Just Wars, Good & Evil, Worldviews and Paradigms, Secular vs. Religious Societies and Standing Armies -- Ravi Combines Many Ideas to Answer This Question

Many topics intersect here into one. First, Ravi Zacharias puts all questions into a paradigm. Then he makes the point that depending on which paradigm one comes from gives any weight to the moral aspect of the question. "Good" and "evil" are examined as well as Adam and Eve's original redefining of what is the meaning behind those concepts. Ravi then explains a bit about justice, just wars, and man's aversion to actual evil. He comments a bit on Jesus' examples of military analogies, and ends with a wrap up of the Ten Commandments. A longer response than usual.

 

Ravi is Asked About Standing Armies and Religious Societies from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Moral Absolutes vs. Moral Relativism -- William Lane Craig

According to Your Standard, Are You Good?

Did Nostradamus Predict Hitler's Rise to Power? Prophecies of Ezekiel Highlighted In Contrast (Pics are Linked Out As Well)

This comes from a larger post from the John Ankerberg site, which itself is pulled from Geisler's, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, under the heading Nostradamus.

Nostradamus (1503-1566) was known by the Latin name of Michel de Notredame or Nostredame. He was graduated from University of Montpellier in France and was a physician and astrologer. He published a book of rhymed prophecies titled Centuries (1555). He is reputed to have predicted accurately the death of Henry II of France and many other things.

According to Andre Lamont, Nostradamus Sees All (“Preface,” 2d. ed., v), “he was well versed in the arts of astronomy, the kabbala, astrology, alchemy, magic, mathematics and medicine.”

Predictions of Nostradamus. Some critics of Christianity hold up Nostradamus as an example of someone who made predictions on the level with those in the Bible, thus canceling the claim of supernatural uniqueness made for biblical prophecy. However, on examination they fall far short of this claim. The predictions of Nostradamus show signs of an occult source and may be explained according to purely natural processes.

A Great California Earthquake. Nostradamus is alleged to have predicted a great earthquake in California for May 10, 1981. This was reported on May 6, 1981, in USA Today. However, no such quake occurred. As a matter of fact, Nostradamus mentioned no country, city, or year. He spoke only of a “rumbling earth” in a “new city” and a “very mighty quake” on May 10 [no year].

Hitler’s Rise to Power. Lamont claims that Nostradamus gave “a prophecy of the coming of Hitler and Nazism in a world divided within itself” (Lamont, 252). However, Hitler is not mentioned and the prediction gives no date and is vague. It reads: “Followers of sects, great troubles are in store for the Messenger. A beast upon the theater prepares the scenical play. The inventor of that wicked feat will be famous. By sects the world will be confused and divided” (ibid.). In this context there is a reference to “Hister” (not Hitler) by Nostradamus (C4Q68), which is obviously a place, not a person. The attempt to read back into this both his name and birthplace is stretched. What is more, Hitler grew up in Linz, Austria, not in any place called Hister.

Quatrain 2-24 reads: “Beasts mad with hunger will swim across rivers, Most of the army will be against the Lower Danube [Hister sera]. The great one shall be dragged in an iron cage when the child brother [de Germain] will observe nothing.”

This is allegedly a prophecy concerning Adolf Hitler. According to followers of Nostradamus, the lower portion of the Danube is known as either “Ister” or “Hister” (Randi, 213), which seems to be close enough to “Hitler” for their purposes.

However, the substitution of “l” for “s” in Hister, and the inversion of “t” and “s,” is totally arbitrary. In another quatrain (4-68), Nostradamus mentions the Lower Danube in conjunction with the Rhine (“De Ryn”). But if “Hister” refers to Hitler, then to what does “De Ryn” refer? Followers of Nostradamus are inconsistent, treating one river as an anagram and taking the other literally. The Latin phrase de Germain should be interpreted “brother” or “near relative,” not “Germany” (Randi, 214). Even if these highly questionable interpretations are allowed, the prophecy is still quite ambiguous. What are we to make of the “Beasts” and the “iron cage”? To say that Adolf Hitler (“the great one”) will be “dragged in an iron cage” while Germany “will observe nothing” is so ambiguous and confusing it renders the entire prophecy meaningless.

Quatrain 4-68 is also alleged to refer to Hitler. It reads: “In the year very near, not far from Venus, The two greatest of Asia and Africa From the Rhine and Lower Danube, which will be said to have come, Cries, tears at Malta and the Ligurian coast.”

As in the previous example, “Lower Danube” is here taken to mean “Hitler.” “The two greatest of Asia and Africa” are taken to refer to Japan and Mussolini, respectively. Thus, the second and third lines refer to the Tripartite Pact between Japan, Italy, and Germany. The fourth is taken as a reference to the bombing of Malta and the bombardment of Genoa (Randi, 215).

In addition to the reasons given above, this prophecy claims these events would take place in a “year very near;” but the Tripartite Pact (1941) came almost 400 years after the prediction. It is not clear how Asia could refer to Japan, and even more so, how Africa could refer to Mussolini or Italy. Again Nostradamus’s followers are inconsistent, for they interpret Asia, Africa, and the Lower Danube figuratively while providing no corresponding interpretation for the Rhine. Finally, this prophecy is ambiguous on the whole. It could be interpreted in various ways so as to fulfill many different events.

The Second World War. According to Lamont, Nostradamus forecast that, after the first World War, the Spanish Civil War, and other wars, a more furious one was foretold—the Second World War, with its aerial warfare and suffering. But no such details are given. It is typically vague and could be easily forecast without any supernormal powers. The passage reads simply: “After a great human exhaustion, a greater one is being prepared. As the great motor renews the centuries, a rain of blood, milk, famine, iron and pestilence [will come]. In the sky will be seen fires carrying long sparks” (Lamont, 168).

Evaluation

Nostradamus’s forecasts are general, vague, and explainable on purely natural grounds. Furthermore, Nostradamus shows clear signs of demonic and occult influence.

False Prophecies. An evident sign of a false prophet is false prophecy (cf. Deuteronomy 18). If Nostradamus’ predictions are taken literally, many are false. If they are not, then they can fit many “fulfillments.” As John Ankerberg put it, “it is an undeniable fact that Nostradamus gave numerous false prophecies” (Ankerberg, 340). Noted Nostradamus scholar Erick Cheetham said flatly of his prognostications in his Almanachs: “Many of these predictions were wrong” (Cheetham, 20). Some interpretations are so diverse that while one claims it is a reference to “Calvinist Geneva,” another believes it refers to “atomic power” (The Prophecies of Nostradamus, 81).

Vague Predictions. The truth is that the vast majority of his prognostications are so ambiguous and vague that they could fit a great variety of events. Consider this one: “Scythe by the Pond, in conjunction with Sagittarius at the high point of its ascendant—disease, famine, death by soldiery—the century/age draws near its renewal” (Centuries 1.6). The lines can be interpreted so as to fit any number of events in the future. When something is judged to be a fulfillment, Nostradamus will seem supernatural. Astrologers and fortunetellers use vague descriptions and imagery all the time. Nostradamus was a master at this art.

Contradictory Interpretations. There is no unanimity among Nostradamus’ interpreters about the meaning of his predictions. This lack of agreement is further proof of their ambiguity and lack of authority. In The Prophecies of Nostradamus the editors note contradictory interpretations (see I, 16; I, 51; II, 41; II, 43; II, 89; III, 97, etc.).

Predictions after the Fact. Nostradamus himself acknowledged that his predictions were written in such a manner that “they could not possibly be understood until they were interpreted after the event and by it” (Randi, 31). There is nothing miraculous about reading a fulfillment back into a prophecy which could not be clearly seen there beforehand. Not a single prediction of Nostradamus has ever been proven genuine. This means that either he is a false prophet or else he was not really seriously claiming to be giving real predictions. Perhaps he was a con artist or a literary prankster.

Tongue-in-Cheek Prophecies? His prognostications were so vague and unproductive that even the encyclopedia of Man, Myth and Magic suggests that “Nostradamus composed them with tongue in cheek, as he was well aware that there is an enduring market for prophecies and particularly for veiled ones” (Cavendish, 2017). As James Randi put it, “The marvelous prophecies of Michel de Nostredame, upon examination, turn out to be a tiresome collection of vague, punning, seemingly badly constructed verses.... From a distance of more than 400 years, I fancy I can hear a bearded Frenchman laughing at the naiveté of his 20th century dupes” (36).

Confessed Demonic Source. Nostradamus admitted demonic inspiration when he wrote: “The tenth of the Calends of April roused by evil persons; the light extinguished; diabolical assembly searching for the bones of the devil (damant—”demon”) according to Psellos” (Lamont, 71). Commenting on this, Lamont noted that “The utilization of the demons or black angels is recommended by ancient writers on magic. They claim that they have much knowledge of temporal matters and, once under control, will give much information to the operator.” He adds, Nostradamus could not have avoided such a temptation” (ibid.).

Various Forms of Occult Practices. Nostradamus was associated with various occult activities. Lamont observes that “Magic—Astrology—Symbolism—Anagrams—[are a] Key to Nostradamus” (ibid., 69). In Centuries, Quatrain 2 is translated: “The wand in the hand seated in the midst of the Branches, He (the prophet) wets in the water both the hem (of his garment) and the foot. A fearfulness and a voice quiver through the sleeves; divine splendor, The Divine is seated near” (ibid., 70). Lamont comments that here “Nostradamus followed the rites of magic according to Iamblichus. It is night—he is seated on the stool or prophetic tripod—a little flame rises. He has the divining rod in his hand” (ibid., 70-71).

In addition to the use of the occult divining rod, Nostradamus was widely known for his knowledge of astrology—another occult practice condemned by the Bible (Deuteronomy 18). But whatever their source, these predictions in no way rival the clear, specific, and highly accurate predictions of Scripture.

Conclusion. There is no real comparison between Nostradamus’ predictions and those of the Bible. His are vague, fallible, and occult. Those of the Bible are clear, infallible, and divine. The Bible made numerous clear and distinct predictions hundreds of years in advance. Nostradamus did not. There is no evidence that Nostradamus was a prophet at all; certainly he was like none in the Bible. Biblical prophecy stands unique in its claim to be supernatural.

Sources

J. Ankerberg, et al., Cult Watch
M. Cavendish, “Nostradamus” in Man, Myth and Magic, new ed., vol. 15
E. Cheetham, The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus
A. Kole, Miracle and Magic
A. Lamont, Nostradamus Sees All
M. Nostradamus, Centuries
J. Randi, “Nostradamus: The Prophet for All Seasons,” The Skeptical Enquirer (Fall 1882)
[no editor named], The Prophecies of Nostradamus

I Added Quite a Few Q&A Sessions from Ravi Zacharias University Visits

• Ravi Zacharias Q & A -- Aren't All Religions the Same? Alison Thomas, Stuart McAllister, and Ravi Zacharias Talk About Christianity's Differences 
• Ravi Zacharias Q & A  -- Alison Thomas, Stuart McAllister, and Ravi Zacharias Answer Question about Truth 
• Ravi Zacharias Q & A -- Michael Ramsden and Ravi Zacharias Answer Question About Bible Being True 
• Ravi Zacharias Q & A -- A Columbia University Student Asks About God's Foreknowledge of Evil 
• Ravi Zacharias Q & A -- A Columbia University Student Asks About God's Love and Compassion Towards Us 
• Ravi Zacharias Q & A -- A Student Asks About Christianity and Homosexuality 
• Ravi Zacharias Q & A -- A Student Asks Does a Moral Law Demand a Moral Law Giver 
• Ravi Zacharias Q & A -- Student Asks About the Immorality of God Condemning People Without Giving Sufficient Evidence

New Age Sympathizer Leonard Sweet To Speak at Pastor Skip Heitzig's Calvary Chapel Church

This is imported entirely from Lighthouse Trails Blog (the front page of their blog can be found here). I imported it because I want my readers to see the depth that the church has fallen into this hole of compromise. This story and others can be found at Lighthouse Trails main site. I highly suggest their many products.

From Warren B. Smith's book, A "Wonderful" Deception:

If we want to possess a magical crystal for our New Age work, we need look no further than our own bodies and the cells that make them up.[1] —David Spangler 1991  

I am grateful to David Spangler for his help in formulating this “new cell” understanding of New Light leadership.[2]—Leonard Sweet 1991

Leonard Sweet, in acknowledging [New Age leaders] Willis Harman, Matthew Fox, M. Scott Peck, and the others he refers to as “New Light leaders” in Quantum Spirituality, states:

I believe these are among the most creative religious leaders in America today. These are the ones carving out channels for new ideas to flow. In a way this book was written to guide myself through their channels and chart their progress. The book’s best ideas come from them.[3]

Speaking of spiritual “channels,” Sweet expresses his personal gratitude in Quantum Spirituality to channeler and veteran New Age leader, David Spangler. . . . A pioneering spokesperson for the New Age, Spangler has written numerous books over the years that include Emergence: The Rebirth of the Sacred, Revelation: The Birth of a New Age, and Reimagination of the World: A Critique of the New Age, Science, and Popular Culture. His book Revelation: The Birth of a New Age is a compilation of channeled transmissions he received from his disembodied spirit-guide “John.” At one point in Revelation, Spangler documents what “John” prophesied about “the energies of the Cosmic Christ” and “Oneness”:

As the energies of the Cosmic Christ become increasingly manifest within the etheric life of Earth, many individuals will begin to respond with the realization that the Christ dwells within them. They will feel his presence moving within and through them and will begin to awaken to their heritage of Christhood and Oneness with God, the Beloved.[4]

Unbelievably, in a modern-day consultation that bears more than a casual resemblance to King Saul’s consultation with the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28:7), Leonard Sweet acknowledges in Quantum Spirituality that he was privately corresponding with channeler David Spangler.[5] In Quantum Spirituality, Sweet writes about what he calls his “new cell” understanding of New Light leadership, then closes his book by thanking Spangler for “his help in formulating this ‘new cell’ understanding of New Light Leadership.” Sweet writes:

I am grateful to David Spangler for his help in formulating this “new cell” understanding of New Light leadership.[6]

LIGHTHOUSE TRAILS REPORT: This coming June, Calvary Chapel Albuquerque (a veteran Calvary Chapel church pastored by Skip Heitzig) will host the National Worship Leader Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico and will feature New Age sympathizer and emerging church leader, Leonard Sweet. The NWLC event will take place in three different U.S. locations with Sweet participating in two of them. The worship conference is presented by Worship Leader magazine, whose chief editor is Chuck Fromm (Chuck Smith, Sr.'s nephew). On the conference website, a banner promotion by Greg Laurie, (another veteran Calvary Chapel pastor) sits in a prominent spot. Laurie states: "In Worship Leader magazine, you hear from the leading thinkers, artists, and pastors on how we can more effectively worship God."[7]

With general promotion of Worship Leader magazine by someone as popular as Greg Laurie, and with the conference taking place at one of the larger Calvary Chapel churches, undoubtedly, the event will be accepted by many Christians as a credible, trustworthy conference. But Leonard Sweet's involvement should cause serious concern for believers.

Leonard Sweet has been a leading figure in bringing the "new" spirituality into the evangelical church for more than a decade and a half. From his book, Quantum Spirituality (which without question shows his unswerving affinity toward major New Age leaders and the New Age philosophy that God is IN all things) to his audio series, The Tides of Change, with Rick Warren in 1995, to his book he co-authored with atonement denier Brian McLaren, A is for Abductive: the Language of the Emerging Church [see an example from this book], to a number of other books he has written that continue to show his New Age propensities, Sweet has consistently proven himself to be a New Age sympathizer. And for him to be included in a conference at a Calvary Chapel church (after the founder of the movement denounced the emerging spirituality a few years ago) speaks volumes about the slide into deception that the evangelical church is making.

Warren Smith, in his cutting-edge book A "Wonderful" Deception (an expose on Rick Warren, Leonard Sweet, and the "new" emerging Christianity), wrote two strong documented chapters specifically on the New Age views of Leonard Sweet. Perhaps one of the most troubling things Smith reveals about Sweet is Sweet's statement about "the father of the New Age movement,"[8] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Sweet calls the late panentheist Chardin “Twentieth-century Christianity’s major voice.”[9] But Chardin does not represent biblical Christianity–on the contrary, he falls in a spiritual camp that embraces the “cosmic Christ,” which is the "I AM God" in every creature. Even though this christ-consciousness-in-all-people belief rejects the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, Sweet has openly aligned himself with Chardin. In Sweet’s book, Aqua Church, he favorably quotes Chardin arrogantly saying: “Christ is in the Church in the same way as the sun is before our eyes. We see the same sun as our fathers saw, and yet we understand it in a much more magnificent way."[10] Sweet’s alignment with Chardin’s New Age views is nothing short of heresy.

The following quotes from Chardin underscore his New Age worldview and belief in a universal New Age Christ. He writes:

[T]he Cross still stands. . . . But this is on one condition, and one only: that it expand itself to the dimensions of a new age, and cease to present itself to us as primarily (or even exclusively) the sign of a victory over sin.[11]

A general convergence of religions upon a universal Christ who fundamentally satisfies them all: that seems to me the only possible conversion of the world, and the only form in which a religion of the future can be conceived.[12]

I believe that the Messiah whom we await, whom we all without any doubt await, is the universal Christ; that is to say, the Christ of evolution.[13] (emphasis added)

As the world moves further toward major spiritual darkness, how can Christian leaders be so willing to embrace those who say they represent Christianity but in essence are helping to bring in a false gospel and a false universal New Age christ, one that will eventually deceive the whole world (Revelation 12:9)?

By what is shaping up, it appears it may not be too long before the spirituality of Leonard Sweet, Rick Warren, and some Calvary Chapel pastors will all bear the same shade of the new spirituality, one which occultist Alice Bailey said would usher in the New Age/New Spirituality cosmic "Christ." And with the throttle pulled all the way back on contemplative mysticism* (the vehicle that will convince the masses to embrace this "Christ"), it's just a matter of time until Leonard Sweet and Rick Warren's tides of change will become a reality, and the stage will be set for the great falling away the Bible speaks of: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." II Thessalonians 2:3

For those who may be skeptical about what we are saying here about the role that mysticism will play in this great deception, consider the words of Leonard Sweet:

Mysticism, once cast to the sidelines of the Christian tradition, is now situated in postmodernist culture near the center.… In the words of one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century, Jesuit philosopher of religion/dogmatist Karl Rahner, “The Christian of tomorrow will be a mystic, one who has experienced something, or he will be nothing.”[14]

The question must be asked, what is Skip Heitzig thinking by giving Leonard Sweet a platform at his Calvary Chapel church? If Calvary Chapel goes in the direction of Leonard Sweet, Rick Warren, and others, Calvary Chapel could end up embracing the same New Age/New Spirituality teachings of Teilhard de Chardin, David Spangler, and Karl Rahner.

In Warren Smith's 10th and 11th chapters of A "Wonderful" Deception, Smith succinctly describes the New Age/New Spirituality of Leonard Sweet. We hope you will read this vital information (which we have provided in the links below) and see for yourselves the serious predicament the Christian church is presently in. Let us warn our friends, families, and the body of Christ about what is going on and encourage them to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3).

Chapter 10, A "Wonderful" Deception: Rick Warren, Leonard Sweet, and Sweet’s “New Light” Leaders

Chapter 11, A "Wonderful" Deception: Chief Saddleback Apologist Defends New Age Sympathizer Leonard Sweet * To understand the spiritual formation (i.e., contemplative prayer) movement and its impact on countless Christians today, also read Ray Yungen's book, A Time of Departing (which includes sections on Rick Warren and Leonard Sweet).

Notes:

1. David Spangler and William Irwin Thompson, Reimagination of the World: A Critique of the New Age, Science, and Popular Culture (Sante Fe, NM: Bear & Company Publishing, 1991), p. 62.
2. Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality (Dayton, OH: Whaleprints for Spirit Venture Ministries, 1991, 1994), p. 312.
3. Ibid., ix.
4. David Spangler, The Revelation: Birth of a New Age (Elgin, IL: Lorian Press, 1976 ), p. 177.
5. Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, op. cit., p. 338, #42.
6. Ibid., p. 312.
7. http://www.nationalworshipleaderconference.com/
8. Mike Oppenheimer, "A NEW Anointing-Pentecost" (Let Us Reason Ministries, http://www.letusreason.org/Current66.htm).
9. Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, op. cit., p. 106.
10. Leonard Sweet, Aqua Church, p. 39.
11. Teilhard de Chardin, Christianity and Evolution, pp. 219-220.
12. Ibid., p. 130.
13. Ibid., p. 95.
14. Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, p. 76, quoted by Ray Yungen in A Time of Departing, p. 160.

Related Articles:

• 2009 National Worship Conference Brings Contemplatives, Laurie, and Sweet Together Rick Warren’s Small Group
• Conference Speaker [Sweet] Says Small Groups Lead to “Christ Consciousness”

"What Do You Believe?" The Logic Game -- Apologetics

What do you believe?

 OR

Step One: Laws of Logic

In the introduction page I mentioned 'logical proof.' The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way.

What do you believe?

How Is Rape Wrong? Gregory Koukl on Atheism and Morals

Great Example in Evangelism (Witnessing to Mormons Means Knowing Your Bible) -- Josh Williamson

So, How Many "Dogs" Would Have To Be On The ARK? Answer: TWO

PARIS (AFP) – Husky, shar pei, terrier or mutt, today's dogs descended from wolves that probably lived in the Middle East, not Europe or Asia as many thought, according to a study published Wednesday in the British science journal Nature.

"Dogs seem to share more genetic similarity with Middle Eastern grey wolves than any other wolf population worldwide," said one of its authors, Robert Wayne, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of California in Los Angeles.

The researchers sequenced the genetic code from more than 900 dogs from 85 breeds and 200 wild grey wolves, including wolves in North America, Europe, the Middle East and East Asia.

They analysed more than 48,000 single genetic markers, seeking areas of comparison that would enable them to build a canine family tree.

Its trunk, they found, is rooted in the Middle East, which concurs with evidence for the remains of dogs found at sites from 13,000 years ago.

Archaeologists have long suspected that domesticated canines were first used in the Fertile Crescent, as early farmers and villagers sought to protect flocks and homes from predators.

 ...(read more)...

(follow YouTube to other parts of the video)

Dr. Mike Miller Discusses the Book "The Shack" and Explains Why Sound Theology Is Important in the Christian's Life

 (JunkerJorge h/t)

Dr. Miller Deconstructs "The Shack," Explaining Its Heretical Side from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Dr. William Lane Craig and Ronald Dr. DeSouza Debate God's Existence at York University, Canada (2009)

This is a wonderful debate. William Lane Craig has evolved in his debate a bit (if that were possible) and the Q&A and back-and-forth in the second half is a must watch.

Syllogistic Philosophical Argument FOR God ~ Norman Geisler

 

 

Based on Sufficient Reason

 

P1) A contingent being exists.

1. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another.
2. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible.

P2) Therefore, this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e., depends on something else for its existence.

P3) That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a non-contingent being (necessary) being.

3. If 3, then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so onto infinity.

P4) Therefore, that which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being.

P5) An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being.

P6) Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists!

Based on the Principle of Existential Causality

1.                    Some limited, changing being[s] exist.

2.                    The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.

3.                    There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being.

4.                    Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings.

5.                    This first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable and one.

6.                    This first uncaused Cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition

A mix of both

1.  Something exists (e.g., I do);

2.  I am a contingent being;

3.  Nothing cannot cause something;

4.  Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being;

5.  Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being;

6.  But I am personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities);

7. Therefore this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy;

8.  But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction;

9.  Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way;

10.  This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings);

11.  Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (=infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists;

12.  Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God;

13.  Therefore, the theistic God exists.

Issues Etc Radio Interviews Ken Samples (of Reasons to Believe) About Testing Conspiracy Theories In Light of Truth Claims

If you have never listened to Issues Etc., I recommend them. They have free podcasts on iTunes and also a weekly radio broadcast. Enjoy.

Dr. Ken Samples Discusses Conspiracies on Issues Etc. from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Higher Thinking, Debate & Some "Second-Tier" Thinking

Take note that in the response to the theist you see straw-man after straw man raised towards the theist: young earth creationism, what "evidence" do you have (e.g., only evidence accepted is dialectical materialism, or, philosophical naturalist types of evidence -- talked about a bit below), theological statements while admitting not knowing theology, etc.

From a debate I had years ago (portion of larger post linked): "'Evidence' 'Science' 'Proof'"

The question then is: What evidence do you need? Or better yet: What kind of evidence? Can Science help? Lets see… the scientific method merely shows that if miracles did occur in the past, that science (as currently defined) could not prove, or disprove, their occurrence. You cannot find out what Napoleon did at the battle of Austerlitz by asking him to come and fight it again in a laboratory with the same combatants, the same terrain, the same weather, and in the same age. You have to go to the records. We have not, in fact, proved that science excludes miracles: we have only proved that the question of miracles, like the innumerable other questions [of history], excludes laboratory treatment. And Christianity claims to be a historical belief. The resurrection of Jesus was an historical event, one that cannot be repeated in the laboratory. So how, then, do we deal with the historic claims of Christianity? Like any other historical event, we go to the records.

"What are the distinctive sources for our beliefs about the past? Most of the beliefs we have about the past come to us by the testimony of other people. I wasn’t present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I didn’t see my father fight in the [S]econd [W]orld [W]ar. I have been told about these events by sources that I take to be reliable. The testimony of others is generally the main source of our beliefs about the past…. So all our beliefs about the past depend on testimony, or memory, or both.” (Philosophy for Dummies, by Tom Morris, pp. 57-58)

“In advanced societies specialization in the gathering and production of knowledge and its wider dissemination through spoken and written testimony is a fundamental socio-epistemic fact, and a very large part of each persons body of knowledge and belief stems from testimony.” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, edited by Robert Audi[2nd ed.], p. 909)

“But it is clear that most of what any given individual knows comes from others; palpably with knowledge of history, geography, or science, more subtly with knowledge about every day facts such as when we were born..” (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, edited by Ted Honderich, p. 869)

So when someone asks, “I haven't seen a single shred of evidence for the existence of God,” is he defining what evidence is and how we get knowledge about past events, and then going to the sources to see if they are credible or not?

From my review of a 2-hour radio interview with William Lobdell and his book Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America-and Found Unexpected Peace (portion of larger post linked): "Hugh Hewitt Interviews Evangelical Turned Atheist, William Lobdell, for 2-Hours"

Robots and Cosmic Puppetry: The Scientific Challenge to Freedom

Since at least the time of Sir Isaac Newton, scientists and philosophers impressed by the march of science have offered a picture of human behavior that is not promising for a belief in freedom. All nature is viewed by them as one huge mechanism, with human beings serving as just parts of that giant machine. On this view, we live and think in accordance with the same laws and causes that move all other physical components of the universal mechanism.

According to these thinkers, everything that happens in nature has a cause. Suppose then that an event occurs, which, in context, is clearly a human action of the sort that we would normally call free. As an occurrence in this universe, it has a cause. But then that cause, in turn, has a cause. And that cause in turn has a cause, and so on, and so on [remember, reductionism].

 

“Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player” ~ Albert Einstein.

As a result of this scientific world view, we get the following picture:

 

Natural conditions outside our control…

cause…

Inner bodily and brain states,

which cause…

mental and physical actions

But if this is true, then you are, ultimately, just a conduit or pipeline for chains of natural causation that reach far back into the past before your birth and continue far forward into the future after your death. You are not an originating cause of anything [this includes brain activity of all degrees, that is, love, pain, etc.). Nothing you ever do is due to your choices or thoughts alone. You are a puppet of nature. You are no more than a robot programmed by an unfeeling cosmos.

Psychologists talk about heredity and environment as responsible for everything you do. But then if they are, you aren’t. Does it follow that you can then do as you please, irresponsibly? Not at all. It only follows that you will do as nature and nurture please. But then, nature on this picture turns out to be just an illusory veil over a heartless, uncaring nature. You have what nature gives you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Where is human freedom in this picture? It doesn’t exist. It is one of our chief illusions. The natural belief in free will is just a monstrous falsehood. But we should not feel bad about holding on to this illusion until science corrects us. We can’t have helped it.

This reasoning is called The Challenge of Scientific Determinism. According to determinists, we are determined in every respect to do everything that we ever do.

This again is a serious challenge to human freedom. It is the reason that the early scientist Pierre Laplace (1749-1827) once said that if you could give a super-genius a total description of the universe at any given point in time, that being would be able to predict with certainty everything that would ever happen in the future relative to that moment, and retrodict with certainty anything that had ever happened in any moment before that described state. Nature, he believed, was that perfect machine. And we human beings were just cogs in the machine, deluded in our beliefs that we are free.

(Philosophy for Dummies, 133-134)

J.P Moreland agrees with this summation that there would be no standard to judge whether a particular position about reality were true if we are the products of a completely naturalistic, chance, chain of atoms bouncing off one another happened. To be clear, if atheistic origins of the universe were true, then one liking chocolate ice cream over vanilla would be just as true as someone choosing atheism over theism:

Mind/Body Physicalism Refuted

A number of philosophers have argued that physicalism must be false because it implies determinism and determinism is self-refuting. Speaking of the determinist, J. R. Lucas says:

If what he says is true, he says it merely as the result of his heredity and environment, and nothing else. He does not hold his determinist views because they are true, but because he has such-and-such stimuli; that is, not because the structure of the structure of the universe is such-and-such but only because the configuration of only part of the universe, together with the structure of the determinist’s brain, is such as to produce that result…. Determinism, therefore, cannot be true, because if it was, we should not take the determinists’ arguments as being really arguments [say, whether or not homosexuality is a right or not] as being really arguments, but as being only conditioned reflexes. Their statements should not be regarded as really claiming to be true, but only as seeking to cause us to respond in some way desired by them. (Freedom of the Will, by John Lucas)

H. P. Owen states that:

Determinism is self-stultifying. If my mental processes are totally determined, I am totally determined either to accept or to reject determinism. But if the sole reason for my believing or not believing X is that I am causally determined to believe it I have no ground for holding that my judgment is true or false. (Christian Theism, p. 118)

… if one claims to know that physicalism is true, or to embrace it for good reasons, if one claims that it is a rational position which should be chosen on the basis of evidence [as one does when they reject theism], then this claim is self-refuting. This is so because physicallism seems to deny the possibility of rationality. To see this, let us examine the necessary preconditions which must hold if there is to be such a thing as rationality and show how physicalism denies these preconditions.

At least five factors must obtain if there are to be genuine rational agents who can accurately reflect on the world. First, minds must have internationality; they must be capable of having thoughts about or of the world. Acts of inference are “insights into” or “knowings of” something other than themselves.

Second, reasons, propositions, thoughts, laws of logic and evidence, and truth must exist and be capable of being instanced in people’s minds and influencing their thought processes. This fact is hard to reconcile with physicallism. To see this, consider the field of ethics. Morality prescribes what we ought to do (prescriptive); it does not merely describe what is in fact done (descriptive). Objective morality makes sense if real moral laws or oughts exist and if normative, moral properties like rightness, goodness, worth, and dignity exist in acts (the act of honoring one’s parents) and things (persons and animals have worth) [this all applies to the debate over homosexuality]. If physicalism is true as a worldview, there are no moral properties or full-blooded oughts. Physical states just are, and one physical state causes or fails to cause another physical state. A physical state does not morally prescribe that another physical ought to be. If physicalism is true, oughts are not real moral obligations telling us what one should do to be in conformity with the moral universe. Rather, “ought” serves as a mere guide for reaching a socially acceptable or psychologically desired goal (e.g., “if one wants to have pleasure and avoid pain, then one ‘ought’ to tell the truth”). Moral imperatives become grounded in subjective preferences on the same level as a preference for Burger King over McDonald’s….

(Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity, by J. P. Moreland, 90-92)

The atheist has no way ultimately to point out that an act that society currently considers taboo, such as rape, is morally wrong. The atheist, unlike the theist, would not be able to say that rape is morally wrong at all times and places in the entire history of the known universe. Again, all that can be said is that at this point in our evolutionary history and culture it is currently outlawed in most societies by the majority of peoples. This majority can change thus making an act morally acceptable that is currently outlawed, or immoral. Back to the chemical, or biological basis for rape though, a couple of books that deal with this specifically have addressed this issue by philosophical naturalists. For example, in this exerpt from a larger paper I did for a class on Natural Law and homosexuality, I point out that without creation ex nihilo, rape is not morally wrong in the ultimate sense:

Idolatrous Tools

Idolatry is referenced in connection with human sexuality by Anthony Hoekema who points out that while “primitive man use to make idols out of wood and stone, modern man, seeking something to worship, makes idols of a more subtle type: himself, human society, the state, money, fame.”[1] Thusly, an idol can be fallen man using the gift of relationships as a tool to manipulate others for his or her selfish ends,[2] idolizing pleasure by making it an end-to-a-means, so to speak. In doing so, the person seeking gratification (whether emotional or physical) utilizes or instumentalizes another in order to worship self-gratification. This concept is seen in the slang term “tool”[3] used by today’s generation either to reference a man’s genitalia or to reference another person.[4]

The reader by now should have clearly established in his mind that homosexuality rejects the created order and designs its own contrary vision.[5] Moreover, part of this vision is an atheistic, naturalistic (almost Epicurean[6]) rejection of Creation ex-nihilo.[7] How does the “carnal” person deal with the unnatural order of the homosexual lifestyle? Since it is a reality it is incorporated into their epistemological system of thought or worldview.[8] Henry Morris points out that the materialist worldview looks at homosexuality as nature’s way of controlling population numbers as well as a tension lowering device.[9] Lest one think this line of thinking is insane, that is: sexual acts are something from our evolutionary past and advantageous;[10] rape is said to not be a pathology but an evolutionary adaptation – a strategy for maximizing reproductive success.[11] How do the naturalist, those who have rejected the created order and the moral laws of nature, view such an instrumentalizing of the human body for the end-result of idolatrous worshiping of pleasure?

Liberal sexual morality, based in an ancient epicurean view of the nature of man that “denies that marriage is inherently heterosexual necessarily supposes that the value of sex must be instrumental” in order to pleasure oneself, which makes such an act a tool in the hand of a person’s desires, or, an “end-in-itself.” In other words, the traditional understanding of marriage rejects the view that sees the ultimate point or value of sex in marriage as an instrument to attain either affection or sexual pleasure, which is what the epicurean is left with. Sex, in the homosexual context, then, is the instrumentalization of the body.[12]

Ethical Evil?

The first concept that one must understand is that these authors do not view nature alone as imposing a moral “oughtness” into the situation of survival of the fittest. They view rape, for instance, in its historical evolutionary context as neither right nor wrong ethically.[13] Rape, is neither moral nor immoral vis-à-vis evolutionary lines of thought, even if ingrained in us from our evolutionary paths of survival.[14] Did you catch that? Even if a rape occurs today, it is neither moral nor immoral, it is merely currently taboo.[15] The biological, amoral, justification of rape is made often times as a survival mechanism bringing up the net “survival status” of a species, usually fraught with examples of homosexual worms, lesbian seagulls, and the like.[16]

This materialistic view of nature will give way to there being no difference in the emerging ethic between married couples, homosexual couples, or couples in a temporary sexual relationship. Some go as far to say - rightly so - that with the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle follows shortly thereafter the legalization of polyamorous relationships,[17] which is already considered as a viable option by many in Sweden for instance.[18] After polyamory is legal – about the only thing left is for the Peter Singer’s (professor at Princeton’s Center for Human Values) of the world to argue for “cross species” sex acts.[19] Columnist George Will aptly calls this type of legislation “the moral equality of appetites.”[20]

According to atheistic evolution, these appetites are driven by some chain of events that go back through history to the big bang. Everything is the way it is because of this chain of chance events that resulted in our environments and firing of neurons and their chemical reactions in our brain... making us believe and do what we believe and do. It is really fascism, or so called:

 

“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”

(Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist [Ignatius Press; 1999], by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.)

So since all acts are of equal value in the struggle for survival, the acts that only temporarily determine the highest possible survival of the species at that moment in evolutionary progress/history is the most beneficial... which could be interpreted as being the most “moral” in evolutionary vernacular. Therefore, atheists (which include Lobdell) have no metaphysical basis to say that rape, or the killing of innocent people by religious persons, and similar actions like unjust wars by Marxist revolutionaries, are morally wrong in a meaningful way. They are merely pointing out that they personally disagree with the action they are describing. Arguing, then about the immorality of acts committed by the religious (and I would contend, non-religious peoples) would be just as powerful morally if the same person argued with a friend about the superiority of chocolate ice-cream over that of vanilla ice-cream.

Greg Koukl on Atheists' Non-Belief

Taken from our blog, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers the question "Do Atheists not have to offer evidence because they aren't making any claims?" For more information, visit http://www.str.org.

Thomas Merton Bio #3

 (See Part I and Part II)

New Age is defined well this way:

         [O]ccultism [New Ageism] is defined as the science of mystical evolution; it is the employment of the hidden (i.e., occult [secret]) mystical faculties of man to discern the hidden reality of nature; i.e., to see God as the all-in-all.[1]

I am very familiar with "freedom," in fact, when Luther wrote his commentary on Romans he was still a bit fresh to the commentary scene. His commentary on Galatians however, fantastic. I also enjoy Augustan, Aquinas, and many other Church Fathers and apologists/theologians, I can even pick through Origin's stuff. Contemplative prayer is not something that should be gleaned/shared or compared to this history. You will see a recurring theme in meditative practices, they are grasped onto by people in the Eastern religions and Roman Catholicism as another way or work to reach God. In other words, the typical Catholic has salvation wrapped up in many legalistic traditions, and it doesn't surprise me that instead of looking to the Reformational doctrines, they look to the East, who are likewise filled with traditions and models to achieve emptiness of the mind. I will contend that the "silence" Merton speaks of is not the "solitude" Jesus sought or the type mentioned in Psalm 46:10, a favorite verse of the contemplatives.

Ken Kaisch, an Episcopal priest and teacher of mystical prayer says in his book Finding God:

         Meditation is a process through which we quiet the mind and the emotions and enter directly into the experience of the Divine.... there is a deep connection between us... God is in each of us.[2]

However, how does one get to this point of realizing "God is in each of us," or, in all things in the panentheistic sense? What does this silence cause? Bishop Alan Jones in Reimaging Christianity, says the church must head towards contemplative prayer,

         ...the life of contemplative prayer... Loved and in communion with all things, the soul is born in and out of the secret silence of God. This silence at the heart of mysticism is not only the meeting point of the great traditions but also where all hearts might meet.... But another ancient strand of Christianity teaches that we are all caught up in the Divine Mystery we call God, that the Spirit is in everyone [not talking about the Imago Dei], and that there are depths of interpretation yet to be plumbed.... At cathedral we "break the bread" for those who follow the path of the Buddha and walk the way of the Hindus.[3]

Here is a longer quote from Bishop Jones from my chapter of a larger paper:

The following quote from is from a book that I had read some quotes from in other works and I just couldn’t believe what I was reading, so I bought it to see for myself.  Here is what I found:

Who's Included?

Imagine a great cathedral in Western Australia packed for the cele­bration of Commonwealth Day. There's been a lot of preparation for the service, and tough questions were asked about what “common­wealth” might mean in such a multicultural society. Who should be included and how should the Church celebrate the present reality that is Australia? What's the relationship of Christianity to the other faiths represented in the Commonwealth?

John Shepherd, the dean of St. George's Cathedral in Perth, Western Australia, invited the abbot of the Bodhinyana Buddhist Monastery to preach at the service, which was a Eucharist -- the central Christian sacrament. The abbot accepted in full knowledge of this. Aboriginal dancers led the procession into the cathedral and later led the offertory procession to the altar. During communion, representatives of the Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and Baha'i faiths read passages from their sacred writings, and after communion an Abo­riginal reader offered a dream-time reflection. Was this Christian? The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is “Of course.”

For others, however, the service was an act of betrayal. Outside the cathedral two people stood in protest, holding placards bearing biblical texts. One protester briefly interrupted the abbot's address with a cry that they were all heading for hell. The two lone objec­tors believed that the Christian witness was being compromised.   And from their point of view, they were right.  Either Christianity is true or it isn’t.  If it is, the other religions, however well meaning their adherents are, must be false. Right? And it's hypocritical to think and act otherwise.

But another ancient strand of Christianity teaches that we are all caught up in the Divine Mystery we call God, that the Spirit is in everyone, and that there are depths of interpretation yet to be plumbed. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people” [John 1:1-18; ital­ics mine].[4]

I believe this idea of integrating faith is self-explanatory.  However, in case you missed it, at the end of the quote Alan Jones inserted an Eastern pantheistic worldview into the Gospel of John.  In other words, in order to validate his point, Jones practiced eisegesis.  (“Exegesis is ‘letting the text speak for itself rather than reading into the text what isn’t there,’ which is eisegesis.”)[5]

In the book the Contemplative Experience, Joseph Chu-Cong speaks about Bernard of Clairvaux:

• He realized that God permeates the whole of creation. His experience was that God is the "stone in the stones, the tree in the trees," and in the same way, the center point of his own soul. God resides at the heart of all that exists![6]

Thomas Merton went so far as to say that without contemplative prayer "the Church cannot fulfill her mission to transform and save mankind."[7] This is Gospel plus something. Plus what? William Shannon quoting Merton explains what the goal of contemplative practice is:

• The contemplative experience is neither a union of separate identities nor a fusion of them; on the contrary, separate identities disappear in the All Who is God.[8]

This is New Age Eastern thought. It has its place in the Mind Sciences, not in conservative Protestant bodies. Brennan Manning, author of Ragamuffin Gospel, wrote some suggestions in his Signature of Jesus on how to empty you mind:

• the first step in faith is to stop thinking about God at the time of prayer.
• contemplative spirituality tends to emphasize the need for a change in consciousness . . . we must come to see reality differently.
• Choose a single, sacred word ... repeat the sacred word inwardly, slowly, and often.[9]

This is exactly how Eastern gurus empty their mind. Richard Foster (one of the most well-known Merton disciples) defines it thusly: "Christian meditation is an attempt to empty the mind in order to fill it."[10]

This isn’t about whether one listens to Dio or P.O.D. -- has adopted a stance on predestination, free-will, or nothing at all; it is about necromancy (spirit guides), altered states of consciousness, astral projection, importing pantheistic worldviews into a theistic one, and occultism.  For instance:

Willow Creek's Leadership Summit in August 2006 introduced Jim Collins to the 70,000 participating Christian leaders. Since 1982 he has been a disciple of New Ager Michael Ray. That year Collins took Ray's Creativity in Business course, which “takes much of its inspiration from Eastern philosophy, mysticism and meditation techniques” and promotes tapping into one's inner wisdom. It describes an “inner person” called “your wisdom keeper or spirit guide” that “can be with you in life” (“Willow Creek Leadership Summit Starts Today,” Lighthouse Trails, Aug. 10, 2006). Collins wrote the foreword to Ray's 2005 book The Highest Goal: The Secret that Sustains You in Every Minute, which claims that man is divine and recommends Hindu mind emptying, meditation. The book quotes Hindu gurus Ram Dass, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and Swami Shantananda. Yet Collins calls it “the distillation of years of accumulated wisdom from a great teacher.” Following is a quote from the book:

         I attended a meditation-intensive day at an ashram [Hindu spiritual center] to support a friend. As I sat in meditation in what was for me an unfamiliar environment, I suddenly felt and saw a bolt of lightning shoot up from the base of my spine out the top of my head. It forced me to recognize something great within me ... this awareness of my own divinity (Michael Ray, The Highest Goal, p. 28; the foreword is by Jim Collins; quoted from “Willowcreek Leadership Summit Starts Today,” Aug, 10, 2006, Lighthouse Trails).[11]

Which is why Thomas Keating says in his book Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality (a book recommended by Brennan Manning) that,

         In order to guide persons having this experience [divine oneness], Christian spiritual directors may need to dialogue with Eastern teachers in order to get a fuller understanding.[12]

Which may have been the catalyst for Merton saying that he "see[s] no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity. The future of Zen is in the West. I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can."[13] Just a reminder on Manning in my "guilt by proxy" post about Beth Moore:

Moore builds her case for contemplative in her frequent references to Brennan Manning in her book, suggesting that his contribution to "our generation of believers may be a gift without parallel" (p. 72). This is indeed a troubling statement made by a Christian leader who so many women look to for direction and instruction in their spiritual lives. Many of those women, in reading Moore's comments about Manning and her quoting of him in the book may turn to the writings of Manning for further insights. When they do, they will find that Manning is a devout admirer of Beatrice Bruteau of The School for Contemplation.

Bruteau believes that God lives in all creation, stating: "We have realized ourselves as the Self that says only I AM, with no predicate following, not 'I am a this' or 'I have that quality.' Only unlimited, absolute I AM" (Lighthouse Trails).

Ahem... this is contemplative prayer, e.g., New Age realizations geared to eradicate self, cause an eastern style silence/emptying of the mind, and deification in some respect of man. This is not found in Biblical history but only the history of panentheism picked up by the traditions that made Luther and Calvin and others sick. Not only was Merton a typical "worship Mary and pray to the saints" Catholic, he was a self-pronounced Buddhist who used Buddhist forms of meditation and repackaged it into Christianese along with the "Desert Fathers" use of the same Eastern practices. In fact he experienced, while meditating in front of Buddha statues deep mystical experiences similar to his contemplation on Christ.

While I agree you can glean stuff from certain theologians, in all that I have read and studied on Merton he would be lumped in with the anti-Christ's religion by the Reformers. Which may be why there is talk about a new reformation or talk of the "old one" being too rigid.

Fuller Seminary professors Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger, in their sympathetic study of the emerging church, say:

         Whereas the Reformation removed many rituals from the worship service, postmodern worship restores these activities. The reformation focused on the spoken word, while postmodern worship embraces the experienced word. Thus, emerging church worshipers may respond with the sign of the cross, more often associated with Catholic worship, and they receive the deep mystical aspects of communion, candles, and incense. They may retrieve ancient rituals and create new ones involving the body; they may dance in different venues" (Emerging Churches, p. 78).

Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis, led by Doug Pagitt, uses labyrinths, celebrates Ash Wednesday by putting ashes on the forehead, practices silent prayer and prayer dancing, makes the sign of the cross, and uses the Stations of the Cross (Church Re-imagined, pp. 86, 101, 102).[14]

The Boston Globe mentions this new monastic mysticism in one of their article:

         There is now a growing movement to revive evangelicalism by reclaiming parts of Roman Catholic tradition--including monasticism. Some 100 groups that describe themselves as both evangelical and monastic have sprung up in North America, according to Rutba House's [Jonathan] Wilson-Hartgrove. Many have appeared within the past five years. Increasing numbers of evangelical congregations have struck up friendships with Catholic monasteries, sending church members to join the monks for spiritual retreats. St. John's Abbey, a Benedictine monastery in Minnesota, now makes a point of including interested evangelicals in its summer Monastic Institute ("The Unexpected Monks," The Boston Globe, Feb. 3, 2008).

If there is any mistake about what the goal of contemplative prayer, Richard Foster sums it up:

         To this question the old writers answer with one voice: union with god. ... Bonaventure, a follower of Saint Francis, says that our final goal is "union with god," which is a pure relationship where we see "nothing."[15]

The "old writers" are old Catholic writers, but the Bible nowhere describes or encourages such a practice. The believer's complete relationship with God is an accomplished fact in Christ.

          As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. (Colossians 2:6-10 NKJV)

I agree with that we need discernment, and can reject parts of peoples writings that we know to be badly slanted (Luther's The Jews and their Lies for example). This is exactly the point... Merton's input on prayer is wrong from the floor up, and we as discerning Christians should consider its rejection, in light of Protestant freedom and relation in Christ. I think all we can glean is that yes, Christian prayer life needs improvement, along with everything else we associate with human-hood. Do we really have to wade through this stuff to get that?

This silence Merton and others speak of, by-the-by, is an emptying of your mind, not solitude.

The question is, since we are called to "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good," have you [the person that has experienced and enjoyed through feelings] tested these practices beyond the feeling that they bring you closer to God or merely hearing about them. The consideration that these practices have been given to us evangelicals via a Roman Catholic Buddhist whom himself received it through a long line of thinking relating to neo-platonic thinking should cause red-flags in our looking into this.

---

[1] Richard Kirby, The Mission of Mysticism (London, UK: SPCK, 1979), 13. Quoted from: Ray Yungen, A Time of Departing: How Ancient Mystical Practices are Uniting Christians with the World Religions, 2nd ed. (Silverton, OR: Lighthouse Publishers, 2006), 14.

[2] Ken Kaisch, Finding God: A Handbook of Christian Meditation (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1994), 283.

[3] Alan Jones, Reimaging Christianity: Reconnect Your Spirit Without Disconnecting Your Mind (Hoboke, NJ: John Wiley & Sone Inc., 2005), 174, 89. This quote comes from the book as well:

I won't allow those who insist on a literal interpretations of these myths and doctrines to deprive me of my devotion to her. Was she literally a vir­gin: I don't know. I do know that in the old stories and commen­taries about her, virginity was often a code word for absolute dedication. Christ, in this regard, was even referred to as the archvirgin. But much of the emphasis on virginity arose from a neg­ative and destructive view of sexuality. So I doubt very much whether Mary was literally a virgin, but I know many who sincerely believe that she was. 

[4] Ibid., 88-89.

[5] Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth (Colorado Springs, CO: Victor, 1991), 47.

[6] Joseph Chu-Cong, The Contemplative Experience (New York, NY: Crossroads Publishing Company, 1999), 3. Quoted in: Ray Yungen, A Time of Departing, 177-178.

[7] Thomas Merton, Contemplative Prayer (New York, NY: Image Books; Doubleday, 1996), 116.

[8] Brother Patrick Hart, ed., The Message of Thomas Merton (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1981), 200.

[9] Brennan Manning, The Signature of Jesus (Sisters, OR: Multnomag, 1996), 212, 216, 218.

[10] Richard J. Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth (New York, NY: Harper San Francisco, 1978), 15.

[11] David Cloud, Contemplative Mysticism, 54-55 (emphasis added). This is interesting because in Tantric Hiduism, this is always pictured as a serpent coiled around the adherent’s spine:

kundalini (koon-duh-lee'nee; Skt., “coiled one”), in Hindu and Buddhist Tantrism, the latent and highly potent spiritual energy resting at the base of the spine. Often depicted as a serpent sleeping coiled three and a half times around a Shiva linga in the muladhara, or base chakra (energy vortex), this power (shakti) is awakened by the initiatory power of the guru (spiritual leader) and is said to move upward “like lightning” through the various chakras to reunion with Shiva at the top of the head. The yogic uncoiling of this energy produces the transformative, meditational states of tantric mysticism. See also chakras; Tantra.

Jonathan Z. Smith, ed., The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion (San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1995), cf. kundalini, 648 (emphasis added). Criticism isn’t always bad, and it is something demanded of us in Scripture (1 Thess 5:21), and is even called “noble” (Acts 17:11). I will again display the ending to David Cloud’s summary of Rick Warren, adapted just enough to be fit to the many church’s that are experiencing the same thing:

Our pastors do not believe that all religions worship the same God or that man is God, but their enthusiasm for contemplative practices and lust for the newest thing have brought them and our parishioners into close association with those who do. They are promoting the same type of "spiritual" practices that are nurturing the New Age and their thinking is being corrupted by this illicit association. Evangelicals who are reading and recommending books by mystics would be wise to take heed to this warning.

[12] Thomas Keating, Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality by Philip St. Romain (New York, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1991), Foreword. 

[13] Brother Patrick Hart, ed., The Message of Thomas Merton (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1981), 88.

[14] David Cloud, Contemplative Mysticism: A Powerful Ecumenical Bond (Port Huron, MI: Way of Life Literature, 2008), 28.

[15] Richard Foster, Prayer: Finding The Heart's True Home (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1992), 159.