Jim Marion-Nondual Consciousness

[Tamara224]

I would also like to say that there is evidence that some of the OT authors used polemic, IOW, the biblical writers used other sources sometimes for their compositions. The prophets and psalmists were fond of using texts that claimed something about a Canaanite god and then editing it so that what they wrote would extol the vitues of their God Yahweh.

For example, the Sumerian Ugarit writtings are the oldest known writtings to man. They are believed to have created the written word. In Deut. 33:26 and in Psalms 68:4 Yahweh is described as "riding on the clouds". If you don't know this, this is taken right out of the Ugaritic religious texts that discribes Baal as master of the heavens and "riding on the clouds". The Hebrew writers copied it in order to say, 'no you fools, Yahweh is who controls the heavens and is riding on the clouds'.

Just because someone wrote something down first doesn't mean it originated with them.

Some scholars believe that it's the other way around. The pagan's took the oral traditions and altered them to describe their false gods but just happened to write them down first.

Similar to the story of Gilgamesh. The writing is older than Genesis, but the story is not.

Either way, that doesn't really prove anything about the current discussion.


It's undisputed (although also not expressly acknowledge) that the phrases "Christ consciousness" and "Christ concept" are terms that describe New Age or New Thought concepts.

I've provided evidence of this which, despite the fact that no one seems to like - undoubtedly due solely to the fact that I am not liked - no one has offered any evidence to refute.

Indeed, no one has offered any proof that Jim Marion - the subject of this thread - meant anything other than the New Age concept when he used the obviously New Age phrase.

Mere speculation that he might be trying to "redeem" a New Age term for use in Christian doctrine is unfounded and simply serves to muddy the waters of this discussion.


The truth of the matter is that waaaay back a long time ago, Irene posted evidence that Jim Marion teaches an "all roads lead to God" false doctrine. Not suprisingly, also a tenet of New Age philosophy.

Apparently, the fact that I was right when I recognized New Age teaching by use of a key word or phrase that I was familiar with does nothing to support my methodology in some people's eyes.

But then, I should not expect for some people to acknowledge that in some instances at least I might actually know what I'm talking about and am not a completely flawed, irrational, unloving person.


I mean, how dare I suggest that someone who preaches that Jesus wasn't God is not really Christian!


You'd think that if there was one thing we could all agree on it would be that.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

You'd think that if there was one thing we could all agree on it would be that.

its not about agreement . . . but understanding .

i already assumed that we were agreeing that Jesus is God .

but unfortunately this would not wash against CF policy .

because there is at least one group on CF that does not believe Jesus is God

but call themselves Christian . but according to CF policy we must allow them to think that and not allowed to say .. they're not a Christian .

just saying cuz .. i dunno i'm sure someone will eventually .. it's in the rules ..

 

[JimfromOhio]

Christ rebuked the religious . not for their doctrine but for their hypocrisy . and for the lack of love and mercy in their application .

Paul did the same thing .

It has nothing to do with having all your doctrines in order . it has to do with . do you practice what you preach?

James expounded further saying can you control your tongue?

the bible's message really seems to indicate that the kind of thinking that comes out of control structures is the problem .

it was so insidious that Jesus even turned the pyramid on its head .. but you know .. it was only a matter of time before human minds "corrected" that .

Jesus tried to go to the cities but you know .. those guys just couldn't keep quiet about Him so the droves followed Him out into the open wild .

Jesus reserved his hardest words for the hidden sins of hypocrisy, pride, greed and legalism. Many were doctrinal issues related along with hypocrisy and that's where people are missing. In CF, especially HERE. The real issue is sarcasm which is sneering, jesting, or mocking a person rather than the topic at hand. The word comes from the late Latin word, sarcasmus, which, in turn, comes from the Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein - to bite the lips in rage,- from sarx, sark-, flesh - the root word literally means "to cut a piece of flesh (from the targeted person)." Sarcasm's aim is to belittle someone, and to laugh at their expense as "cutting" with it. Ephesians 5:4 "Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving." Sarcasm humor may not be funny to the victim but its funny to those who understand the barb as it feeds their intellectual egos. Sarcasm is scornful, contemptuous and taunting. Proverbs 21:24 The proud and arrogant man-"Mocker" is his name; he behaves with overweening pride. One of devil's beatitudes is "Blessed are they who mock." Some say the motivation for sarcasm is retaliation. Some say the motivation for sarcasm is pride.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Just because someone wrote something down first doesn't mean it originated with them.

Some scholars believe that it's the other way around. The pagan's took the oral traditions and altered them to describe their false gods but just happened to write them down first.

Similar to the story of Gilgamesh. The writing is older than Genesis, but the story is not.

Either way, that doesn't really prove anything about the current discussion.

Actually I agree with you, or with those other scholars you mentioned. I believe the Sumerians once had the truth but they corrupted the truth by embelishing the original story to the point that they created other gods into the story. The possibility is that the stories of the angels who became physical and the legends of the nephilim were then embellished over time and they in fact were made out to be gods. However that doesn't take away the fact that the Hebrews used some of the same phrases the Sumerians wrote in oder to correct their theology. It may not be fact but it is a good possibility.

From the arguement Michael Collum has made, what I presented has every bit to do with this discussion. From what I can tell, he agrees with you that this man Marion isn't teaching correct theology, all I think he's saying is that doesn't mean one can't find some truth in the phrases he has used? I agree with that if that's what he's saying. All you have to do is read my first post in this thread to see how I think that. Either way, it can be used as a polemic, this man has used phrases to teach a corrupt theology, the phrases he used however can be used to teach correct theology and in turn correct him. I didn't even know those phrases were catch phrases for New Age theology yet I think I was successful in useing them to teach correct theology. Again, I may be wrong but this is what I think is along the lines of what Michael has tried to say here.

It's undisputed (although also not expressly acknowledge) that the phrases "Christ consciousness" and "Christ concept" are terms that describe New Age or New Thought concepts.

I've provided evidence of this which, despite the fact that no one seems to like - undoubtedly due solely to the fact that I am not liked - no one has offered any evidence to refute.

I would say if you expect people to refute and be refuted then you should move this thread to the debate forum

Otherwise I see no one here argueing that the man isn't teaching a corrupt theology. It seems to me they are disagreeing that just because those New Age phrases were used doesn't necessarily mean it was automatically New Age. It all seems like a totally silly discussion/debate to even get into though.

Indeed, no one has offered any proof that Jim Marion - the subject of this thread - meant anything other than the New Age concept when he used the obviously New Age phrase.

I would say people are not presenting that proof because that is not what people are debating you about. Pete agreed with you, I agree with you, and as far as I can tell Michael hasn't disagreed with you about the theology the man teaches. I don't know why you expect them to offer you proof of something that we all agree upon. And I think Pete has made it clear what he disagrees with you on.

Mere speculation that he might be trying to "redeem" a New Age term for use in Christian doctrine is unfounded and simply serves to muddy the waters of this discussion.

The truth of the matter is that waaaay back a long time ago, Irene posted evidence that Jim Marion teaches an "all roads lead to God" false doctrine. Not suprisingly, also a tenet of New Age philosophy.

I never heard of those phrases being used so I simply offered my opinion on what this man could possible mean by using them in a non-corrupt way.

I mean, how dare I suggest that someone who preaches that Jesus wasn't God is not really Christian!


You'd think that if there was one thing we could all agree on it would be that.

I don't know where you see people argueing with you about that. From all the posts I have read in this thread everyone agrees that man is teaching a corrupt theology. I'm sorry but I just don't see the arguement about that.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Jesus reserved his hardest words for the hidden sins of hypocrisy, pride, greed and legalism. Many were doctrinal issues related along with hypocrisy and that's where people are missing. In CF, especially HERE. The real issue is sarcasm which is sneering, jesting, or mocking a person rather than the topic at hand. The word comes from the late Latin word, sarcasmus, which, in turn, comes from the Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein - to bite the lips in rage,- from sarx, sark-, flesh - the root word literally means "to cut a piece of flesh (from the targeted person)." Sarcasm's aim is to belittle someone, and to laugh at their expense as "cutting" with it. Ephesians 5:4 "Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving." Sarcasm humor may not be funny to the victim but its funny to those who understand the barb as it feeds their intellectual egos. Sarcasm is scornful, contemptuous and taunting. Proverbs 21:24 The proud and arrogant man-"Mocker" is his name; he behaves with overweening pride. One of devil's beatitudes is "Blessed are they who mock." Some say the motivation for sarcasm is retaliation. Some say the motivation for sarcasm is pride.

i would say i agree . or at least don't disagree with what you said in the above quote .

(changing subject to address overall conversation)

One of my spiritual gifts is encouragement . so when people are being pessimistic and down on stuff and saying it is impossible for God to show Himself through that or .. "can anything good come out of galilee?"

me seeing the glass as half full in a spiritually enhanced manner attempts to provide my perspective though the crowds may turn and rend me . still got to try . just long theological discourses on the premise of right vs wrong seems pointless to me . so i may get bored . and usually take the remainder of the questions and live in them .

but that being said this conversation was "ok" and i think i may have learned something . just not sure what it is yet . i'll get back to you on that .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

From the arguement Michael Collum has made, what I presented has every bit to do with this discussion. From what I can tell, he agrees with you that this man Marion isn't teaching correct theology, all I think he's saying is that doesn't mean one can't find some truth in the phrases he has used? I agree with that if that's what he's saying. All you have to do is read my first post in this thread to see how I think that. Either way, it can be used as a polemic, this man has used phrases to teach a corrupt theology, the phrases he used however can be used to teach correct theology and in turn correct him. I didn't even know those phrases were catch phrases for New Age theology yet I think I was successful in useing them to teach correct theology. Again, I may be wrong but this is what I think is along the lines of what Michael has tried to say here.

By Jove, i think he's got it!

(((((((((((((((((((((((Neph)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

[probinson]

By Jove, i think he's got it!

(((((((((((((((((((((((Neph)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Indeed he has.

Great post, Neph!

 

[JEBrady]

Just wondered if anybody agreed with the premise that comes from nondual consciousness that we can reach Christ like status here on earth [the kingdom of heaven is within]. Jim Marion argues this point in his book entitled "Putting on the mind of Christ" in as much as Jesus was one with the father and that through his example we can finally end the concensus of duality and reach a higher state by becoming one with God here on earth.

Although there is a real heaven outside of spacetime the heaven Jesus often referred to was a state within which is what he already possessed, put simply Jesus had Christ like divinity and we can also have the same Christ like divinity through spiritual growth. How else can we fulfill Jesus words that we shall do greater things than he as he goes to the father?

OK, back to the original question.

What in the world is non-dual consciousness? This isn’t a biblical term, nor is it a theological concept within any sort of traditional Christian theology, as far as I am aware. Instead, it’s an Eastern religious concept that a person becomes enlightened by losing their individuality and comes to the realization that “all things are one”. This is contrary to the holiness of God- He is separate from His creation. So you have that.

As far as having Christ-like status (whatever that means), or at least, being one with God here on Earth is concerned, we are one spirit with Him if indeed the spirit of God is within us. If we don’t have the spirit, we are not His. What sets us apart to God is the Spirit of God.

Salvation is this. Man’s condition is entirely corrupt, without God and without hope in the world. We can do no good without Jesus. The gospel teaches that God so loved the world that He gave His Son that whoever believes in Him won’t perish, but will have everlasting life. When we receive Christ, our spirit is born from above and we receive the Holy Spirit- God with us, the hope of glory. Just as newborn natural babies, we must eat, and we feed on the sincere milk of the word of God- the scriptures. Our minds are renewed by the washing of the water of the word of God, and we receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save our souls… putting the word into practice in our lives. We eat the word and it becomes part of us, washing our minds and directing our behavior as we no longer live for ourselves, but live for God, walking as Jesus walked, learning obedience through suffering, stretching forth for the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. This is the sanctification process, by which we are transformed from glory to glory and do the works of our Father, even as Jesus did.

This is accomplished through true humility and submission to God through the eternal spirit of God, in obedience as slaves of righteousness. We aren’t looking to “end a consensus of duality”. That’s the world’s foolish ideas, from those who don’t know God.

Putting on the mind of Christ
Are we told to put on the mind of Christ? No, not really. We are told that we have the mind of Christ (1 Co 2:16). We are told to put on Christ in personal holiness:

Romans 13:12-14 (New King James Version)

12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.

Galatians 3:26-27 (New King James Version)
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


We are told to put on the new man:

Colossians 3:10 (New King James Version)

10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,


Ephesians 4:24 (New King James Version)

24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.


We are told to put on the whole armor of God:

Ephesians 6:11 (New King James Version)
11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.



We are told to put on love, the fruit of the spirit:

Colossians 3:14 (New King James Version)

14 But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection.


Colossians 3:12-13 (New King James Version)


12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.

So, we see that the concepts put forth in the OP are extra-biblical, and actually contrary to what the scripture teaches concerning the way of salvation. Don’t even need to know the full extent of the author’s heresy to judge this.

 

[Tamara224]

I don't know where you see people argueing with you about that. From all the posts I have read in this thread everyone agrees that man is teaching a corrupt theology. I'm sorry but I just don't see the arguement about that.

I understand what the argument was about.

Pete agreed with my conclusion but thought my methodology was wrong. He said that although it's true Marion is teaching wonky stuff that it's wrong of me to conclude that just because I recognize New Age terminology for what it is.

I've just tried to defend why I think it's okay to conclude that if someone talks about New Age concepts, using New Age phrases they're presenting New Age teaching. Amazing concept, that.


Until recently, I had no idea what Michael was saying. And I was clearly not the only one who misunderstood him. And so I asked him questions. And instead of him just explaining himself in plain English, he decided to rebuke me for being unloving, for not teaching a redemptive gospel, etc, etc, etc,.

If you can't see why that might lead me to believe I was being argued with, then IMHO you're not looking.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I understand what the argument was about.

Pete agreed with my conclusion but thought my methodology was wrong. He said that although it's true Marion is teaching wonky stuff that it's wrong of me to conclude that just because I recognize New Age terminology for what it is.

Yep, and I can agree with you here. Pete is giving his own personal opinion about Google.com and how people should use it. This is one of the reasons why I had said I thought this was a silly arguement to get into. The simple fact is that you were right about the type of teaching it is so why should it matter about anything else? I was following the discussion between you two and thinking, why?

I've just tried to defend why I think it's okay to conclude that if someone talks about New Age concepts, using New Age phrases they're presenting New Age teaching. Amazing concept, that.

And you know, if I would've known those were catch phrases for New Age teaching I would've said about the samething you did.

Until recently, I had no idea what Michael was saying. And I was clearly not the only one who misunderstood him. And so I asked him questions. And instead of him just explaining himself in plain English, he decided to rebuke me for being unloving, for not teaching a redemptive gospel, etc, etc, etc,.

If you can't see why that might lead me to believe I was being argued with, then IMHO you're not looking.

Oh I knew you were being argued with, just not about whether this man was teaching a corrupt theology or not. And I wasn't too sure about what Michael was saying myself but felt close to confident over a few of the things he said about instead of argueing with the man he would simply show the man his errors by useing the same terminology but changing it around so that it actually teaches the truth, IOW, a sort of polemic.

 

[Tamara224]

Oh I knew you were being argued with, just not about whether this man was teaching a corrupt theology or not. And I wasn't too sure about what Michael was saying myself but felt close to confident over a few of the things he said about instead of argueing with the man he would simply show the man his errors by useing the same terminology but changing it around so that it actually teaches the truth, IOW, a sort of polemic.

Yeah, I guess I get that now.

What get's my goat is that he didn't just say that. Instead he decided to criticize me for just pointing out that it's a false religion being promoted.

All false religions have bits of truth in them. And I have no argument with anyone who wants to try to use those bits of truth to reveal the big picture to people. Personally, I think it's a waste of time to have a "method" for these kinds of things. None of us knows which argument is going to reach which person - only the Holy Spirit knows that. What we need to do is be listening to the Holy Spirit and saying what He tells us to say. Sometimes it will be to tell someone without waffling "that's a lie." And sometimes it will be to engage in a polemic.


But... here's the thing... Jim Marion isn't involved in this discussion. The question asked in the OP was not "what method would you use if you were to debate Jim Marion."

The question was "Just wondered if anybody agreed with the premise that comes from nondual consciousness that we can reach Christ like status here on earth [the kingdom of heaven is within]."

And my response was and remains "That's not Christian theology, that's New Age which is a false religion."


It's apparent now that I misunderstood Michael's first response to me in this thread. I've re-read that post about a dozen times now and I still don't know what his point was or what relation it had to what I was saying - IOW, why he quoted me.

So *shrug* whatever. Maybe he'll explain. Maybe he won't.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

OK, back to the original question.

What in the world is non-dual consciousness? This isn’t a biblical term, nor is it a theological concept within any sort of traditional Christian theology, as far as I am aware. Instead, it’s an Eastern religious concept that a person becomes enlightened by losing their individuality and comes to the realization that “all things are one”. This is contrary to the holiness of God- He is separate from His creation. So you have that.

Two examples of biblical "double consciousness" not in the new agey guys' definition but just from obvious observation:

James 1

5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.


and now for something completely different ..


Romans 7

20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.


So it may be argued or supposed that the New Agey guy doesn't understand what true dual consciousness is! He hasn't even touched on how two hearts and minds can be one! (example three) Perhaps we should dismiss the theory as an unevolved version of something that will one day come to the biblical idea . yes .. perhaps . but that might sound too proud .. and that wouldn't be loving

so mayhap .. i would pass it along as a suggestion to the author

 

[JEBrady]

Two examples of biblical "double consciousness" not in the new agey guys' definition but just from obvious observation:

James 1

5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.


and now for something completely different ..


Romans 7

20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.


So it may be argued or supposed that the New Agey guy doesn't understand what true dual consciousness is! He hasn't even touched on how two hearts and minds can be one! (example three) Perhaps we should dismiss the theory as an unevolved version of something that will one day come to the biblical idea . yes .. perhaps . but that might sound too proud .. and that wouldn't be loving

so mayhap .. i would pass it along as a suggestion to the author

James 1 isn't speaking of any kind of dual consciousness. It's talking about being double-minded, and he mentions it again in ch. 4. It means to be divided in heart or mind. We read those in context and we find that double-mindedness is simply doubting or failing to obey God. In either case, the answer is repentance- to cleanse our hands of sin and purify our hearts, and to repent of unbelief. To put it in the vernacular, double-mindedness is simply not making up your mind- wavering in your commitment to God to follow Him fully, or to not believe Him. Jesus spoke of this as well, saying if your eye be single then your body is full of light, but if it is evil, then you are full of darkness! Singleness of heart is also spoken of in instructions to servants, and it is translated as sincerity of heart. This concept has nothing to do with the metaphysical term "non-dual consciousness". We do not have the option of not being conscious of sin in this life. We are forced to make judgments constantly concerning it. Double-mindedness is a lack of character and commitment to God.

The Romans 7 passage is a description of the perversity of the flesh. The flesh is both our body and the fleshly mind, which is arrayed against the spirit. We have both, and will continue to have both for as long as we are in these bodies and in this life. Yes, there is a day coming when the corruptible will take on incorruption, but that won't happen until Jesus comes again- check 1 Co 15. But for now, we reckon the old man dead, and ourselves alive to Christ. We who are Christ's crucify the flesh and its passions and desires and are not debtors to the flesh to obey it.

That's what the Christian walk is all about. It's about sanctification. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me and the life I live now in the flesh I live for Him who loved me and gave Himself for me.

Now, on to false teachers and those who bring a false gospel. Do you not know that we are told not to even let a person who brings a false gospel into our house, or even greet him, for by so doing we share in his evil deeds? We need to understand that the love of God is first and foremost loving God and not compromising. Love rejoices in the truth, not in iniquity. The world has gotten into the church and it comes with a doctrine of tolerance falsely called love. Love doesn't honor man over God, but false teachers do. What this man is saying isn't "unevolved". It's a lie. The scriptures don't make any allowances of any kind for false teachers. They are condemned in the most terrifying way imaginable. No benefit of the doubt is given. That probably doesn't seem "loving", but I have to go with it. I'm not God, and I don't know better than He does. If he says to mark these people and avoid them, then I need to obey for my own good.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

James 1 isn't speaking of any kind of dual consciousness. It's talking about being double-minded, and he mentions it again in ch. 4. It means to be divided in heart or mind. We read those in context and we find that double-mindedness is simply doubting or failing to obey God. In either case, the answer is repentance- to cleanse our hands of sin and purify our hearts, and to repent of unbelief. To put it in the vernacular, double-mindedness is simply not making up your mind- wavering in your commitment to God to follow Him fully, or to not believe Him. Jesus spoke of this as well, saying if your eye be single then your body is full of light, but if it is evil, then you are full of darkness! Singleness of heart is also spoken of in instructions to servants, and it is translated as sincerity of heart. This concept has nothing to do with the metaphysical term "non-dual consciousness". We do not have the option of not being conscious of sin in this life. We are forced to make judgments constantly concerning it. Double-mindedness is a lack of character and commitment to God.

The Romans 7 passage is a description of the perversity of the flesh. The flesh is both our body and the fleshly mind, which is arrayed against the spirit. We have both, and will continue to have both for as long as we are in these bodies and in this life. Yes, there is a day coming when the corruptible will take on incorruption, but that won't happen until Jesus comes again- check 1 Co 15. But for now, we reckon the old man dead, and ourselves alive to Christ. We who are Christ's crucify the flesh and its passions and desires and are not debtors to the flesh to obey it.

That's what the Christian walk is all about. It's about sanctification. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me and the life I live now in the flesh I live for Him who loved me and gave Himself for me.

mmhm . but that's not the point of my post .

Now, on to false teachers and those who bring a false gospel. Do you not know that we are told not to even let a person who brings a false gospel into our house, or even greet him, for by so doing we share in his evil deeds?

Context . we are not supposed to let people into our houses who say Jesus didn't come in the flesh . please, if you're going to speak of biblical restrictions at least be specific .

We need to understand that the love of God is first and foremost loving God and not compromising.

Are you accusing me of compromising?

Love rejoices in the truth, not in iniquity. The world has gotten into the church

that is impossible . if the world has corrupted the church then it is no longer the church . as Jesus said "I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" . thus the corrupted portions are not and never were what Jesus was referring to in that passage . what Jesus was referring to was far more profound than human organizations .

and it comes with a doctrine of tolerance falsely called love. Love doesn't honor man over God, but false teachers do.

what's this have to do with my post? totally off topic .

What this man is saying isn't "unevolved". It's a lie. The scriptures don't make any allowances of any kind for false teachers.

Then may you be judged according to your words . let me know how that works out for you .

James 2
12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

They are condemned in the most terrifying way imaginable. No benefit of the doubt is given. That probably doesn't seem "loving", but I have to go with it. I'm not God, and I don't know better than He does. If he says to mark these people and avoid them, then I need to obey for my own good.

You seem to be speaking more out of fear than love . i'll follow the good shepherd's voice but not yours . thanks for your comments though .

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ephesians 3

14For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. 20Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 21to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------