it comes to interpretation, there is no standard. Postmodernism is pluralism. There is no right beliefs or faiths, one cannot claim that their belief is the truth.

False. Postmodernism absolutely has standards for interpretation, but they're based on a broader knowledge of the texts and a greater reliance on the exegetical process than you appear to be capable of. Those standards are based in a hermeneutic of diversity and ethics rather than a hermeneutic of conformity and authority.

There is no one, "right" belief system or expression of faith. One can't claim "the" truth, but the can claim their truth.

 

[sojourner]

What a distortion! Why you add the word “love” in the statement of Christ to prove your point? If you are a writer and have a book, would you like people to add words to your statement, and tell other people that you wrote it?

When you read that quotation, you're reading it from a position of exclusion rather than from a position of inclusion. But "inclusion" is precisely what got Jesus killed. He included and empowered the outcast. In other words, he loved them. Love --not exclusion -- is the core message of the gospels, so the fact that "Jesus is love" is heavily implied by the texts and need not be explicitly stated. Wind walker is valid in his interpretation here. Yours, however, is lacking in the flavor of meaning and intent.

 

[sojourner]

The big question here is: Do your love carry you to salvation of your soul?

Yes! Because God is salvation and God is love. Therefore, if we love, we are acting in accordance with God. Salvation is the way of love, the truth of love, and the life of love.

 

[sojourner]

I see Jesus as the Lord, Saviour and God. God is moral. He commands and He has a plan for humanity, that is the gospel.

Love is the basis for morality.

 

[sojourner]

Since the postmodernist has no error and received that beliefs are all truths. That would mean that they don’t acknowledge and recognize the saving act of Christ for mankind

Not true. There are errors in postmodernism. Those errors are errors, not of perspective or POV, bur errors of heart and intention. For the postmodernist, salvation is freedom from selfishness and freedom for selflessnes. IOW, salvation is about "all of us," and not about "me."