What is Contemplative Christianity?

[sojourner]

Why should I not seek to believe correctly?

Because "belief" isn't about a set of doctrines. It's about the position of the heart. "Correctness" is based, not on facts, but on intention.

 

[sojourner]

Majority of those who believed in evolution are agnostic and atheist

Untrue.

 

[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.

Not exactly. Postmodernity cannot be reduced to simply relativism. It covers a whole lot more than that. Nor is it simply pluralism. Though those are in fact part of postmodernity.

But for you to say when it comes to interpretation there is no standard, that is your incorrect interpretation of it. Of course there are standards. If there were not there would be no stability and hence no structures on which any understanding whatsoever could be made! There are standards of truth, but the difference between how postmodernity understands the nature of those versus how modernity understands those is different. Modernity, and the modern religious fundamentalist as some illegitimate stepchild of modernity have the notion that truth itself is inherent to the object of belief. It externalizes truth as a thing "in itself" that can be discovered or known if you use the right methods of inquiry to get at it.

Postmodernity realizes the relative nature of truth and how that there is no way for us to remove the subjective filters of culture and language in getting at meaning and understanding. Truth is tied to the subject, and can not be known in an truly "objective" way. The world or truth is not just laying around out there to be discovered. You always bring yourself with you in the search for it, and whatever you see will always have the imprint of yourself on what is seen.

So that is a standard of understanding, through which we can understanding how truth is arrived at, thereby bringing into question any who speak in terms of absolutes reflected in their understanding. It's not "anything goes". There are certain frameworks postmodernity operates within.

As far as claiming truths goes, sure even postmodernity claims truths. But truths are not held as absolute, binding, and dogmatically asserted upon others. At its best, moving into Integral understanding, it recognizes the value of all relative truths as useful and meaningful. I can certainly claim something is true, to me. I cannot assert however that how I understand the world, how I hold truth to be to what is true for you. It obviously is not, nor cannot be for you because you lack all the necessary prerequisite contexts in order for them to hold any truth value to you. So once again, you are not understanding and properly interpreting what others believe.

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?

It's an understanding of the context of what Jesus was saying, and the context he was saying it from. You insert your interpretation into the texts all the time. I added the word Love to it to help offer a view of the context I was interpreting it from. I believe it is in fact a valid context, and I'll add a better context than yours which you are supplying.

If we were to add words that are not there either, but words you supply every time you quote it injecting your ideas of the context into it, it would read, "I, as a human person, am the only, and exclusive Way, Truth, and Life and you must obey and submit to my teachings or you're going to hell". You don't realize it, but you insert those words every single time you quote that verse. To me, you are distorting its meaning, badly. I think my interpretation is much better and truer to a much larger context.

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

You mean go to your point? That's the reality of what you are asking. Why not understand it how you understand it. The reason, I coming from a larger more experienced context than you are. Your meaning is too limited and doesn't fit reality as I understand it.

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).

First of all, two different books, two different authors, two different audiences. You can't just mash the two together and expect to come out with a single truth. What you end up with is a hybrid Jesus of your own imagination, trying to see two authors speaking as a single voice. That didn't match the reality of it on the ground in the first place. The Jesus of John and the Jesus of Luke are understood, interpreted, and presented differently by the authors.

But what's more than that however, is that again, even in Luke's "no other name under heaven" statement, you are unavoidably injecting your theological views into the texts to make them say the things you already believe, which is the exclusivist Christ. Not the universal Christ. I can read the same verse and offer a different interpretation of it from the universal Christ context. There is no other name, because it is only through the manifestation of God, the eternal Logos, than man can know God and come to God. A Buddhist has access to this. A Hindu has access to this. Everyone has access to this. There is only one God, and all manifestation, all forms, are the single manifestation of God.

That is the Christ, whether they understand it with a personal pronoun name of "Jesus Christ", or another personal pronoun, or no personal pronoun at all, such as OM. "Jesus" is not a magic word. That is not what "name" means. Do you imagine that in order to be saved you have to pronounce the word "Jesus" over a person as you baptize them, that the "name" has the magic salvation key in it? I know Christians who do believe this. They deliberately speak the name "Jesus" because it has power this way to them. They use it to excise demons and whatnot, "In Jesus name!!", they shout as they lay hands on them. That defines magic, using spell words that have inherent power to them.

That's a very different understanding of Jesus, and "name" than I hold. It's a very different context that shapes that understanding. It's a premodern, even pre-mythic context that imagines Jesus like a magic talisman. Those who think in magical terms, see a magical Jesus whose name has power when spoken. Those who think in mythic terms see mythic Jesus riding on a white horse in heaven with angels on his flanks. And so forth. Different contexts, different understandings of Jesus.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

Yes it does. If they love as Jesus loved, they are following Jesus, even if they symbolize him as the Lord Krishna, or Vishnu, or the Buddha. Don't get hung up on the form. Focus on the truth within the form.

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.

That's right. I can hear someone quote scripture all over the place defending their beliefs in Jesus, haranguing others to believe correctly and obey and submit to God as they interpret his will through their reading of the Bible with their sets of eyes, and have in fact themselves not accepted the love of God. They cannot see it in others, and place themselves as their Judge in the name of God. They cannot see the love of God in others, because they do not know the love of God in themselves, despite how much their profess their belief.

If anyone will come to God through love, they must show something that they truly love God.

Amen. For by their fruits you shall know them, says Jesus.

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.

And this is where you fail to know the love of God. If you knew that Love in yourself, it is impossible to not see it in others. The basis they have, is that self same Love that is in all things. If they know it, you see in them as you know it in your own self. If you do not know it in yourself, you cannot see it, or hear it in another. You see only a reflection of your own isolated beliefs projected on others, not seeing who they truly are. You cannot see in another, what you do not know in yourself.

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?

The Love of God is what redeems us from being lost in our isolated selves. Anyone, anywhere, anytime, in any religion has access to this, in any form it takes. Many mistake religious beliefs for the love of God, but that is a self-deception.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

Since your understanding of postmodernism is wrong, you argument is invalid.

Why should I not seek to believe correctly?

Because in your case you think it holds the key to salvation for you. And that is why you fail to understand the Love of God.

I don’t want to believe blindly.

Neither do I. But to not know the heart is to be blind in all of our beliefs.

Of course, I find security in Christ, that is His promise to protect us as well being guided by the promised Holy Spirit.

No, actually you do not. You are trying to find security in your beliefs about Christ. That is not the same thing as "in Christ" itself. When you know Christ with the heart, then beliefs are secondary to that to knowledge. Without that knowledge, you substitute beliefs for faith and mistakenly call that faith. Faith begins in, and is fulfilled with the heart.

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.

They why do you not love others as yourself? Why do you consider how they believe with their minds to be something you need to correct for them? If you truly loved Christ, your heart would be filled with that Love, and that Love would not judge another, and it would also see that self same Spirit in others. "If you had known the Father, you would have known me," said Jesus.

Majority of those who believed in evolution are agnostic and atheist.

Actually, that's not necessarily true, and if it that is true it is irrelevant. It doesn't change facts. It only shows it's hard for people to shift how they believe about things. Take yourself for example.

Evolution lead us that life evolved without a higher being.

It doesn't lead me to believe that. It doesn't lead a great many scientists or others who accept evolution to that conclusion either. It's not a necessary conclusion of evolution that atheism is true. Not in the least.

Did the evolution believed that God created man?

Do you mean do those who accept evolution believe God created man? Some do. I do. Evolution is how God creates. Think of it in the way a potter molds clay in his hands on a turning wheel. It shifts and bends, takes shapes and forms as the pressure of the hands slide over the clay in motion on the wheel. Evolution is the formation of form in a system in constant motion. And Love is what moves and draws the whole process, of motion, of pressure, etc. Evolution is the means through with Spirit expresses itself in form. It is dynamic and living, not fixed and static.

 

[Yoshua]

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.

Hi Sojourner,

What I mean here is the standard that an interpretation is sound. They do not believe in absolute truth.

They claimed that “what is true for one person may not be true for another.” As you have said, no conformity and authority. Now, if the Word of God, and God is not the authority, who is now the authority?? Do you think it is “self” or no one has the authority to claim the truth?

Same with the interpretation, how can we accept several interpretations if they have their own standard of interpretation. If somebody say, there is no God and the other say there is God, how would you reconcile them?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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.

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. by Windwalker

This is the best example (exactly) of postmodernism interpretation. Do the way of differentiating of exclusion and inclusion in the statement of Christ a good interpretation or drawing us away from a different meaning of the text?
Practically and logically speaking, if I add words to your statement, would you like it? I don’t think so. I believed your response will be “I did not say that.”

John 14:1-6
1. "Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.
2. "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.
3. "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.
4. "And you know the way where I am going."
5. Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?"
6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

Did they talk about “Love”? Instead Thomas is asking Jesus. If I tell you “submission”or “obedience” instead of “love,” will you agree?? If I repeat Windwalker’s statement and use “submission” like this one below :

So as that Manifestation, he is saying "I, Come to me, am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. To come to the Father you must come through me, which is submission"or “obedience.” 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 submission or obedience.”

Submission or obedience is heavily implied here because He is the way, the truth and the Life, and Thomas is asking “how do we know the way”?

Submission and obedience is much higher in flavor and intent because to prove that you love Jesus is to come to Him in obedience with submission. It is all about coming to Him in v. 6. How is that?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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,

Do you believe that Jesus is love?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Love is the basis for morality.

Is Jesus your Saviour, Lord & God?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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."

Of course, they don’t have their truth, for them, all had their truths. It seems that they confused who is the truth here.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Yes it does. If they love as Jesus loved, they are following Jesus, even if they symbolize him as the Lord Krishna, or Vishnu, or the Buddha. Don't get hung up on the form. Focus on the truth within the form.

Oh. We go back again. It haven’t answered on how a Buddhist who don’t believe, received and follow Jesus have an access to Him. It is a commitment, and there are price to be paid. My grandmother as an example, who grew up in a communist country, and raised as a Buddhist. In her old age, every time I shared about Christianity and acceptance of Christ, she always simply accept all those deity she believed. What can I do is to prayed for her, continue to share about Jesus. If I know by faith that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, there is no doubt that we just do our part, and leave to God what He can do.

The gospel is not an instant milk drink which can be partake in a second. This could take a commitment and time to know who Christ was.

That's right. I can hear someone quote scripture all over the place defending their beliefs in Jesus, haranguing others to believe correctly and obey and submit to God as they interpret his will through their reading of the Bible with their sets of eyes, and have in fact themselves not accepted the love of God. They cannot see it in others, and place themselves as their Judge in the name of God. They cannot see the love of God in others, because they do not know the love of God in themselves, despite how much their profess their belief.

This is because of their faith in Christ. They have seen God’s power that changed people’s lives. The love that they produced is by sharing the good news about Christ, direct the wrong concept & understanding of the Scriptures and shares the deceitful practice done by the enemy, and not the person itself. They clearly see the love of God, because without that love, why waste time to share it.

And this is where you fail to know the love of God. If you knew that Love in yourself, it is impossible to not see it in others. The basis they have, is that self same Love that is in all things. If they know it, you see in them as you know it in your own self. If you do not know it in yourself, you cannot see it, or hear it in another. You see only a reflection of your own isolated beliefs projected on others, not seeing who they truly are. You cannot see in another, what you do not know in yourself.

Loving others is not always by conformity of others beliefs as adhering their faith which will become yours. It is not, but the other way around as sharing and leading them with the truth of the Scripture. As a mother to his child, the mother does not always give what his child wants because she knows what is harmful and what is not.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

No, actually you do not. You are trying to find security in your beliefs about Christ. That is not the same thing as "in Christ" itself. When you know Christ with the heart, then beliefs are secondary to that to knowledge. Without that knowledge, you substitute beliefs for faith and mistakenly call that faith. Faith begins in, and is fulfilled with the heart.

Windwalker,

It is not by my own effort to have a security in Christ. Believing in Christ first, then you will know Christ for the Spirit of truth will become His guide as promised. You cannot know Christ just by saying I believed Him, but how?

They why do you not love others as yourself? Why do you consider how they believe with their minds to be something you need to correct for them? If you truly loved Christ, your heart would be filled with that Love, and that Love would not judge another, and it would also see that self same Spirit in others. "If you had known the Father, you would have known me," said Jesus.

I don’t love others. As I said, if I refute and correct things to others, does it mean I don’t loved them? Did I judged outside of the Scriptures? I don’t have authority to judged, because I don’t know what they would be in the next 3, 5 to 10 years or more. I don’t know. God only knows. It is just we are in the thread of “General debate section” that we can give our views objectively.

Do you mean do those who accept evolution believe God created man? Some do. I do. Evolution is how God creates. Think of it in the way a potter molds clay in his hands on a turning wheel. It shifts and bends, takes shapes and forms as the pressure of the hands slide over the clay in motion on the wheel. Evolution is the formation of form in a system in constant motion. And Love is what moves and draws the whole process, of motion, of pressure, etc. Evolution is the means through with Spirit expresses itself in form. It is dynamic and living, not fixed and static.

So, you’re saying that not all do believe that God created man. How about the “human evolution”, the weak and the fittest, the descent of man by Charles Darwin? Do you think this consistent with the creation of man where it is originated?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man,_and_Selection_in_Relation_to_Sex

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Because "belief" isn't about a set of doctrines. It's about the position of the heart. "Correctness" is based, not on facts, but on intention.

Sojourner,

Come On. Sojourner, kindly explain how a belief is not teaching or doctrines?? Practicality and logic, which I believed are correctness.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Untrue.

Postmodernist claimed “what is true for one person may not be true for another.” They may said that they have their truths, and others had also their truths. Therefore, no conformity or authority, Isn’t it? So, what do you think they will become if not agnostic and atheist?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Not exactly. Postmodernity cannot be reduced to simply relativism. It covers a whole lot more than that. Nor is it simply pluralism. Though those are in fact part of postmodernity.

But for you to say when it comes to interpretation there is no standard, that is your incorrect interpretation of it. Of course there are standards. If there were not there would be no stability and hence no structures on which any understanding whatsoever could be made! There are standards of truth, but the difference between how postmodernity understands the nature of those versus how modernity understands those is different. Modernity, and the modern religious fundamentalist as some illegitimate stepchild of modernity have the notion that truth itself is inherent to the object of belief. It externalizes truth as a thing "in itself" that can be discovered or known if you use the right methods of inquiry to get at it.

Postmodernity realizes the relative nature of truth and how that there is no way for us to remove the subjective filters of culture and language in getting at meaning and understanding. Truth is tied to the subject, and can not be known in an truly "objective" way. The world or truth is not just laying around out there to be discovered. You always bring yourself with you in the search for it, and whatever you see will always have the imprint of yourself on what is seen.

So that is a standard of understanding, through which we can understanding how truth is arrived at, thereby bringing into question any who speak in terms of absolutes reflected in their understanding. It's not "anything goes". There are certain frameworks postmodernity operates within.

As far as claiming truths goes, sure even postmodernity claims truths. But truths are not held as absolute, binding, and dogmatically asserted upon others. At its best, moving into Integral understanding, it recognizes the value of all relative truths as useful and meaningful. I can certainly claim something is true, to me. I cannot assert however that how I understand the world, how I hold truth to be to what is true for you. It obviously is not, nor cannot be for you because you lack all the necessary prerequisite contexts in order for them to hold any truth value to you. So once again, you are not understanding and properly interpreting what others believe.

Hi Windwalker,

There is a problem here. Just like the emerging church leaders who expressed their preaching that emphasize relationship, community, and traditional values instead of the absolute truth that derived from Scripture. Therefore, the learning of their members are mainly came from the preachers own words and judgment instead of the Scripture. What do you the impact and the effect of that?

It's an understanding of the context of what Jesus was saying, and the context he was saying it from. You insert your interpretation into the texts all the time. I added the word Love to it to help offer a view of the context I was interpreting it from. I believe it is in fact a valid context, and I'll add a better context than yours which you are supplying.

Ok. You may insert the “love” in the context of John 14:6, but do you think it is what the context with Thomas and Jesus? I don’t think so.

John 14:1-6
1. "Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.
2. "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.
3. "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.
4. "And you know the way where I am going."
5. Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?"
6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

Did Thomas ask Jesus about love? What is the subject of their conversation? Is it love? Where?
Literally, Thomas is asking “how do we know the way?" Everyone who read this may accept what their conversation is all about.

Therefore, it is not by changing nor add flowery words that make the statement of Christ a better context. As I said with my answer above with Sojourner, I may add a more better context using the word “obedience” and “Come to Me” to John 14:6 in consistent with the statement “no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” What if I put the word “submission” to John 14:6, I think you will gladly protest and tell me it is wrong. Therefore, it is nearer if I say it is about coming to the Father rather than love. So, why add word to it?

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. by Windwalker

I’m not preventing you to write your insights as what you did (above). I’m more concern of adding the word “love” in John 14:6, so to produce a defense of “transcending all religions, and therefore coming to Him through love.” Although there is truly given that God loved us so we may have an access to Him, but by not forcing it to connote a different context of John 14:6.

If we were to add words that are not there either, but words you supply every time you quote it injecting your ideas of the context into it, it would read, "I, as a human person, am the only, and exclusive Way, Truth, and Life and you must obey and submit to my teachings or you're going to hell". You don't realize it, but you insert those words every single time you quote that verse. To me, you are distorting its meaning, badly. I think my interpretation is much better and truer to a much larger context.

The way you inserted “love” in the statement of Jesus is an obvious injecting your ideas already to connect that “love” is your focal point to come up with transcending all religion context. For me, I don’t do that, I stick with John 14:6 as telling us Jesus is the way to the Father, and nothing more. It is very understandable to all readers here that there is no such context in John 14:6.

 

[Yoshua]

You mean go to your point? That's the reality of what you are asking. Why not understand it how you understand it. The reason, I coming from a larger more experienced context than you are. Your meaning is too limited and doesn't fit reality as I understand it.

If you have a larger experience, you may share what you experienced. Then if you will use John 14:6, I believed it should be in the right context and consistent with the Scripture.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

If I say Jesus said that he is the way, the truth and the life. He is the way to the Father , and only through Him we can go to the Father. Am I stressing my point here or I just repeated and explained it without destroying and adding a different meaning to the Scripture?

Is my explanation limited in this way, or we should add anything and paste some words to make it high tone in spiritual? Actually, this is what the emerging church preachers doing.

First of all, two different books, two different authors, two different audiences. You can't just mash the two together and expect to come out with a single truth. What you end up with is a hybrid Jesus of your own imagination, trying to see two authors speaking as a single voice. That didn't match the reality of it on the ground in the first place. The Jesus of John and the Jesus of Luke are understood, interpreted, and presented differently by the authors.

Oh. You misinterpreted the synoptic gospels. This textual criticism has been explained it already by scholars and theologians for a long time. They have a different angle of views and perspective but not far from the context. This is similar with investigation in the same scenario where 4 or 5 witnesses wrote about the scene of the crime. When they collected their reports, they’re consistent and not conflicting from each other.

But what's more than that however, is that again, even in Luke's "no other name under heaven" statement, you are unavoidably injecting your theological views into the texts to make them say the things you already believe, which is the exclusivist Christ. Not the universal Christ. I can read the same verse and offer a different interpretation of it from the universal Christ context. There is no other name, because it is only through the manifestation of God, the eternal Logos, than man can know God and come to God. A Buddhist has access to this. A Hindu has access to this. Everyone has access to this. There is only one God, and all manifestation, all forms, are the single manifestation of God.

I think it is not in Luke, it is in Acts 4:12.
10. let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead by this name this man stands here before you in good health.
11. "He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the very corner stone.
12. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

Before I surrendered my life to Christ, I haven’t know those things. To read the Scriptures is to know who Jesus was. When you say “universal Christ,” I think you conclude and assure that the Buddhist and Hindus are already have an access to Christ. Now, is it true that they have an access to Christ, How? By continuing their Buddhist and Hindu practice without intimacy and knowing Jesus Christ?

Do they believe in Jesus as the Son of God, the Saviour and Lord. How will Jesus will know them if they themselves did not know Jesus??

It is the other way around by coming to Jesus Christ, denying themselves and follow Him. That’s it. There are unloading of “self” here and not just assuming that God used His merciful love to excuse them by not receiving Him. The question is: will they come to Him?

That is the Christ, whether they understand it with a personal pronoun name of "Jesus Christ", or another personal pronoun, or no personal pronoun at all, such as OM. "Jesus" is not a magic word. That is not what "name" means. Do you imagine that in order to be saved you have to pronounce the word "Jesus" over a person as you baptize them, that the "name" has the magic salvation key in it? I know Christians who do believe this. They deliberately speak the name "Jesus" because it has power this way to them. They use it to excise demons and whatnot, "In Jesus name!!", they shout as they lay hands on them. That defines magic, using spell words that have inherent power to them.

That is the other scenario of a deceptive work of the enemy of Christ if there are other things that they do with the name of Jesus as abusing His name. The reality is the name of Jesus has its power to cast out the enemy. Very powerful! That is true and I’m truly witness to it. But, there is “but” here, others may used the name of Jesus under the control of the enemy/evil one. So, there is a deception here. Deliverance may take place in the hand of the enemy, but the person is becomes a victim of the deception. They thought that it is coming from Jesus, in reality it is not. So, he continue to believe those things.

How can we check them, it is not by experience but from the Scripture itself on how Jesus cast out the demons?

That's a very different understanding of Jesus, and "name" than I hold. It's a very different context that shapes that understanding. It's a premodern, even pre-mythic context that imagines Jesus like a magic talisman. Those who think in magical terms, see a magical Jesus whose name has power when spoken. Those who think in mythic terms see mythic Jesus riding on a white horse in heaven with angels on his flanks. And so forth. Different contexts, different understandings of Jesus.

There are a lot of claimed believers who easily uttered the word “Jesus.” But not all of them are His children. There is only one context for Jesus, and no different understanding.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

There is a problem here. Just like the emerging church leaders who expressed their preaching that emphasize relationship, community, and traditional values instead of the absolute truth that derived from Scripture. Therefore, the learning of their members are mainly came from the preachers own words and judgment instead of the Scripture. What do you the impact and the effect of that?

There is no absolute truth that is derived from scripture. It is all an interpretation. The only difference is the premodern group assumes they are understanding absolute truth because they are blind to how their own minds work. The postmodernist group understands the relative nature of truth, and so their interpretations are understood by themselves as interpretations. They also recognize that you are interpreting too, and therefore are mistaken in your delusion that you have an absolute understanding. You have a partial understanding, determined by what your mind and context and culture and language and education and maturity allows you to see. Both groups, your premodern group and the postmodern group are doing the same thing, which is interpreting into their frameworks relevant truths. The only difference is an awareness of that fact, or a complete blindness to that fact.

All of your beliefs come from your preacher's words too as he interprets scripture for you.

 

[sojourner]

What I mean here is the standard that an interpretation is sound. They do not believe in absolute truth.

They claimed that “what is true for one person may not be true for another.” As you have said, no conformity and authority. Now, if the Word of God, and God is not the authority, who is now the authority?? Do you think it is “self” or no one has the authority to claim the truth?

God is seen as less of an "authority" and more of a "partner." Postmodernism, as I said, is more about ethics than about authority. It's the reason why "king" is no longer a viable model for God. In a day when some people were set above others as "superior by right of birth," "king" may have been apropos. But in a day when all people are known to be equal, a God who is absolutely "above" instead of "among" (which is the model, by the way that Jesus set for us -- God among us) us is inappropriate theology.

No one person has the authority to claim "THE truth." All have authority to claim their part of the truth. It's not that there's no authority or conformity, but the authority isn't centralized as you suppose. Think of the difference between Apple and Android. Authority isn't proprietary and centrally-generated, as in a king, or the bible (as Apple is proprietary to Apple). Authority is crowdsourced (as Android is crowdsourced). God works with us -- not over us, because that's how a love relationship works.

 

[sojourner]

Same with the interpretation, how can we accept several interpretations if they have their own standard of interpretation. If somebody say, there is no God and the other say there is God, how would you reconcile them?

Interpretation isn't anarchist like that, though. Interpretation is, likewise, crowdsourced, taking all facets into consideration, rather than taking only one perspective as "authoritative."

 

[sojourner]

This is the best example (exactly) of postmodernism interpretation. Do the way of differentiating of exclusion and inclusion in the statement of Christ a good interpretation or drawing us away from a different meaning of the text?
Practically and logically speaking, if I add words to your statement, would you like it? I don’t think so. I believed your response will be “I did not say that.”

You and I both know, though, that taking statements out of context is, likewise, to misquote. That's what you're doing here: taking the words of Jesus out of context and assigning your own meaning to them. The context (as I stated -- and which you completely missed) is love and inclusion. And that's the context in which the quote should be understood.

Submission or obedience is heavily implied here because He is the way, the truth and the Life, and Thomas is asking “how do we know the way”?

Submission and obedience is much higher in flavor and intent because to prove that you love Jesus is to come to Him in obedience with submission. It is all about coming to Him in v. 6. How is that?

This is a classic example of insisting on outdated modes of thinking. People submit to a king. People don't submit in a love relationship.