What is Contemplative Christianity?

[Yoshua]

Nonsense. That is not what relativism teaches. That is an extreme interpretation of it, and a bad application of what it reveals. It's an interpretation I reject as being valid.

Hi Windwalker,

Yet it does not teach about relativism just like your reference (philosophy site), those questions are analytical questions that we should think about in relation with the truth.

Rather than you running to these hack-apologist sites whose poorly researched "answers" that tickle the ears of those that don't like the challenges of the actual authorities on the subjects themselves, it's better to go to some reliable site, such as Stanford University's Philosophy site to see what they have to say.

This can be reliable in the sense of philosophy and has nothing to do with religious and spiritual relation with God. This denies Absolutism.

Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. More precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied.
What's wrong in your hack-apologist site? Many things. Relativism does not say all truth is purely relative to the individual. I don't know anyone who claims that that understands relativism. It's contextually based. They are exactly as the Stanford University's site explains, "Products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them." Conventions are external standards. They are not individual. Frameworks are external to the person. They use them to interpret the world through them. They are the same frameworks others use, so they are not individual. These conventions and these frameworks are products of ones culture. One's culture itself is not solely the individual. The individual plays a part in it, but relativism cannot be reduced to the individual alone. It has objective components to it. So your apologist-hack has no idea what he is talking about.

Relativism is not applicable for Christ’s confession of truth. If we will use this philosophy to Christ, it would simply denying and erased Christ as the truth. So how would you reconcile this concept with the gospel?

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Yet it does not teach about relativism just like your reference (philosophy site), those questions are analytical questions that we should think about in relation with the truth.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Yes, her hack-apologist site is only speaking about his misconceptions of relativism and debating against those, rather than an actual understanding of relativism. But it is not the same as the reference I gave which speaks from a position of understanding what relativism is. When you and she rely on the uneducated for your education, you come up uniformed and end up debating for 80 pages of discussion from positions of ignorance. Just go to reliable sources, and see how misinformed you've been.

This can be reliable in the sense of philosophy and has nothing to do with religious and spiritual relation with God. This denies Absolutism.

Your belief in Absolutism is itself a philosophy. Your black and white thinking is the basis for your absolutist philosophies. And that has a direct impact on your religious beliefs.

Relativism is not applicable for Christ’s confession of truth.

Only according to you and your absolutist philosophy.

If we will use this philosophy to Christ, it would simply denying and erased Christ as the truth. So how would you reconcile this concept with the gospel?

No it doesn't. It only leads to a better understanding of Christ as Love, rather than a dictator.

 

[Yoshua]

I have no idea what you are saying here. Yes, her hack-apologist site is only speaking about his misconceptions of relativism and debating against those, rather than an actual understanding of relativism. But it is not the same as the reference I gave which speaks from a position of understanding what relativism is. When you and she rely on the uneducated for your education, you come up uniformed and end up debating for 80 pages of discussion from positions of ignorance. Just go to reliable sources, and see how misinformed you've been.

Hi Windwalker,

I don’t think that the apologetics site you mentioned does not know what he is saying. What particular statement that relativism is not?

Your belief in Absolutism is itself a philosophy. Your black and white thinking is the basis for your absolutist philosophies. And that has a direct impact on your religious beliefs.

Ok. I don’t say that all philosopher can’t be a follower of Christ.

No it doesn't. It only leads to a better understanding of Christ as Love, rather than a dictator.

Yes. Christ as love, how about the only truth which is Christ? Jesus never tell His disciples that there is another truth and other truths aside from what He confessed as the way, the truth and the life. That is not dictatorship but showing God's love by following Him. As simple as that.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

I don’t think that the apologetics site you mentioned does not know what he is saying. What particular statement that relativism is not?

He does not know what he's saying. Read my response to his claims I offered in post 1580 of this thread we're in. http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...tive-christianity.178839/page-79#post-4599693

Ok. I don’t say that all philosopher can’t be a follower of Christ.

All people have a philosophy. Some philosophies are better than others. Absolutism is a bad philosophy that leads to spiritual paralysis. That's the philosophy you ascribe to.

Yes. Christ as love, how about the only truth which is Christ?

Your absolutistic philosophy mangles what that actually means, turning it into a hammer of the beliefs you subscribe to that you can pound others over the head with, rather than Light itself where all your notions of absolutist thought melt away before it.

Jesus never tell His disciples that there is another truth and other truths aside from what He confessed as the way, the truth and the life.

You don't know what the words mean because you try to smash them to fit into your absolutist philosophy. The way, the truth, and the life, do not mean doctrinal beliefs. Not anywhere near that meaning. But if the color of your glasses is red, everything you read will look red to you. Until you take those glasses off, that is.

That is not dictatorship but showing God's love by following Him. As simple as that.

The way you interpret it does make Christ a dictator. You've admitted it already in this thread many times and revel in God as Holy Dictator. Simple as that.

 

[Yoshua]

He does not know what he's saying. Read my response to his claims I offered in post 1580 of this thread we're in. http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...tive-christianity.178839/page-79#post-4599693

Hi Windwalker,

"Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self-refuting...".posted by InChrist

Relativism does not say all truth is purely relative to the individual. By Windwalker

If Relativism does not say that all truth is purely relative to the individual, then the truth is relative to whom?

All people have a philosophy. Some philosophies are better than others. Absolutism is a bad philosophy that leads to spiritual paralysis. That's the philosophy you ascribe to.

In terms of application, what and how does it paralyzes spiritually?

You don't know what the words mean because you try to smash them to fit into your absolutist philosophy. The way, the truth, and the life, do not mean doctrinal beliefs. Not anywhere near that meaning. But if the color of your glasses is red, everything you read will look red to you. Until you take those glasses off, that is.

Then what is the truth of Jesus Christ? a half truth? I’m not born with a glasses colored red instead I saw the red glasses in Christ. I believe and have faith in it with His words.

The way you interpret it does make Christ a dictator. You've admitted it already in this thread many times and revel in God as Holy Dictator. Simple as that.

I don’t think that is based on the interpretation at all. First, you don’t need to interpret the literal understanding of the word, I am the truth by Jesus Christ, Follow Me, Remain in Me, Obey……. It comes out that you interpreted Christ as dictator because it seems difficult for you to accept those simple phrase as your spiritual walk standards.

If our parents told us to follow them, could you say that they are dictator??

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

"Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self-refuting...".posted by InChrist

Relativism does not say all truth is purely relative to the individual. By Windwalker

If Relativism does not say that all truth is purely relative to the individual, then the truth is relative to whom?

I answered that in detail in the post you are quoting from. I'll repeat it here, but you should go back and re-read the post you're quoting from http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...tive-christianity.178839/page-79#post-4599693

Relativism reveals how that the ideas of truth we have are shaped and largely determined by the contexts in which we form them. InChrist's uneducated apologist she turned to in order to understand why she shouldn't accept relativism, falsely stated that relativism teaches that all truth is relative to the individual. It is not relative to the individual, but to the culture the individual is part of us, as well as the language system he participates in, as well as many other factors. To quote here what I answered there in that response,

[Relativism is] contextually based. They are exactly as the Stanford University's site explains, "Products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them." Conventions are external standards. They are not individual. Frameworks are external to the person. They use them to interpret the world through them. They are the same frameworks others use, so they are not individual. These conventions and these frameworks are products of one's culture. One's culture itself is not solely the individual. The individual plays a part in it, but relativism cannot be reduced to the individual alone.
​

You see that? Pay attention to what I bolded above how that "their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them". This is the core of what I have been arguing against your belief where you say "It's not my belefs, but God's". It does not matter if God Himself spoke the words and they exist exactly as he directly spoke them. YOU have to interpret them. They pass through the filters of your cultural lenses. And when you speak them back, they are now your words conveying your meaning, and your understanding, and your beliefs, and your values, all shaped and mainly determined by the relative context in which you came to understand them in. Everything you think and believe passes through these filters, allowing in only what light the filters themselves can pass through to you. The authority isn't God. The authority is you cultural context. This is true for every human being alive on this planet, and every human being that has ever lived on it.

In terms of application, what and how does it paralyzes spiritually?

Good question. It paralyzes you because when you believe that how you believe is right and everyone else is wrong but you, it leads to self-righteousness and at its worst arrogance. And to making yourself the judge of another man's servant is a lack of humility, not seeing the beam in your own eye as you pick at the mote in another. And not knowing humility in yourself, a humility which does not presume to judge the heart of another, arrogantly holding up the Bible and claiming, "It's not my words, but God's!", leads ones to not hearing God in themselves. And not hearing God in oneself leads you away from God and into your own arrogance which has its own reward, a lack of spiritual fruit where it calls the fruit of others "fake fruits" because you can't understand how they can be serving God when you compare them to yourself and your beliefs as the standard. That's how.

Then what is the truth of Jesus Christ? a half truth? I’m not born with a glasses colored red instead I saw the red glasses in Christ. I believe and have faith in it with His words.

The Truth surpasses all our own understandings. I will never claim that my beliefs are the Truth. But you do. I will always only say, "My understanding is...," or, "My experience shows me....". These are my own understandings of Truth itself, but those understandings are in fact relative, and not absolute. You however claim yours are.

As far as the glasses go, yes, you are wearing them right now. And no, you do not see them. Absolutely not, you don't see them. You don't think they exist. You are self-unaware. I can see them on you. I can see them on myself. But seeing them is only the beginning. Seeing them tells you not to be so arrogant about what you believe, realizing that you cannot remove them to the point where you can sit in judgment of others. At this point, you don't even know what the glasses are, let alone begin to act in accord with that realization.

I don’t think that is based on the interpretation at all. First, you don’t need to interpret the literal understanding of the word, I am the truth by Jesus Christ, Follow Me, Remain in Me, Obey……. It comes out that you interpreted Christ as dictator because it seems difficult for you to accept those simple phrase as your spiritual walk standards.

No, I was quoting you where you explicitly called Christ a Dictator, multiple times in this thread. I am simply repeating back a view you claim you believe.

To explain how I interpret the words, "Follow me", it means to listen to the leading of God which you learn about and know within your own heart, not relying on what you think the truth is. That means, "obeying" God, is the aligning of one's attitudes and spiritual self-awareness to be response to Spirit itself. It has zero to do with you reading something in the Bible and responding to your idea of what you think it meant as an act of obedience to God.

If our parents told us to follow them, could you say that they are dictator??

Thanks

Of course not, but that is not the image you have of God which you try to ram down the throat of others. The image you teach is not of a Wise Loving Parent, but of a "Do or Die Autocrat".

 

[Yoshua]

I answered that in detail in the post you are quoting from. I'll repeat it here, but you should go back and re-read the post you're quoting from http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...tive-christianity.178839/page-79#post-4599693

Relativism reveals how that the ideas of truth we have are shaped and largely determined by the contexts in which we form them. InChrist's uneducated apologist she turned to in order to understand why she shouldn't accept relativism, falsely stated that relativism teaches that all truth is relative to the individual. It is not relative to the individual, but to the culture the individual is part of us, as well as the language system he participates in, as well as many other factors. To quote here what I answered there in that response,

[Relativism is] contextually based. They are exactly as the Stanford University's site explains, "Products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them." Conventions are external standards. They are not individual. Frameworks are external to the person. They use them to interpret the world through them. They are the same frameworks others use, so they are not individual. These conventions and these frameworks are products of one's culture. One's culture itself is not solely the individual. The individual plays a part in it, but relativism cannot be reduced to the individual alone.
You see that? Pay attention to what I bolded above how that "their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them". This is the core of what I have been arguing against your belief where you say "It's not my belefs, but God's". It does not matter if God Himself spoke the words and they exist exactly as he directly spoke them. YOU have to interpret them. They pass through the filters of your cultural lenses. And when you speak them back, they are now your words conveying your meaning, and your understanding, and your beliefs, and your values, all shaped and mainly determined by the relative context in which you came to understand them in. Everything you think and believe passes through these filters, allowing in only what light the filters themselves can pass through to you. The authority isn't God. The authority is you cultural context. This is true for every human being alive on this planet, and every human being that has ever lived on it.

Windwalker,

Ok. Let us say the authority is the cultural context. People all over the world had their own culture. Right? Now if I heard the gospel of Christianity, should the culture prevents me from adhering to Christianity?

Good question. It paralyzes you because when you believe that how you believe is right and everyone else is wrong but you, it leads to self-righteousness and at its worst arrogance. And to making yourself the judge of another man's servant is a lack of humility, not seeing the beam in your own eye as you pick at the mote in another. And not knowing humility in yourself, a humility which does not presume to judge the heart of another, arrogantly holding up the Bible and claiming, "It's not my words, but God's!", leads ones to not hearing God in themselves. And not hearing God in oneself leads you away from God and into your own arrogance which has its own reward, a lack of spiritual fruit where it calls the fruit of others "fake fruits" because you can't understand how they can be serving God when you compare them to yourself and your beliefs as the standard. That's how.

Spiritual paralysis can’t be that way. It seems that you are talking the same as how you believe is right for contemplative spirituality. It is the same thing.

The truth of Christ cannot be silenced. The truth cannot be point it out as judgment. The basis is still the word of God. There is no substitute for God’s word in the Bible. It is a matter of accepting His words.

As others (here in this forum) shared their faiths with scriptures as basis of their beliefs, and some their point of views.

The Truth surpasses all our own understandings. I will never claim that my beliefs are the Truth. But you do. I will always only say, "My understanding is...," or, "My experience shows me....". These are my own understandings of Truth itself, but those understandings are in fact relative, and not absolute. You however claim yours are.

Of course, I do. How can you suppress someone’s faith in the light of the truth? If a person see the truth that changed his life with Christ, he should not deny Christ just like what Peter did. How can a follower of Christ deny the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth? It can’t be because it speaks the truth as the Scripture says.

John 16:13
13. "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

As far as the glasses go, yes, you are wearing them right now. And no, you do not see them. Absolutely not, you don't see them. You don't think they exist. You are self-unaware. I can see them on you. I can see them on myself. But seeing them is only the beginning. Seeing them tells you not to be so arrogant about what you believe, realizing that you cannot remove them to the point where you can sit in judgment of others. At this point, you don't even know what the glasses are, let alone begin to act in accord with that realization.

I don’t see any problem when a person saw the truth instead of lies. If you will connote those who saw the truth as arrogance, you’re mistaken.

No, I was quoting you where you explicitly called Christ a Dictator, multiple times in this thread. I am simply repeating back a view you claim you believe.

I did not say that Christ is a dictator. This word came from your mouth. Show my statement that literally says Christ is a dictator, where is it?

I remembered that I emphasized how to follow Christ’s teachings in obedience. It is not in my mindset that Christ is a dictator ever since. It is either we follow Him or not; it is not forced for we have our own free-will.

To explain how I interpret the words, "Follow me", it means to listen to the leading of God which you learn about and know within your own heart, not relying on what you think the truth is. That means, "obeying" God, is the aligning of one's attitudes and spiritual self-awareness to be response to Spirit itself. It has zero to do with you reading something in the Bible and responding to your idea of what you think it meant as an act of obedience to God.

This is where we differ in application. The application of “Follow Me” means simply to obey Jesus Christ’s teachings that was learned from the Bible, and not relying on our own understanding. This is not only listening but obeying. People may listen but not obeying. Why not go straight in obedience? I don’t see any problem about “obedience” that was stated repeatedly in the Scriptures. This is how I look at the Scriptures telling us. Since the start of the book of Genesis, there is already "obedience".

Reading the Scriptures is the source of knowledge about God, I believed that we respond based on the Scriptures and not on anyone’s idea and understanding. With this, I believed is the nearest thing to do in respond to His word—Obedience to His word.

Of course not, but that is not the image you have of God which you try to ram down the throat of others. The image you teach is not of a Wise Loving Parent, but of a "Do or Die Autocrat".

Do or Die? As example, did John 3:16 is clear enough to say that “whosoever” believe in Him shall not perish but to have an everlasting life. There is choice and there is always a consequence.

Yet the love of God is greater than the love of our parents (human), but it does not diminish or eradicate the love concept between parents and children. It is the same thing, parents get so angry with their kids once they disobeyed them but the love of the parents is still there--disciplining his child because of their love. Same as God who disciplined His children with love in it.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Ok. Let us say the authority is the cultural context. People all over the world had their own culture. Right? Now if I heard the gospel of Christianity, should the culture prevents me from adhering to Christianity?

You're very close to understanding the truth of it here. Let's start with Christianity. Stop and think for a minute why you have Christianity in so many cultures, and all of them have different ways of thinking about it, different practices, and differing values within it. This shows you that Christianity, though it may be accepted by all, is understood and practiced differently by all. The worst, un-Christian thing you could do is sit in judgment of them because they don't practice it your way - which is what you have been doing through this entire thread. So right here, you see an example of the context of culture determining in no small way how the Christian faith is believed and practiced.

They all believe in Christ, and they all have different understandings of it than you do, and from one another in different countries. Christianity is not practiced the same in all countries. And what you have in your practice of it, is actually an exported version of right-wing conservative American fundamentalist Christianity, a very narrow version of Christianity born out of a conservative backlash to the rise of Modernity in America, exported for consumption in other countries. Your version of it was born out of a very specific context, and why it has the particular anti-rational flavor it does. The hawkers of this particular brand of Christianity peddle it on the streets of other countries where the religion of consumerism gobbles it up, particularly in young people looking to find their self-identities as different from their own parents who follow their traditional religions, such as Buddhism. Or Christians in this culture seeking truth and meaning apart from their parent's religion by becoming Buddhists, and so forth. It's all very much the same thing.

Spiritual paralysis can’t be that way. It seems that you are talking the same as how you believe is right for contemplative spirituality. It is the same thing.

The truth of Christ cannot be silenced. The truth cannot be point it out as judgment. The basis is still the word of God. There is no substitute for God’s word in the Bible. It is a matter of accepting His words.

So say you from the relative context of your beliefs, which you see as inerrant. I reject your interpretation and understanding as valid for others. The fact you do not allow for other understandings than your own within you, is what in fact leads to spiritual paralysis. You will never learn to walk, let alone run when you are kept inside a cage of your own beliefs you hold as absolute. They are not God's word, they are your understanding. You are a prisoner to the cage of your own beliefs, and the fear that keeps you from opening the door to that cage of your own creation.

As others (here in this forum) shared their faiths with scriptures as basis of their beliefs, and some their point of views.

Not at all as other here share their points of view. You insist on others being wrong in their views, and yourself being right. You condemn contemplative practices because it's not part of how you choose to approach things. If you don't like it, then don't practice it. No issue. But you take it upon yourself to convince others to think like you and not think any differently that you. You judge them. You are not like the majority of participants on this forum. You are a fundamentalist who disallows diversity, which is a form of religious sickness.

John 16:13
13. "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

I like that verse. I understanding it well as a contemplative. How you understand it is different than how I understanding it because I see it from a context you don't have access to because you disallow it for yourself.

I did not say that Christ is a dictator. This word came from your mouth. Show my statement that literally says Christ is a dictator, where is it?

Ok:

"Love is not letting you do your own thinking."

"If you would'nt like to be dictated [to] by Jesus, then you have an excuse that you did not follow Him"

"The words of Jesus is easily understandable even a kid can comprehend. Who dictate the truth if not God?"

"We don't like to be dictated by our own boss.... For God, we could not do the same thing... That is full submission"

"Did God has authority to dictate the truth to us?"​

All of the above, and more, were in response to me saying you see God as a Dictator. These were all in reponse to justify that view you have of God. My favorite of course is the first one. "Love is not letting you do your own thinking," Wow!!!!!!! That is the best example of what it means to be in complete submission to an Autocrat. That sort of "love" is like the "love" the "Dear Leader" of North Korea has for his subjects. He "loves" them so long as they don't think for themselves, as long as they are full submission to his absolute demands of them, as long as the obey his every word, they are safe. That is the definition of a Dictator.

As I said, context is everything. There is no place in my context where I could begin to see God like "Dear Leader". Our cultures help shape how we interpret our ideas about God. Dictatorships are far removed from any recent history of my culture, and therefore God as Autocrat is extremely foreign to anything I can relate to in any cultural context. I can't think of God like that as a result. Nor did I have abusive parents, and therefore cannot think of God as austere in punishment either.

Context. It's all context. It's all relative to our own contexts. Your views of God reflect your own culture and your own experiences. You speak of God as an Austere Autocrat, a Dictator. And when I point it out, you defend it as above in the quotes I linked to, reading and interpreting the Bible in such a way that supports your ideas of God. That way of imaging God is entirely foreign to me, and I do not read what those verses in the Bible say the same way you do. It's all relative to the contexts of the reader.

 

[Yoshua]

You're very close to understanding the truth of it here. Let's start with Christianity. Stop and think for a minute why you have Christianity in so many cultures, and all of them have different ways of thinking about it, different practices, and differing values within it. This shows you that Christianity, though it may be accepted by all, is understood and practiced differently by all. The worst, un-Christian thing you could do is sit in judgment of them because they don't practice it your way - which is what you have been doing through this entire thread. So right here, you see an example of the context of culture determining in no small way how the Christian faith is believed and practiced.

Hi Windwalker,

So therefore if there are European Christians (follower of Christ) and Asian Christians, how should culture play in terms with the gospel of Christ? How the gospel of Christ will be differ in practice? Please cite an example.

They all believe in Christ, and they all have different understandings of it than you do, and from one another in different countries. Christianity is not practiced the same in all countries. And what you have in your practice of it, is actually an exported version of right-wing conservative American fundamentalist Christianity, a very narrow version of Christianity born out of a conservative backlash to the rise of Modernity in America, exported for consumption in other countries. Your version of it was born out of a very specific context, and why it has the particular anti-rational flavor it does. The hawkers of this particular brand of Christianity peddle it on the streets of other countries where the religion of consumerism gobbles it up, particularly in young people looking to find their self-identities as different from their own parents who follow their traditional religions, such as Buddhism. Or Christians in this culture seeking truth and meaning apart from their parent's religion by becoming Buddhists, and so forth. It's all very much the same thing.

Kindly prove how Christianity is not practice the same in all countries? If there Protestants, Baptists, Evangelicals, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Reformed Churches etc…in all around the globe, how will they differ in practice of Christianity?

So say you from the relative context of your beliefs, which you see as inerrant. I reject your interpretation and understanding as valid for others. The fact you do not allow for other understandings than your own within you, is what in fact leads to spiritual paralysis. You will never learn to walk, let alone run when you are kept inside a cage of your own beliefs you hold as absolute. They are not God's word, they are your understanding. You are a prisoner to the cage of your own beliefs, and the fear that keeps you from opening the door to that cage of your own creation.

Then what will be God’s word for you, a contemplative teachings that are not taught in the Bible? or breathe prayers?

Not at all as other here share their points of view. You insist on others being wrong in their views, and yourself being right. You condemn contemplative practices because it's not part of how you choose to approach things. If you don't like it, then don't practice it. No issue. But you take it upon yourself to convince others to think like you and not think any differently that you. You judge them. You are not like the majority of participants on this forum. You are a fundamentalist who disallows diversity, which is a form of religious sickness.

Oh come on. We both knew what we are practicing in our faiths. Kindly review your statements since the start of this thread. Don’t twist the situation that we had right now—as I’m judging you. I shared my faiths, you shared your faiths. I show my basis through the Scriptures, you showed your basis through your mystical experiences. I used the Scriptures to show that contemplative teachings is not in line with the Scriptures, this is how we are in the debate section. You make me surprised with your expression as I’m judging you. I don’t even care how you named me a cult, a fundamentalist, ignorant, demon-possessed etc..(check your words) because I’m mature enough to know why I’m in the religious debate section. I believed we have a DIR section that disallowed debate. You may have your choice to be in the DIR section rather in this section if it seems you’re not prepared to discuss with other beliefs. This is not a personal issue, it is a religious forum to discuss things about religion or spiritual issues.

 

[Yoshua]

I like that verse. I understanding it well as a contemplative. How you understand it is different than how I understanding it because I see it from a context you don't have access to because you disallow it for yourself.

Well. I appreciate that you like this verse.

Ok:

"Love is not letting you do your own thinking."

Thanks for specifying those statements that needs further clarification.

Did you know why love is not letting you do your own thinking, this is because as follower of Christ, the love that enveloped inside the heart and mind is not himself but the love of God. This is where the Spirit of truth indwells a believer—to guide him in all truths. If a person who is not yet in Christ don’t love others before, now in Christ he knows how to love others even their enemies. This is the main purpose why Paul says if one is in Christ, he is a new creature. The new has come. In John 3:3, you must be born-again, that is a renewal of oneself, the turning point 360 degrees of one’s life surrendered to Him to walk in righteousness of Christ.


Eph. 2:10
10. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

"If you would'nt like to be dictated [to] by Jesus, then you have an excuse that you did not follow Him"

Let us define what “dictate” means,

A dictatorship is a government or a social situation where one person makes all the rules and decisions without input from anyone else. Dictatorship implies absolute power — one person who takes control — of a political situation, a family, a classroom or even a camping expedition.www.vocabulary.com

Dictator,a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.google.com

First and foremost, I did not started to use the word “dictate” referring for God’s authority on His people. I apologize if I used that word to convey the idea about God’s authority. The word “dictator” is most widely used for government rather than in religious.

It's not "God's word" independent of them, but a reflection of their own relationship to God that is seen. It is not independent of them. It cannot therefore be an external authority that dictates the truth that all must fall in line with. That cannot, and does not in fact exist anywhere, in anything. There is a relationship between "truth and facts".by Windwalker


If the external authority which is the Word of God should not dictate the truth, then who will dictate the truth?by Yoshua

No one! Why do you need someone to dictate truth? Do you think the Christ is a dictator? I don't. I believe the Christ encourage us to find the truth in ourselves. This is the complete opposite of how you see Christ.

Again, we live in different contexts, and you read the Bible as the words of a Dictator. I read it entirely different than that, as my context tells me otherwise about God. by Windwalker

"The words of Jesus is easily understandable even a kid can comprehend. Who dictate the truth if not God?"

What I mean here is who speak and tell us the truth about God if it is not God. The words of Christ can be understood by kids in literal sense.

"We don't like to be dictated by our own boss.... For God, we could not do the same thing... That is full submission"

Again, I’m forced to used the word “dictate” to explain it in office setting. God gave us a free-will, the word “dictator” can’t be the attribute of God. The word “dictate” may mean forced without a choice to do one’s free-will. I believed this is not the way on how God control His followers as the center of their lives.

All of the above, and more, were in response to me saying you see God as a Dictator. These were all in reponse to justify that view you have of God. My favorite of course is the first one. "Love is not letting you do your own thinking," Wow!!!!!!! That is the best example of what it means to be in complete submission to an Autocrat. That sort of "love" is like the "love" the "Dear Leader" of North Korea has for his subjects. He "loves" them so long as they don't think for themselves, as long as they are full submission to his absolute demands of them, as long as the obey his every word, they are safe. That is the definition of a Dictator.

I’m not in favor of the communist leadership. I lived in the a democratic country and I don’t see God’s way as what you’ve stated as dictatorship. You’re mistaken.

As I said, context is everything. There is no place in my context where I could begin to see God like "Dear Leader". Our cultures help shape how we interpret our ideas about God. Dictatorships are far removed from any recent history of my culture, and therefore God as Autocrat is extremely foreign to anything I can relate to in any cultural context. I can't think of God like that as a result. Nor did I have abusive parents, and therefore cannot think of God as austere in punishment either.

Context. It's all context. It's all relative to our own contexts. Your views of God reflect your own culture and your own experiences. You speak of God as an Austere Autocrat, a Dictator. And when I point it out, you defend it as above in the quotes I linked to, reading and interpreting the Bible in such a way that supports your ideas of God. That way of imaging God is entirely foreign to me, and I do not read what those verses in the Bible say the same way you do. It's all relative to the contexts of the reader.

It is a misinterpretation on thinking that evangelical Christianity is dictatorship style of leadership. It obvious that you did not know what Protestants are practicing. You have a different context of the word “obedience” in application. Obedience in Christ is not a half-hearted obedience applying one’s own will but rather in God’s will. God is a God of fair and just. The basis of loving Him is to remain in His words, that is biblical and true.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

So therefore if there are European Christians (follower of Christ) and Asian Christians, how should culture play in terms with the gospel of Christ? How the gospel of Christ will be differ in practice? Please cite an example.

Kindly prove how Christianity is not practice the same in all countries? If there Protestants, Baptists, Evangelicals, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Reformed Churches etc…in all around the globe, how will they differ in practice of Christianity?

Oh my. Seriously? You actually are this unaware of how Christian faith is practiced in different cultures? It's no wonder you have such a narrow, tunnel-visioned idea of what Christianity actually is! I'm not going to do your homework for you here. I'll just tell you to starting reading about how Christianity is practiced in different regions of the world and let it start to speak for itself to you. Start reading very high level here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ6.htm

Do Google searches also about Christian beliefs and practices in India, in Rome, in South America, and so forth. Compare Protestants with Catholics, Protestants with other Protestants, and on and on and on and on. You'll find your peculiar little brand of it is just a blip on the radar, a tiny speck of odd beliefs and practices, which you in your imagination define as "True Christianity". It's actually very amusing to me, if it weren't so sad.

I'm honestly a bit flabbergasted you are that unaware of how diverse the Christian faith is, but it does go a long, long way to explaining this whole discussion. I think I'm going to drop from this discussion now as @sojourner smartly did, seeing you have such a very long ways to come first before I can even begin to hope for you to see other points of view that are based on things that are so very basic to an understanding of these things. I'm actually working on writing a book on these things right now, and I can't expend any more cycles on a conversation so futile as this. Judge others all you want in their practices. It's your soul.

 

[Yoshua]

Oh my. Seriously? You actually are this unaware of how Christian faith is practiced in different cultures? It's no wonder you have such a narrow, tunnel-visioned idea of what Christianity actually is! I'm not going to do your homework for you here. I'll just tell you to starting reading about how Christianity is practiced in different regions of the world and let it start to speak for itself to you. Start reading very high level here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ6.htm

Hi Windwalker,

They all believe in Christ, and they all have different understandings of it than you do, and from one another in different countries. Christianity is not practiced the same in all countries. And what you have in your practice of it, is actually an exported version of right-wing conservative American fundamentalist Christianity, a very narrow version of Christianity born out of a conservative backlash to the rise of Modernity in America, exported for consumption in other countries. Your version of it was born out of a very specific context, and why it has the particular anti-rational flavor it does. The hawkers of this particular brand of Christianity peddle it on the streets of other countries where the religion of consumerism gobbles it up, particularly in young people looking to find their self-identities as different from their own parents who follow their traditional religions, such as Buddhism. Or Christians in this culture seeking truth and meaning apart from their parent's religion by becoming Buddhists, and so forth. It's all very much the same thing. By Windwalker

I asked questions (above) to explain and prove to me what you are saying in your recent post above (bolded). It is not that I don’t know about Protestantism which is my faith. Please don’t turn the table to me as if I don’t know my faith. You make me laugh.

This is a valid question that a contemplative practitioner must answer. So therefore if there are European Christians (follower of Christ) and Asian Christians, how should culture play in terms with the gospel of Christ? How the gospel of Christ will be differ in practice? Please cite an example.

By the way, that website that you attached here is a good site for religious understanding. I’m familiar with this site.

Do Google searches also about Christian beliefs and practices in India, in Rome, in South America, and so forth. Compare Protestants with Catholics, Protestants with other Protestants, and on and on and on and on. You'll find your peculiar little brand of it is just a blip on the radar, a tiny speck of odd beliefs and practices, which you in your imagination define as "True Christianity". It's actually very amusing to me, if it weren't so sad.

I'm honestly a bit flabbergasted you are that unaware of how diverse the Christian faith is, but it does go a long, long way to explaining this whole discussion. I think I'm going to drop from this discussion now as @sojourner smartly did, seeing you have such a very long ways to come first before I can even begin to hope for you to see other points of view that are based on things that are so very basic to an understanding of these things. I'm actually working on writing a book on these things right now, and I can't expend any more cycles on a conversation so futile as this. Judge others all you want in their practices. It's your soul.

No. You don’t know what I’ve have been through to mistakenly say that I’m unaware with other diverse beliefs, this is not new to me. Again, I don’t judge you. I respect your beliefs. We both expressed our points of view about our faiths. I don’t have anything personal against you because this is just a discussion forum. We still friend in this forum. You have to understand clearly what you are into and why we discussed.

Thanks