Featured MMOTW, what makes the most perfect being of them all?

Any good text on Chinese religion will tell you this. At the risk of another shot at "appealing to authority": "The religion which Confucius inhererited accepted belief in a supreme deity, T'ien or Shang Ti, which ruled over the cosmos and all other spiritual beings, and which concerned itself with men's welfare" (Chinese Religions, by D. Howard Smith, p. 36).

So Shang Ti (上帝, lit. "upper emperor") was the ancient monotheistic of God, representing the original Chinese religion, which was not idolatrous. And another name for him, T'ien (天, "heaven"), is the name Confucius used in his writings. Granted, Confucius was about society and not religion, but there it is, he was a monotheist.

If you go to China today you can buy the Chinese Union Version Bible in a Shen (神, divine spirit) version and a Shang Ti version, and there is a debate going on about it.

If you'll look back at my post, you'll see that I did not say it this way. I actually think that the worship of Shang Ti came from Noah, not Abraham, preserved through the time of the Tower of Babel into China. If you are interested, there is a tremendous book on it by a Chinese man who sought his religious heritage through Chinese history after becoming a Christian, Finding God in Ancient China by Chan Kei Thong.

 

Yeah, basically the Catholics use the Shangdi version and the Protestants use the Shen version. Funny thing is, there is always a space before the name of God in the Protestant Bible because they wanted to have identical type settings for both versions. But in common vernacular Shangdi and Shen are basically synonymous.

 

Thanks, Jon!

Interestingly enough, in the Japanese Bible they use the Shen character, pronounced Kami. Unfortunately that's the same word as "god" in Shinto (神道, "Way of the Gods")--which is the Japanese version of Chinese pronunciation of Shen Tao. (In Japan, each character can be pronounced either the Chinese way, depending on Chinese era and/or dialect, and the Japanese way.)

I never noticed that space before Shen before, but I just looked at John 1:1 in my CUV NT, and there it is!

 

Interesting, John!

I live in former Manchuria where anti-Japanese sentiment is pretty high recently from the "fishing islands" dispute. (I didn't even know there were "fishing islands" till this year, and we've lived in China for 11 years now.) Everywhere you see the slogan: 打倒小日本 (Down with little Japan!). There was a Japanese steak restaurant here until a state sponsored anti-Japanese protest down main street a few weeks ago, and then all of a sudden when passing the restaurant I noticed one neon-lit character on the sign was brighter and newer----now it's a "French" steakhouse with the change of a single character! Hahahaha!

 

As long as I'm on Confucius, here are some statements of his from the Analects on Shang Ti ("Heaven," God). (This version is public domain from a CD of public domain books I got long ago. I don't know whose translation it was.)

"At fifty I knew the decrees of Heaven." So he believed God had decrees--don't know what he thought they were.

"He who offends against Heaven has none to whom he can pray." So Shang Ti is an omnipotent Judge.

"The kingdom has long been without the principles of truth and right;
Heaven is going to use your master as a bell with its wooden tongue." So to Confucius Shang Ti's tools for the dissemination of truth were human.

About the illness of Po Niu: "It is the appointment of Heaven, alas! That such a man should have such a sickness! That such a man should have such a sickness!" So Confucius believed Shang Ti to be sovereign over human affairs.

"Heaven produced the virtue that is in me." He believed that Shang Ti is the source of morality.

"If Heaven had wished to let this cause of truth perish, then I, a future mortal! should not have got such a relation to that cause. While Heaven does not let the cause of truth perish, what can the people of K'wang do to me?" Shang Ti preserves truth.

"Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man."

 

That's funny! And "Little Japan"? I've heard there is still a lot of hate there left over from WW2, and it doesn't surprise me.

That dispute over the islands is big news over here. The Japanese are nervous. By the way, even with this syntax 打倒小日本, this would mean the same thing in Japanese--not always true, but we do have many of the same compound words. The Japanese would pronounce it, Da toh shoh Nihon.

 

Originally Posted by Benjamin

First thing that comes to my mind is why you want to go there John? But...I'll address that request anyway:

Simply, if I use philosophy for the glory of God, for Christ, and not for the traditions Paul was warning of in Col 2:8, which were void of any Christology, then I have taken heed to that warning. Paul was referring to those using Christless ethics to explain the beginning, progress and the end which should be focused on Christ, and to which he had previously made points about in Col 1:15-20, so then it would be wrong for you to attempt to suggest that Paul was saying to use no philosophy at all as a tool in general. Paul was speaking of philosophy which would have to only apply to a traditional world views and there is no evidence that his statement and/or view applied to that philosophy which was used as a tool and was centered to bring forth the truth of Christ, or “after Christ” as he acknowledges at the end of the verse.

If you want to go down this road maybe the first thing I should ask is if Paul was wrong to study and use philosophy himself? …Maybe you need proof that he was involved with and used philosophy himself???

Every systematic theology is built on philosophical principles which involve “logic” (“The branch of philosophy concerned with whether the reasons resented for a claim, if those reasons were true, would justify accepting the claim”) If you want to point fingers about where one gets his interpretations and/or talk about not following after worldly traditions and philosophies maybe a good place to start with you would be with your following of Dispensational theories that you are so fond of came from? Hmm? :smilewinkgrin: j/k

Do you think Calvin and Arminius didn’t use philosophy to arrive at their soteriological views???

Here is what the scripture plainly says about philosophy: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” So according to that verse, if you believe I do otherwise, why don’t you start by telling me where I am going wrong and disobeying the warning by using philosophy to discern the truth within men’s expressions of their interpretations of the Word of God?

Back to you attempting to draw the argument over philosophy toward your skills at exegesis…, think about this, have you never heard an “expert” in the Greek use his skills to argue interpretations from the scriptures that support Calvinism/Determinism theories? I note they often inevitably begin to play the fallacious cards of “Both Positive and Negative Ad Hominem” and “Appeal to Authority” concerning their expertise and proceed to argue that those who don’t understand the Greek as well as them must be wrong on certain soteriological issues. Well, if you don’t know Greek you can’t possibly discern the correct interpretations of scripture, correct? No! Of course not. I see right through that type of fallacious argument. That said, I can appreciate when you join in with your knowledge of the original languages, especially being you share my soteriological view :smilewinkgrin: but even when you’re talking Greek to Greek the argument either comes down to being logical or not and that takes philosophical principles to discern properly (as far as the argument goes)… It doesn’t matter what language skills one uses… so do you think I’m going to let you take me down that road (bring in that red herring and build a strawman that I use philosophy incorrectly according to Col 2:8) or to divert the argument into that philosophy has no value in discerning what others are interpreting the scriptures compared on your expertise in the original languages? No!

BTW, have you ever stopped to think that I might be sitting back and analyzing the arguments you present on the Greek that you might get into with another for truth using my critical thinking skills and philosophical principles to do so? Well, if you haven’t…surprise! Philosophy is a valuable tool in any debate, especially theological debate as it “logically” (in the philosophical sense) draws out the truth from the words of man and “Truth” is what we should be focused on as it always aligns with the Word of God and is a Divine attribute that (bringing forth the Truth) is central to understanding and acknowledging His Being whether it be in a discussion/argument with a believer or with the non-believer (of course, unless either prefer a lie to win an argument).

 

Ben, I like you and you say you love me, but you started out by making this personal, saying how long it would take to correct me. You are making this personal again for some reason, trying to discern my motives, making an irrelevant attack on dispensationalism, etc. (And contrary to your thought here dispensationalism is not a major part of my theology, not something I am "so fond of"--haven't even taught it in our Bible school over here in Japan.)

So I see no further reason for interacting with you anymore on this thread. God bless and have a good one.

 

John, I analyze the arguments made against me, I look at the issues you bring up regarding what I had said and what claims could be made from them as well as look at some of the issues you avoid to form my arguments. I have a tendency to speak a little rough and frankly as well as joke around and tease a bit and I do realize some people either don’t get me, which I understand can be especially difficult in this kind of format or they may even be what I would consider over sensitive to being told they are wrong in an argument and some might even resort to playing the martyr to avoid the issues brought up, I don’t know, but I won’t bother to explain further about what you have concluded “my’ motives are/were or how I came to the point of heading off your argument because I do like you whether it appears that way to you or not and I don’t want this end with hard feelings with you. I guess we will have to agree to disagree here.

Peace out.

 

No hard feelings and we agree to disagree; but I certainly have not said a thing about your motives, which are between you and God and none of my business.

 

HOS, very useful response. Thanks for taking the time to go through all that.

 

Well John, my intention was not to get personal with you; I never even brought up the word. You might note how many times I used the word “if” in a hypothetical sense toward what I saw as possible arguments to made based on the issue you raised and that even regarding the Dispensational comment I end it with a ":smilewinkgrin: j/k" to indicate I was simply joking around on that or just poking you and figured you would know I was just making a point; I never even expected the kind of response I got from you. But, like I said I realize that I’m a bit rough around the social edges in the way I present things and don’t sugar coat much until I realize I’m stuck in a field of egg shells with someone and I realize could be easily be taken as overly aggressive on a format like this where someone can not see my facial expressions that usually accompany my arguments and which give a sense of reassurance that I am not being hostile but just direct. Anyway, no hard feelings here either, see you around.

 

Yes, you did well breaking that down HoS. :thumbsup: I need to find out where you find those kit gloves someday. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Sorry, brother, I didn't know what j/k meant, and still don't know what MMOTW in the OP means. Just an old guy trying to communicate sensibly. There is a generation gap on the Internet. :wavey:

And speaking of communication and generation gaps, what do you mean when you say "philosophy" on this thread? Something generic? Something specific? What?

 

MMOTW= Mirror, mirror on the wall

 

But if you are using the term generically, you still have to define it to help me understand. If I use a generic medicine, there is still chemical content that can be quantified. As long as you are just speaking generically about philosophy with no definition, I can't interact properly with you, as I think we've learned. All I know at this point is that your definition doesn't include Asian philosophy or apparently any particular philosophical systems.

Concerning competing theories about time, you are correct, and it's fun to speculate about such things. I'm an old SF fan and have read quite a few explanations of time--SF authors can be quite thoughtful and educated. But the thread is about God. So in my view your definition for this thread has to tell me how philosophy can inform us about God in ways that special revelation does not.

But didn't all of this go out the window with existentialism, dialectical materialism and post-modernism? Then how does that not limit your definitition to pre-20th century? Or is there a philosophical system post-19th century that was developed with the principles you are talking about? If there is, I'm not aware of it.

Then if there are philosophical principles developed over time that are objectively true (as in "all truth is God's truth"), developed in a scientific way, would there not be a philosophical system based on them that is provably true, one that all Christians should accept?

I run into Japanese people all the time who think Christianity is a Western religion. Frankly, if I were to then use Western philosophy to try to persuade them I think I would run into the same difficulty if they were educated enough to know what I was saying. (Not that the average Japanese in the street even understands the Confucianism his own society rests upon.) So in your generic philosophy, what is there to help me communicate God to Asians brought up thinking Asian ?

And just "by the way," I think you're wrong about Western religion in that Greek and Roman religions were highly developed systems of idolatry, which were followed by the Greek and Roman philosophers beloved of Western philosophy. Just saying....:saint:

My only goal in presenting the Tom T. vs. college junior example is to say that after my original faux pax I was not committing the genetic fallacy, since I was speaking about the same truth coming from two disparate sources. It was self defense.

Sorry, these don't do it for me. I would still like a definition in your own words of what you mean when you say philosophy on this thread. Apparently you are excluding Asian philosophy (which originating before Christ I think can be just as relevant as ancient Greek philosophy) and other philosophies.

In searched the first book on Amazon, it had nothing on Confucianism and only one mention of existentialism. The second had nothing for either one.

 

Aha! Thanks, friend. :thumbs:

 

Many thanks! Now everything makes sense!