What is Contemplative Christianity?

[sojourner]

Sojourner,

Do you believe that Jesus is love?

Thanks

Jesus is God. God is love.

 

[sojourner]

Is Jesus your Saviour, Lord & God?

Thanks

Asked and answered.

 

[sojourner]

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

Each has her or his part of the truth.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner,

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

Thanks

Knowing a doctrine is knowledge. Coming to a position of the heart is belief.

 

[sojourner]

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

It's not black-and-white like that. Postmodernity is very, very comfortable in the "grey area." You, on the other hand, are not. To you, all is either/or. There is no possibility of both/and -- no possibility of anything other than a diametrically-opposed relationship. But that's patently not what the bible teaches.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

What does it mean to "receive" Jesus? Something you parrot at a Billy Graham crusade? Hardly. Remember I use the term "allow" constantly in regard to opening to Spirit? That to me is what "receiving" actually is. What draw, what pull, what desire is within you to open to God and to allow God, or Buddha Nature to be realized is "receiving" that Light. It's simply a way to speak about allowing God in us. That happens in Christian faith, in Buddhism, in Hinduism, or any other religion where one does not shut down or block Truth through our arrogant presumptions we know the truth.

You don't have to call it Jesus. You don't have to call it Buddha. You don't have to call in any name whatsoever. Or you can. It doesn't matter. To "believe", is demonstrated by following the simple desire to know the divine. That's all it is, wrapped in whatever language or theology you care to wrap it in.

It is a commitment, and there are price to be paid.

Sure, such as a Buddhist monk meditating every day, following the teachings of the Buddha, etc. It's the same commitment as a Christian who is atually interested in actually knowing God will pay.

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.

Why should she abandon something that was working for her because you felt a need to convert her for yourself? I truly do not believe you understand how faith works in people. What did she really believe in? The deities themselves on the altars, or the Truth itself they pointed her to? I'll lay all my money on the latter. But you don't understand how faith works. That's too bad.

What can I do is to prayed for her, continue to share about Jesus.

Yes, and this is immaturity. You assumed she doesn't have something real because you believe differently than her. This is typical of a very young "believer" who thinks they have it all figured out because they read it in the Bible themselves! Such foolishness! Chances are she was much, much, much wiser than you. And perhaps one day you may realize it when the edifices of your tightly bound beliefs unravel and snap apart for you in your amazed hands and you begin a path of humble wisdom instead.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

I do. Thomas didn't get what Jesus was saying. None of them did. They imagined all sorts of things, not able to hear what Jesus was getting at. Neither do you, I'll add.

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?

Did Thomas ask about Jesus' death? Yet that's what he was talking about. Thomas did not understand what Jesus was saying. None of them did.

Literally, Thomas is asking “how do we know the way?" Everyone who read this may accept what their conversation is all about.

Only those who smash exclusivism into the text read it the way you do, but the context does not support that reading. He wasn't talking about which religion is the true religion. He was talking about the way, the path he was about to embark upon that he alone had to go. It was the path of ultimate Love. Love is absolutely in the context of what Jesus was saying. Love is central to every single thing Jesus talked about. And it was central to his death. Love, not beliefs and doctrines. Love.

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?

You added words to it that destroys the beauty of what he said. It violates the context in every way. It violates the heart of the Christian message of Love.

 

[Yoshua]

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.

Hi Windwalker,

That’s given that you do not believe in the absolute truth from the Scripture. My belief does not come from the preacher’s words for the preacher based His words on the Scripture. We are not prevented to check/examine with the Scriptures as the bereans did in Berea. We are open for transparency with the Scriptures.

Imagine, the postmodern group’s interpretation are understood by themselves. How do they examine if their interpretation is right or faulty? Do they have a basis or none?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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.

Hi Sojourner,

So, how about Jesus, did He did not claim the truth??

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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.

Oh My! I don’t take the words of Jesus out of context. You may make a pick what are those of my statements, and prove to me. Did I say not to love? Is sharing the truth of Christ—not to love?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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.

See with this one. Am I out of context here? Jesus is telling them where He is going and the way.

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.

Your statement “people don’t submit in a love relationship” is basically your own opinion. How can there be love if there is no submission? Did Thomas submit to Jesus Christ? How can he become a disciple of Christ if he did not submit to Jesus? How?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

What does it mean to "receive" Jesus? Something you parrot at a Billy Graham crusade? Hardly. Remember I use the term "allow" constantly in regard to opening to Spirit? That to me is what "receiving" actually is. What draw, what pull, what desire is within you to open to God and to allow God, or Buddha Nature to be realized is "receiving" that Light. It's simply a way to speak about allowing God in us. That happens in Christian faith, in Buddhism, in Hinduism, or any other religion where one does not shut down or block Truth through our arrogant presumptions we know the truth.

Oh Come on. Windwalker.

Since the Jews did not believe Christ is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Saviour, they did not believe Him nor received Him. This is not parroting but parroting what the Scripture says.

John 1:12
12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13. who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The “receive” here is to take it or take upon oneself, by not rejecting it.

Acts 2:41
41. So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

The “receive” here is the same as accept.

Nowhere in the Scripture that says the word “opening” to His word, and “opening” to Jesus Christ. For Spirit, it is still “receiving” and not “opening.”

Acts 10:47
47. "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"

There is a great difference between “allowing and opening” and “receiving.” I may allow myself to be open to Buddhism but not accepting, believing and receiving it as my practice and faith. I believed this is why the Scripture used the word “receiving.”

You don't have to call it Jesus. You don't have to call it Buddha. You don't have to call in any name whatsoever. Or you can. It doesn't matter. To "believe", is demonstrated by following the simple desire to know the divine. That's all it is, wrapped in whatever language or theology you care to wrap it in.

That is the problem, if you don’t clearly know who will be called. Why do you think not to call Jesus if He claimed as the Saviour , Lord and Son of God? It matters a lot. You may call and shout aloud to call anyone here without a name, any spirit may come to you, that’s danger. This is why spiritists had their own spirit guide, it is how they call to communicate with them.

Sure, such as a Buddhist monk meditating every day, following the teachings of the Buddha, etc. It's the same commitment as a Christian who is atually interested in actually knowing God will pay.

What I mean here is there is a cost of following Jesus Christ. It is never a cheap one.

Why should she abandon something that was working for her because you felt a need to convert her for yourself? I truly do not believe you understand how faith works in people. What did she really believe in? The deities themselves on the altars, or the Truth itself they pointed her to? I'll lay all my money on the latter. But you don't understand how faith works. That's too bad.

That’s true indeed. Why should she abandon her belief where she has started? If a believer knows the truth, it is because of the Spirit of truth itself reveals the truth, and speaks only the truth of Christ (John 16:13), why would you think will prevent me from evangelizing her? Isn’t it?

Yes, and this is immaturity. You assumed she doesn't have something real because you believe differently than her. This is typical of a very young "believer" who thinks they have it all figured out because they read it in the Bible themselves! Such foolishness! Chances are she was much, much, much wiser than you. And perhaps one day you may realize it when the edifices of your tightly bound beliefs unravel and snap apart for you in your amazed hands and you begin a path of humble wisdom instead.

Don’t say that word. We don’t know how God work in the life of a person, same as you in the next next years to come. Still, we don’t claim we are full with the word of God, no Christian claims that they perfectly filled-up with the word of God in their heart and mind. That is something we can’t do. Do our part and God will do His part.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Did Thomas ask about Jesus' death? Yet that's what he was talking about. Thomas did not understand what Jesus was saying. None of them did.

Well, there is no mention about death here, I don’t mention about death here. Thomas did not know where Jesus is going, he simply asked this question "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?"

Only those who smash exclusivism into the text read it the way you do, but the context does not support that reading. He wasn't talking about which religion is the true religion. He was talking about the way, the path he was about to embark upon that he alone had to go. It was the path of ultimate Love. Love is absolutely in the context of what Jesus was saying. Love is central to every single thing Jesus talked about. And it was central to his death. Love, not beliefs and doctrines. Love.

Yes, He is talking about the way, and how about the truth?? Is He not the truth? This is not about exclusivity, but more of understanding what lies with their conversation. Nobody say that it was not a path of ultimate love, but this is not what they talking about. It is your additional opinion which preferably may take part in the commentary or conclusion.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Knowing a doctrine is knowledge. Coming to a position of the heart is belief.

Sojourner,

Of course, believing in Christ is by heart. It is matter of taking the teachings into his heart or not, or by rejecting his teachings and claimed it is by heart.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

It's not black-and-white like that. Postmodernity is very, very comfortable in the "grey area." You, on the other hand, are not. To you, all is either/or. There is no possibility of both/and -- no possibility of anything other than a diametrically-opposed relationship. But that's patently not what the bible teaches.

And this is not what Jesus teaches, not black and white. He said that He is the way, the truth and the Life, not black and white?? Or it is determined by believing if He is the truth or not?

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

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.

I already have on both accounts. But again, I wish to stress, not all experiences have to "fit with scripture", because the fatal flaw with that approach is that "fit with scripture" is really "fit with your interpretation". If you lack exposure to something beyond your own ideas, all you will ever see, all you ever can see, is only that which fits within your mental frameworks. So I can, and do say, my experiences fit within my understanding of scripture, but my understanding of scripture is illuminated by my experience! So you see, you do not have "scripture" with its own inherent meaning laying around over there. Meaning requires the person reading it to see the meaning, or not. Scripture does not have an inherent meaning. It requires you to read it and filter it through your meaning filters.

As I said, I very much understand things in a very different light and context than you do because my experience is larger than yours is. That is quite obvious from our conversations.

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?

You don't see that you are injecting your own meaning in your own mind as you quote it to me. If I just read the words quoted from scripture you just did, I am hearing what I understand from it, not what you understand. I hear a different meaning, and that meaning is in fact supported by the context. You can't hear that meaning I do, because you lack the contexts in order to understand that, just like the disciples didn't get what Jesus was saying because they lacked his higher understanding.

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.

One more reason I find myself in support of the movement you helped make me aware of in this thread, a movement I can and will put my energies, gifts, and talents into supporting, thank you very much. And yes, your explanation is terribly limited and misses the greater point, reducing the Christ to a religion.

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.

That, is complete garbage and is not accepted in modern NT scholarship. They are in fact contradictory, and the only consistency is this "meta-theology" you make by smashing the disparate parts together underneath this theological umbrella call the myth of the Master Story. It's a later created myth, and through the lens of the myth you read back into scripture with this overarching idea already firmly in place and make these inconsistent stories written by unknown non-witness authors fit that myth.

Modern scholarships shows quite a different story, one where Mark was the first to piece together a narrative story to fit with the sayings and teachings that had been circulated word of mouth in the communities. The other synoptic Gospels swallow Mark's narrative framework whole into themselves, and spin off in different directions from each other based on their target communities - the same way oral tradition always changes the story to fit the audience (one major reason why these cannot be taken as historical records). And on and on we can go from there. I suggest reading other scholars than your conservative bible websites that merely tickle your ears. You can start with a high-level overview understanding what modern scholars are looking at by visiting this site here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

I think it is not in Luke, it is in Acts 4:12.

This is why you need to look outside your little self-reinforcing bubble of conservative thinking. Luke wrote Acts. In fact, you will find it is commonly referred to as a single book by designating it as Luke/Acts. So when I said Luke said.... I meant Luke said in the book of Acts which he wrote.

Before I surrendered my life to Christ, I haven’t know those things. To read the Scriptures is to know who Jesus was.

No it doesn't. Not at all. You only see what you can see with the level of experience you bring to it.

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?

Because Christ is the Christian expression to say the same thing the Buddhist does when he speaks in terms of the Buddha. It's the same thing the Hindus do when they speak in terms of Krishna. Or I would argue, that Logos and OM are very much similar understandings. So.... if they access this in their own ways, they are in fact accessing this. Not something else. Just because someone calls a glass of water, "water" in one country and "su" in another, or "aqua" in another, it's the exact same thing they are drinking. You can tell from the description of it when they explain what their words mean.

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??

"The true worshippers worship in Spirit and in Truth". It is the Truth of Spirit, not the doctrines of your paltry little church's ideas about Truth. If they are in True Spirit, they are in fact accessing the same thing the Christian is when and if the Christian is in fact moving beyond worshipping their beliefs instead.

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?

Who says they are "assuming that God uses his merciful love to excuse them"????? That sounds like you utterly projecting your own thinking into them! I don't believe they think of God in those terms at all. They have a different understanding of God than you, and so do I.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

Blah, blah, blah, Captain Hook and Peter Pan, Never Neverland... Again, I don't think of God in these literal mythological terms. I don't find them valid in the manner you employ them either as mythic symbols. I prefer to understand the "enemy" as our own selves.

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.

It only has meaning to those who put meaning in it. To believe otherwise is truly magical thought. Genuine magical belief assumes actual words have actual power. If the name "Jesus" has power to "cast out the enemy", then Mexico should be the most peaceful place on earth considering how many people are named Jesus there!

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.

I think this is a very revealing journey inside of your thinking. From there outward, I can see how you colorize everything you read in the Bible into this magical world you imagine reality is. It's a world of magical powers and beings. Fascinating.

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

Well, this is an interpretation to help you navigate this world of magic you see the world to be. I read scripture in a very, very, very, radically different light than you do. It is quite apparent how there is no way possible for you to even approximate an understanding of the world I see in my mind. In reality, this discussion is really more about me finding new ways to explain these thoughts to others, even though it's abundantly clear in this case there is no hope of actual communication. Nevertheless, I find usefulness in it for me towards the end of benefitting others by increasing my own understanding.

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.

There is clearly NOT only one context for Jesus.

 

[Windwalker]

Imagine, the postmodern group’s interpretation are understood by themselves. How do they examine if their interpretation is right or faulty? Do they have a basis or none?

I've already explained this before regarding the validity of claims. Again though, "right" is a relative term. What may be valid in one context may not be in another. I prefer to understand these things in terms of their usefulness or explanatory power. The basis for "truth" is about its functionality - how well does it help translate the world into meaningful terms.

Your interpretation of truth from scripture may be functional for your little group you are part of, but in the context of a larger more educated, scientifically aware world where spiritual understanding has to be able to help translate a rational world to a mind that functions rationally, your "truths" do not function. They are an "unreality". The magic world works at the magic level. It does not work at the rational levels. Scripture needs to be interpreted at higher levels in order for it to function as truth to those functioning at those levels.

 

[sojourner]

Hi Sojourner,

So, how about Jesus, did He did not claim the truth??

Thanks

Jesus' truth is the truth of love.

 

[sojourner]

Oh My! I don’t take the words of Jesus out of context. You may make a pick what are those of my statements, and prove to me. Did I say not to love? Is sharing the truth of Christ—not to love?

Thanks

No, you said that submitting and obeying was love.