...
I think you misunderstand him.
The ancient Chinese were originally monotheists, meaning they believed in one God above all which they called Shang Di. And they believed that all of nature and creation came from this God. This is remarkably similar to the Juedo-Christian concept.
And logically speaking, everybody should be a descendant of Noah if all other humans were killed off in the flood, so I don't see how such a statement should even if surprising given it comes from a speaker who believes in the biblical flood.
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I think you misunderstand him.
The ancient Chinese were originally monotheists, meaning they believed in one God above all which they called Shang Di. And they believed that all of nature and creation came from this God. This is remarkably similar to the Juedo-Christian concept.
And logically speaking, everybody should be a descendant of Noah if all other humans were killed off in the flood, so I don't see how such a statement should even if surprising given it comes from a speaker who believes in the biblical flood.
i think you misundertood him
his words were precise, ancient Chinese believe in Judeo Christian version of god, not monotheism, which happened to be similar to the Judeo Christian concept
a little difference goes a long way
if we count on what he believes, it is then not factually true, hence we have no compunction to look at his side of the story
Shang Di was the name for the highest God in the pantheon of Gods worshipped by the Chinese during the Shang Dynasty. He was the highest God among the other gods the Chinese worshipped (including ancestor gods).
It was only during the Ming Dynasty Catholic missionaries who studied the Chinese classics linked Shang Di to Jehovah.
But during the latter part of the Qing Dynasty, a conservative archbishop decreed that Shangdi doesn't equate to Jehovah.
which means they are not the same, novelly or factually
yes.
The jesuits like Matteo Ricci tried to link the concept of GOD to Shang Di to aid evangelism. Ancestor Worship was even tolerated then.
It was during Qing dynasty when the policies change. No more linking of Shang Di to GOD. No more ancestor worship.
Originally posted by laoda99:yes.
The jesuits like Matteo Ricci tried to link the concept of GOD to Shang Di to aid evangelism. Ancestor Worship was even tolerated then.
It was during Qing dynasty when the policies change. No more linking of Shang Di to GOD. No more ancestor worship.
I don't think none of the major god worshipping religions really dispute the possibility of a ultimate god.
Their bureacracy however....
Originally posted by Stevenson101:I don't think none of the major god worshipping religions really dispute the possibility of a ultimate god.
Their bureacracy however....
Which one?
Originally posted by laurence82:Which one?
The priests of all of them?
his words were precise, ancient Chinese believe in Judeo Christian version of god, not monotheism, which happened to be similar to the Judeo Christian concept
a little difference goes a long way
if we count on what he believes, it is then not factually true, hence we have no compunction to look at his side of the story
If he's trying to link it like that then he is clearly wrong.
The issue is this, I do not believe that the God is limited to only having the Judeo Christian conception of Him- in other words if you do not accept the Judeo Christian conception of God then you do not believe in God. You may have an unclear, or incomplete picture of Him, but then it does not follow on that you do not in a sense, know Him in some way.
I don't think none of the major god worshipping religions really dispute the possibility of a ultimate god.
Their bureacracy however....
Being a Christian I believe that of course, my personal perception on God under the Christian worldview is the most correct, and that the rest fall short in a certain way. If I didn't think so then there's no point being a Christian. I understand that a Muslim or Hindu would, and justifiably so, hold a similar view.
This is however, quite different from saying that if you don't see God the way I understand Him, then you don't know Him at all or are praying to nothing.
I believe personally however, that the ability to know or yearn for God is an innate instinct, so of course all cultures are bound to know Him in some aspect or another in their various religions. There examples in the bible where God has spoken to people who do not have the Judeo Christian conception of Him, so I don't see why this should be so unthinkable that the concept of Shang Di in Chinese culture stems from a particular understanding of God.
that the ability to know or yearn for God is an innate instinct
Yes that is true.
That is the religious need of man. The need to have religious expression.
So in a sense yes, if Good and evil are opposed logically, then what you render onto Good cannot be rendered onto evil.
The Christian position is not that the good deeds done by people of other faiths is totally worthless, if anything they matter and matter a lot and in the eyes of God ought to matter. The catch is that it is also the Christian position that no amount of good deeds done by anybody is ever enough.
this is all, of cuz, assuming god exists, and in the format some religions thought of
some other religions dont believe in existence of god
Originally posted by laurence82:this is all, of cuz, assuming god exists, and in the format some religions thought of
some other religions dont believe in existence of god
Religion does not equate believing in the existence of a god.
By strict definition it is a codified system of principles with metasignificance to those who adhere to them. So why should it surprise anyone some of those systems are athiestic?
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Religion does not equate believing in the existence of a god.
By strict definition it is a codified system of principles with metasignificance to those who adhere to them. So why should it surprise anyone some of those systems are athiestic?
contradicting to this line leh
I believe personally however, that the ability to know or yearn for God is an innate instinct, so of course all cultures are bound to know Him in some aspect or another in their various religions.
Originally posted by laurence82:contradicting to this line leh
I believe personally however, that the ability to know or yearn for God is an innate instinct, so of course all cultures are bound to know Him in some aspect or another in their various religions.
You are right.
I think. =P
I think it's somewhat foolish to suggest that Christianity has a watertight case in terms of apologetics, such a position is impossible for time simple reason to do so would be to assume that we've reached the end of knowledge, that we've know all there needs to be known. This has clearly not happened yet, and I always feel uncomfortable when some of my peers become all "I have an answer to every difficult question"
What can be said however is that Christianity as a system is plausible enough that it is not something to be dismissed out of hand once all the facts are laid out and viewed properly with reason. In other words it deserves consideration. How we respond to these facts also depends on our individual perspectives in life as well as other factors.
The thing is I don't think this is as simple as "the modern scientific and rational people versus the people who believe in the tooth fairy". It is hardly the case.
Hence the problem comes when both sides meet in discussion often they have stock answers which they don't seem to put much though into. Some will come up with a big chunk of "Da Vinci stuff" and the others would have something like the "Chick Tracts" and toss about athiestic one-liners and religious mantras and jargons... all this is hardly useful and only adds to the barriers of understanding anything at all.
In fact my personal background had me coming from a place which built barriers and encouraged us to stay away from the world within the four walls of the church and to avoid any kind of contact with others that do not hold our view. Which I felt was strange, if we had an idea that we believe should matter and change the world then we should not be afraid about letting it hit reality and be tested by it. For me so far it has held true not because of the religious mantras my church told me to recite like "have faith" but because I have thought through it seriously and it still holds water for me.
Lol, basically what I am appealing for in this thread, and forum is for us to be civil, and assume that the other party is an intelligent, civil and logical being that is not here to beat people around with their ideas but to really test them out.
there is a big difference in having a watertight case, or a debatable issue
and
one ridiculously created argument, anything at all in the name of supporting the religion
its the latter which i face most of the time
Originally posted by laurence82:contradicting to this line leh
I believe personally however, that the ability to know or yearn for God is an innate instinct, so of course all cultures are bound to know Him in some aspect or another in their various religions.
How is it contradiction?
I think you misunderstood my christianese (one reason why I dislike using it), if I may so translate humans have the inate instinct for the transcendent.
Being atheistic hardly means you do not have this instinct for the transcendent, the beyond. Buddism is a good example. Popular Secular Humanism runs on concepts that are a clear indication of a desire for this when by all indications they do not even have any pretense to hold those values given everything is indeed naturalistic and permissible.
In the Christian perspective the purpose of this instinct is to find God, and that humans will take actions because of this instinct.
If you'll find God through this instinct however, is of course another question. As they say it's the details that are the bugbear.
Originally posted by laurence82:there is a big difference in having a watertight case, or a debatable issue
and
one ridiculously created argument, anything at all in the name of supporting the religion
its the latter which i face most of the time
I have no doubt you'll face some ridiculously created arguments. There's a difference however, between truly ridiculous arguments and arguments that seem ridiculous to us because of a difference in worldview.
I do wish you could explain and justify your own position on the world. Because well I do like to know what you feel about it beyond that God does not exist or is a silly idea. I think you've established that quite well, but it does follow you have also to justify what you believe in beyond disbelief.
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
How is it contradiction?I think you misunderstood my christianese (one reason why I dislike using it), if I may so translate humans have the inate instinct for the transcendent.
Being atheistic hardly means you do not have this instinct for the transcendent, the beyond. Buddism is a good example. Popular Secular Humanism runs on concepts that are a clear indication of a desire for this when by all indications they do not even have any pretense to hold those values given everything is indeed naturalistic and permissible.
In the Christian perspective the purpose of this instinct is to find God, and that humans will take actions because of this instinct.
If you'll find God through this instinct however, is of course another question. As they say it's the details that are the bugbear.
that sounds better
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
I have no doubt you'll face some ridiculously created arguments. There's a difference however, between truly ridiculous arguments and arguments that seem ridiculous to us because of a difference in worldview.I do wish you could explain and justify your own position on the world. Because well I do like to know what you feel about it beyond that God does not exist or is a silly idea. I think you've established that quite well, but it does follow you have also to justify what you believe in beyond disbelief.
what sort of worldview it is when someone would support pedophilism even in evangelism, when one could anyhow link shang di to christian version of god etc
my position is not to argue my religion against ur religion, but rather to sieve out the illogicality, if i may, in certain arguments
The Shang Di link is my personal opinion and take on the issue, I am not sure it's the opinions of my peers. But I personally do not see an issue with it for reasons I have stated. Religions may be mutally exclusive in creed and conviction but not necessarily in their relation to reality. Newton's laws and Einstein's laws are quite different as well as opposed at certain places, but they both describe gravity, with one model being a more precise description of it. In this they both relate to the same thing in reality.
Ironically your reaction to my opinion would probably be shared by some of my peers.
What pedophilism? Were you refering to incest? Have you misunderstood my position?
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The Shang Di link is my personal opinion and take on the issue, I am not sure it's the opinions of my peers. But I personally do not see an issue with it for reasons I have stated. Religions may be mutally exclusive in creed and conviction but not necessarily in their relation to reality. Newton's laws and Einstein's laws are quite different as well as opposed at certain places, but they both describe gravity, with one model being a more precise description of it. In this they both relate to the same thing in reality.
Ironically your reaction to my opinion would probably be shared by some of my peers.
What pedophilism? Were you refering to incest? Have you misunderstood my position?
I want to seek your clarification on this. does non believers go to hell for not accepting Jesus? what is your view on other religions, whether they are satanic as viewed by some extreme christians.
Originally posted by marcteng:I want to seek your clarification on this. does non believers go to hell for not accepting Jesus? what is your view on other religions, whether they are satanic as viewed by some extreme christians.
good question.. my sentiments exactly.. am also curious about his views on this hehe