Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

spenlake
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050

Posted 7/21/2004 2:26 AM (GMT -6)

Dr Boyd states:
"And just for the record, while I of course dont' advocate eastern mysticism (or the other things Spen listed) as a prof of world religions for 11 years I'll say that there's a lot we westerners could learn from Taoism, Buddhism, etc... They aren't ALTOGETHER terrible. WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING. Not even you Spen. To learn, you have to remain a) open minded while b) discriminating. Don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater."

It seems to me that the statement above could use some explaining. In the same statement we see "I don't advocate eastern mysticism" and "there's a lot we westerners could learn from Taoism, Buddhism, etc." I don't believe that there is anything that we westerners could or should learn from eastern religions that has to do with salvation. The religions of Canaan were not considered worth learning, why should these religions be considered valuable to westerners for salvation and sanctification and training in godliness? Is the Bible and the message it gives us lacking or somehow needing the input of eastern religions to make sense and be completed?

Because of the reference to "westerners," and not those from the east, I am left wondering "why westerners?" Kelsey has much to say regarding spirituality and the eastern religions. It is a significant theme in his many books. Is this what you mean? If you mean that westerners should learn from the eastern religions concept or exercises concerning spirituality, how is this not advocating eastern mysticism which is their approach to spirituality. The various spiritual exercises and disciplines are indeed part of eastern mysticism and their pathways to the spirit world. What do you advocate from these religions that you find valuable while rejecting eastern mysticism? What is the "baby" you find in this "bathwater" that is not eastern mysticism?

What do the eastern religions (Taoism, Buddhism, etc.) have to teach us about God and salvation? What do they have that is valuable relative to the gospel of Christ? They may have a system of ehtics, but ethics are not salvation , nor are they a path to God. I am having serious trouble with your statement and the logic behind it. Please take the time to explain and help me understand what seems to me to be a contradiction that seems confusing and misleading.

Spen Lake

Bobber
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199

Posted 7/21/2004 3:12 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Is the Bible and the message it gives us lacking or somehow needing the input of eastern religions to make sense and be completed?

Most certainly not Spen most certainly not but I think you're missing Boyd's point. There are things in some of those false religions that if we examine our faith some of those things are in really in ours. I never said all things but some things. Let me ask you Spen do you not believe God used imaginative techniques or to visualization certain things to help our faith? What about how God took Abraham out to count the stars? Faith is a word in the scripture that God uses in different way but one way is this, "According to your faith so be it unto you" meaning according to your capacity to see yourself with the answer to shall it be done unto you.

Anyway you look at it one must use visualization techniques in some type or sort to make sense of this verse. Also consider this. The Bible speaks of the blood covenant which goes right back to the garden of Eden, where God slew an animal. You'll see the blood covenant used in false religions as well and human sacrifices. Does that mean we're saying you need to study the details of false religions? No but if Christians begin saying you don't need to believe in sacrifical atonement they might want to ask why so many cultures all round the world practised such even though they did so in a wrong way...IN that way Christianity can learn from the false. Get into the Bible would be the answer for us and see where the original was and is. Blush

Sisters of Cain
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431

Posted 7/21/2004 3:15 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by spenlake

Dr Boyd states:
"And just for the record, while I of course dont' advocate eastern mysticism (or the other things Spen listed) as a prof of world religions for 11 years I'll say that there's a lot we westerners could learn from Taoism, Buddhism, etc... They aren't ALTOGETHER terrible. WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING. Not even you Spen. To learn, you have to remain a) open minded while b) discriminating. Don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater."

It seems to me that the statement above could use some explaining. In the same statement we see "I don't advocate eastern mysticism" and "there's a lot we westerners could learn from Taoism, Buddhism, etc." I don't believe that there is anything that we westerners could or should learn from eastern religions that has to do with salvation.

1. Boyd didn't say we could learn something from Taoism or Buddhism about salvation. You dishonestly inserted "with salvation" to make it seem he did.

2. "Seeing is Believing" is not about salvation.

Are there things we can learn from other religions?

Buddhism says "Right speech involves abstaining from lying, gossiping, or hurtful talk".
You disagree with this?

Buddhism says "Right action involves abstaining from hurtful behaviors, such as killing, stealing, and careless sex."
You disagree with this?

Buddhism says "Right livelihood means making your living in such a way as to avoid dishonesty and hurting others, including animals."
You disagree with this?
Actually, I beg to differ with the "including animals" part. Eyebrow

spenlake
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050

Posted 7/21/2004 3:35 AM (GMT -6)

Bobber,

God used tangible object to convey His ideas. God didn't have Abrham imagine the stars. He took hum outside and showed him. Abraham's "visualization" consisted of looking with real physical eyes at a real sky. This is not a "technique" to boost faith but a tangible way that God conveyed His ideas. How is this similar to teaching that we can have the Holy Spirit inspire an imaginary Jesus (who we don't see) and then interact with imaginary dead people (who we don't really see either) and find freedom in faith. One uses real stars, the other uses imagination that is the product of our own mind or spirits directly. I see a vast difference and don't see God teaching technques of visualization to build faith.

This said, the central question of this theme remains unanswered. How do you reconcile the two ideas within the same statement. I think that it may be much more forthright to openly state that Dr. Boyd advocates eastern mysticism as an aid to build his Christian faith? Is what you are saying that the "visualization" methods of the eastern religions more advanced and explicit and are to be used and adopted as an aid for the Christian faith where the teaching regarding them may not be a s clear?

Spen Lake

spenlake
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050

Posted 7/21/2004 3:45 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain

quote:
Originally posted by spenlake

Dr Boyd states:
"And just for the record, while I of course dont' advocate eastern mysticism (or the other things Spen listed) as a prof of world religions for 11 years I'll say that there's a lot we westerners could learn from Taoism, Buddhism, etc... They aren't ALTOGETHER terrible. WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING. Not even you Spen. To learn, you have to remain a) open minded while b) discriminating. Don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater."

It seems to me that the statement above could use some explaining. In the same statement we see "I don't advocate eastern mysticism" and "there's a lot we westerners could learn from Taoism, Buddhism, etc." I don't believe that there is anything that we westerners could or should learn from eastern religions that has to do with salvation.

1. Boyd didn't say we could learn something from Taoism or Buddhism about salvation. You dishonestly inserted with salvation to make it seem he did.

2. "Seeing is Believing" is not about salvation.

Are there things we can learn from other religions?

Buddhism says "Right speech involves abstaining from lying, gossiping, or hurtful talk".
You disagree with this?

Buddhism says "Right action involves abstaining from hurtful behaviors, such as killing, stealing, and careless sex."
You disagree with this?

Buddhism says "Right livelihood means making your living in such a way as to avoid dishonesty and hurting others, including animals."
You disagree with this?
Actually, I beg to differ with the "including animals" part.

Dear Sister,

If Seeing is Believing is not about salvation and sanctification, then it has no bearing on our spiritual life and our experiencing Jesus. Of course claiming to teach one how "to rest in Christ" has implication for salvation, being reconciled with God so that we can approach Him, and grow in sanctification. If it doesn't have anything to do regarding reconciliation to God and experiencing Him, what is its value? It is then just a silly book.

Secondly, you claim that I somehow disagree proper ethics when you say Buddhism says "Right speech involves abstaining from lying, gossiping, or hurtful talk. Right action involves abstaining from hurtful behaviors, such as killing, stealing, and careless sex. Right livelihood means making your living in such a way as to avoid dishonesty and hurting others, including animals." If you read my post your questions of my discounting their ethics are unfounded. I stated, "They may have a system of ehtics, but ethics are not salvation, nor are they a path to God." I acknowledged that eastern religions did have a system of ethics (perhaps with some flaws as you have noted) but that ethics are not salvation. An atheist can have ethics as can any moral being. Your comments regarding ethics are not salient to the discussion and miss the topic.

Spen Lake

Sisters of Cain
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431

Posted 7/21/2004 4:19 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
If Seeing is Believing is not about salvation and sanctification, then it has no bearing on our spiritual life and our experiencing Jesus.

This is ridiculous. Lots of teaching, post salvation, have relevance for our growth and experience of Jesus.

quote:

Of course claiming to teach one how "to rest in Christ" has implication for salvation,

No it doesn't. Or are you eternally worried about your salvation?

Hebrews 6:1
"Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God"

If you're eternally worried about your salvation, then of course you shouldn't read books about growing in Christ. I think you should concentrate on your lack of faith in your salvation. And once that is settled, you can start growing in Jesus, using prayer as one technique. Plus you may want to major on the substance, the meat of the relationship and quit obsessing over technique*

As for other religions, missionaries use the common truths of Christianity and these other religions as an inroad to sharing the gospel with these people. My friend in muslim lands gets lots of acceptance when he declares that God is one and that gives him an inroad to sharing with them about Jesus. I realize, though, that evangelism is probably not a concern of yours. Being in constant attack mode doesn't really bring others into the kingdom and grow a church, does it?

*the Pharisees obsessed over Jesus' techniques as well

spenlake
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050

Posted 7/21/2004 4:19 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain

quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
If Seeing is Believing is not about salvation and sanctification, then it has no bearing on our spiritual life and our experiencing Jesus. Of course claiming to teach one how "to rest in Christ" has implication for salvation, being reconciled with God so that we can approach Him, and grow in sanctification. If it doesn't have anything to do regarding reconciliation to God and experiencing Him, what is its value?

It does have to do with experiencing Jesus.
There's no life after our reconciliation?

First we're reconciled to Christ. Then opens a whole world of growing in Christ, of which prayer is a vital aspect.

Hebrews 6:1
Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

Now if you're eternally concerned and worried about your salvation, as it appears you are, then of course, you shouldn't read books about growing in Christ. I think you should concentrate on your lack of faith in your salvation. And once that is settled, you can start growing in Jesus, using prayer as one technique. Plus you may want to major on the substance, the meat of the relationship and quit obsessing over technique.

As for other religions, missionaries use the common truths of Christianity and these other religions as an inroad to sharing the gospel with these people. My friend in muslim lands gets lots of acceptance when he declares that God is one and that gives him an inroad to sharing with them about Jesus. I realize, though, that evangelism is probably not a concern of yours. Being in constant attack mode doesn't really bring others into the kingdom and grow a church, does it?

What does the passage Phil 2:12 mean?
"So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."
and 1 Peter 4:17 which is advocation obedience to the gospel?
"For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? AND IF IT IS WITH DIFFICULTY THAT THE RIGHTEOUS IS SAVED, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE GODLESS MAN AND THE SINNER?"

Criticism of an "attack" seems to deflect the question I in the first post and shift away from the core issue. We are told by Dr. Boyd, who claims that he doesn't advocate eastern mysticism, that westerners have a lot they could learn from eastern religions. Your examples of eastern "ethics" don't really seem so unique or "unwestern" except for the item you disagreed with. What is so special in eastern religions that we are lacking in the west? I just don't think your ethics answers this much.

I have claimed that eastern religions are altogether terrible reagrding salvation. I will state that I also believe that they are altogether terrible as a means to approach God. Why do you choose to believe something else, if you do?

Spen Lake

Sisters of Cain
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431

Posted 7/21/2004 4:25 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
I have claimed that eastern religions are altogether terrible reagrding salvation. I will state that I also believe that they are altogether terrible as a means to approach God. Why do you choose to believe something else, if you do?

1. Boyd and others claim some value in studying other religions

2. you claim that other religions teach us nothing about salvation, an argument that no one will disagree with, because it doesn't negate what was put forth in 1.

3. you keep using this dishonest method of association and insertion of words to attack positions for something they never stated in the first place

Even Machiavelli said there was value to knowing your enemy, so if you aren't going to know other religions to bring their adherents into the kingdom, at least know them in order to attack them.

spenlake
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050

Posted 7/21/2004 4:37 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain

quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
I have claimed that eastern religions are altogether terrible reagrding salvation. I will state that I also believe that they are altogether terrible as a means to approach God. Why do you choose to believe something else, if you do?

1. Boyd and others claim some value in studying other religions

2. you claim that other religions teach us nothing about salvation, an argument that no one will disagree with, because it doesn't negate what was put forth in 1.

3. you keep using this dishonest method of association and insertion of words to attack positions for something they never stated in the first place

Even Machiavelli said there was value to knowing your enemy, so if you aren't going to know other religions to bring their adherents into the kingdom, at least know them in order to attack them.

I have not dishonestly inserted words in Dr. Boyd's statement. Dr. Boyd explicitly states that he does not advocate eastern mysticism. Then he states that eastern religions have a lot they could specifically teach westerners. I have asked for an explanation of what is so unique in the eastern religions that westerners should learn if it isn't spiritual mysticism? Ethics are not unique to the east. There may be value in studying ethics in some socialogical way. There may be beauty in their art. Somehow, this doesn't seem to be what is being said. Dr. Boyd has recommended several books by Kelsey in which a key overall theme was the value to the west of eastern mysticism and techniques and exercises practiced in the east to approach the spiritual world.

What is the explanation for the seeming contradiction in the initial statement and what specifically unique to the east is what Dr. Boyd believes westerners should learn?

Spen Lake

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/21/2004 4:47 AM (GMT -6)

Identify these two faces:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Mr. Rush Limbaugh and Sen. Joe McCarthy

.

I hope there are none the likes of them here. So I'll brave posting a scholarly (rather than activist) article LINK here:

strannik.com/watchful_gate/hesychasm_compared.html

Dr. Mether's criticism of Eastern religions is that they lead to phantasia becom(ing) mere fantasy. Fantasy comes to be seen as a dangerous power of delusion and unreality.

SEE LINK!

spenlake
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050

Posted 7/21/2004 5:45 AM (GMT -6)

POW,

Thank you for the interesting link. There does seem to be an enormous difference between Christianity and the eastern religions (outside of good ethics) and this article raises many good points. It strongly opposes the idea put forth in Seeing is Believing, that these mystical practices that Dr Boyd teaches but not advocates, are not a well respected lost part of our faith.

Spen Lake

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:58 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual