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

[John of Japan]

JoJ....
Your fixation on Confucius as a true "mono-theist" may be reaching somewhat. I am decidedly not prepared to "Debate" you (in a point/counter-point kind of way) on the topic as I have read little of him. But, as an amateur Historian....I don't know too many people who would classify Confuscius as a true "mono-theist" (as we think of the term). As far as a Western-educated person is concerned...I see Confuscious as the penultimate "Existentiallist" as it were....I don't know that "Theologically" Confucius gave a hoot about whether one were mono-or poly, or any kind of "theistic"...I think he cared about the smooth and ordered running of a society.....You may be able to shed more light on this...but this:

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.

"Confucius was a worshipper of the God of Abraham/ monotheist....thingy.." Well, it's decidedly news to us Westerners.

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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!

 

[jonathan.borland]

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!

 

[John of Japan]

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."

 

[John of Japan]

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!

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.

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Glad you asked John, in short, as I often use Col 2:8 when I’m witnessing – When I first turned to God one of the first things out my mouth along with that my wisdom in this world wasn’t working, never would and only He could guide me toward the right paths in my life was that I needed to know how to communicate with Him, to hear Him, to know the truth of who He is and in despair I told Him that there were so many people saying so many things about Him that how was I supposed to know what church to go to get help and who to listen to and believe? Again, to keep a long story short, the very next day I pick up a Bible and not knowing anything about it I began to search in it and that very same day God showed me both: that He would communicate with me through those words and that His Words were True. Needless to say “truth” became all-important to me as God was “Truth” as well as Wise and my faith, love and respect for Him quickly grew in that Light. SO anyway, while God was speaking to me through His Word and answering my questions and concerns, which He was doing to my amazement because it so happened that I would open that Book that I knew nothing about up right to a place that would answer the questions that I would ask Him and often this brought me to tears of joy because I knew He was talking to me through those Words and answering my prayer to be able to hear Him. Well, after-all He was Truth and His Word said, Mathew 7:7, ask, seek, knock and the door will be opened unto you!!! Man! This is hard to keep to short, and you wonder why it would take so long to explain the difference in types of “argument” when it comes to using Critical Thinking Skills (philosophical “science”; a redundant term actually being the study of values and reason in language) which are designed to draw out the truth in claims and issues in debate. So anyway, regarding my concerns about who to listen to in the world and what church theology to follow God once again answered my prayer in the first few weeks of my new relationship with Him when I opened my Bible right to Col 2:8 and word for word that scripture became branded on my heart to guard me and later served to teach me the importance of knowing good philosophy from bad. How can you “beware” if you don’t know the differences between good and bad philosophy??? Yes, first one compares the interpretation to the Word of God by the knowledge and understanding He gives us and one way I determine the truth of what a man says is through the Critical Thinking Skills (Philosophical Skills) (The science of logic) that God has blessed me with learning.

This is a good testimony. Thank you. But it is not exegesis. How do you exegete the verse?

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).

 

[John of Japan]

First thing that comes to my mind is why you want to go there John? But...I'll address that request anyway:
...
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???
...
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
...
Back to you attempting to draw the argument over philosophy toward your skills at exegesis…,
...
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)

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.

 

[Benjamin]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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).

You may very well be correct.... I will look more into this, and for now, I will accept what I assume to be your greater knowledge of the topic.

If you'll look back at my post, you'll see that I did not say it this way.

No, of course not. You didn't claim that Confuscious worshipped the "God of Abraham Isaac and Anselm" or anything...I was not being particularly serious.....I think I was making a sort of sideways point about how even somewhat "Monotheistic" faiths or views still have some very differing views about who that "God" is....(especially ancient ones....like Zoroastrianism, if you would call it "Mono-theistic")

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.

I would actually be VERY interested. I am of a belief that there will be MANY more "pagans" from "heathen" ancient nations who actually were of a true Revelation of God, and there will be many more people in Heaven than we often think there will be. I especially tend to believe that knowledge of the truths of God (especially for Shemites) was far better preserved after the Noahcian flood than we often know...This book would shed light on this for me.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The thing is, you guys appear to be using the term "philosophy" as a generic term--something all agree on equals philosophy. By mentioning Asian philosophy and 20th century philosophies I've been trying to show there is no such thing as generic philosophy. There are philosophers and philosophies, each very different (allowing for students following their teachers). The things you guys are referring to (critical thinking, rules of logic, etc.) are the result of individual philosophers developing the ideas, not some big meeting where all the philosophers decided on them.

I suppose we are using the term "generically"...and I suppose you would be correct that we seem to assume that there is such a thing as generically true Philosophy and simply garbage Philosophy, and that they are essentially defined by those views which are objectively true and those which are simply false. For instance, there are some competing theories about time, and whether it is dynamic or not, and about what defines volition or freedom of will and compatabilism etc... There are Bible Believers on this board who can (and do) disagree about those things, but what we would agree on is that either one view is correct and the other simply wrong, or perhaps both views are wrong. But stemming from a committment to the idea that the truth isn't in any way relative....I would say that we believe that there is such a thing as this generic "Philosophy". The points of contention I mentioned above, for instance, are simply ones which I do NOT think the Scriptures plainly and un-equivocally spell-out for us. This is why we don't speak in terms of systems or "philosophies" in the way you are using the term.

So to clarify, yes, I think the Bible in Col. is saying, "Take no philosophy as your world view." I don't think it is saying, "Philosophers are all wrong."

I don't think you conveyed the idea that you thought "Philosophers are all wrong."

But to me it is narrow minded to simply refer to "philosophy" as a certain set of principles common to only certain philosophers from the West during a certain era.

This is a more loaded statement than I think you intended it to be....it isn't really only "certain philosophers" inasmuch as in many ways, varying philosophical notions sort of "evolve" over time, and have become the common view amongst all informed individuals given time. The original philosophical dis-agreements about some things sometimes dissolve as one "side" "wins the debate" eventually....and their point of view becomes standardized belief. Various Philosophical ideas do indeed ultimately wind up in the trash-heap never to be considered worthy again...This implies that "Philosophy" as a discipline then, is capable of describing particular and knowable "truths". This should address some of your distaste for "certain philosophers" and "certain areas" some.
As far as the East vs. West thing....I somewhat doubt that there is, or should be such an assumption of non-continuity or non-agreement (<----there is a better word for that I think, but I don't know what it is, maybe you understand anyway). If, after all, there are some philosophical principles which are objectively true, than we should be able to assume that any thinking Easterners would arrive at the same or very similar conclusions....if they didn't...well then, I have no problem saying that they would simply be "wrong". There is not, (as we are using the term) "Western" and "Eastern" Philosophy...just true Philosophy and false Philosophy. We aren't relativizing it.
When you say this, I am starting to get the uncomfortable feelings I get when non-believers object to Christianity because of some <----(patently and provably false) idea that "Christianity" is a "Western faith" for "Westerners".
We in the West have embraced what is really a near-Eastern faith and world-view. Whatever Christianity is, or the "Judeo-Christian" world-view is, it isn't a "Western" one. Uniquely "Western" religions didn't really ever evolve signifigantly past cannibalism and direct demon worship.

Concerning C. S. Lewis, I read all of his stuff, fiction, non-fiction and bio (A Grief Observed) when I was young. But I never thought of him as a philosopher and never heard him referred to as that.

Me too...minus "A grief Observed" <---it was too whiny for me :laugh: But I think your objection is mis-placed. No, Lewis was not a "Philosopher" by trade...but, neither was Blaise Pascal...or Rene' Descartes. But "Philosophizing" and engaging in Philosophical argumentation he did prodigiously.
Was Lewis an "apologist?"
No, he was Professor of Medieval and Rennaissance Literature
Was Lewis an "author" and speaker?
Well, he wrote books, but he was not an "author"...he was a fellow at Magdallen College.....

See what I mean? since you have read Lewis....re-read "Miracles" it is loaded with Philosophy and Philosophical argumentation...he just doesn't use "buzz-words" like a professional "Philosopher" would. I am sure you are perfectly aware of Lewis' insistance that "Good Philosophy must exist, if only because bad Philosophy must be answered".

This is where philosophy differs from where I live and have my being. In my world, ask 100 people whether they would rather hear about the space shuttle from Tom, who helped design and build and launch it, or Joe Blow, the college junior just studying it, and at least 99 will say, "Tom, of course!" Same truth, no experience versus vast experience, I'll listen to vast experience every time.

But if Tom had, at any point made a simple mathematical mis-computation in his design, and our college "Junior" discovered and explained the simple error...would Tom ignore it? Of course not....we are not claiming that our young sycophant has more knowledge of the entire engine in toto....but any INDIVIDUAL argument he might make respecting a particular detail stands on it's own merits. Your analagy is somewhat flawed anyways inasmuch as you merely dismissed the original essay because of the "source" without the provision of a competing argument. (There was no "Tom" who countered his argument. He just posted an article...either it was good, or it wasn't, but the article you objected to poses arguments worthy of consideration in their own right.

Once again, my point in mentioning Asian philosophies is to say--someone please give me a definition of what you mean by philosophy! I can't see it as something generic. No one on this whole thread has given a single quote from a single philosopher about a "more perfect" God! No one has given a definition of philosophy.
Then for crying out loud, define it!

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0830826947/?tag=baptis04-20


http://www.amazon.com/dp/1576830160/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[Cypress]

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

 

[Benjamin]

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.

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.

 

[Benjamin]

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

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

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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?

 

[Mexdeaf]

MMOTW= Mirror, mirror on the wall

 

[John of Japan]

I suppose we are using the term "generically"...and I suppose you would be correct that we seem to assume that there is such a thing as generically true Philosophy and simply garbage Philosophy, and that they are essentially defined by those views which are objectively true and those which are simply false. For instance, there are some competing theories about time, and whether it is dynamic or not, and about what defines volition or freedom of will and compatabilism etc... There are Bible Believers on this board who can (and do) disagree about those things, but what we would agree on is that either one view is correct and the other simply wrong, or perhaps both views are wrong. But stemming from a committment to the idea that the truth isn't in any way relative....I would say that we believe that there is such a thing as this generic "Philosophy". The points of contention I mentioned above, for instance, are simply ones which I do NOT think the Scriptures plainly and un-equivocally spell-out for us. This is why we don't speak in terms of systems or "philosophies" in the way you are using the term.

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.

This is a more loaded statement than I think you intended it to be....it isn't really only "certain philosophers" inasmuch as in many ways, varying philosophical notions sort of "evolve" over time, and have become the common view amongst all informed individuals given time. The original philosophical dis-agreements about some things sometimes dissolve as one "side" "wins the debate" eventually....and their point of view becomes standardized belief. Various Philosophical ideas do indeed ultimately wind up in the trash-heap never to be considered worthy again...This implies that "Philosophy" as a discipline then, is capable of describing particular and knowable "truths". This should address some of your distaste for "certain philosophers" and "certain areas" some.

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.

As far as the East vs. West thing....I somewhat doubt that there is, or should be such an assumption of non-continuity or non-agreement (<----there is a better word for that I think, but I don't know what it is, maybe you understand anyway). If, after all, there are some philosophical principles which are objectively true, than we should be able to assume that any thinking Easterners would arrive at the same or very similar conclusions....if they didn't...well then, I have no problem saying that they would simply be "wrong". There is not, (as we are using the term) "Western" and "Eastern" Philosophy...just true Philosophy and false Philosophy. We aren't relativizing 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?

When you say this, I am starting to get the uncomfortable feelings I get when non-believers object to Christianity because of some <----(patently and provably false) idea that "Christianity" is a "Western faith" for "Westerners".

We in the West have embraced what is really a near-Eastern faith and world-view. Whatever Christianity is, or the "Judeo-Christian" world-view is, it isn't a "Western" one. Uniquely "Western" religions didn't really ever evolve signifigantly past cannibalism and direct demon worship.

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:

But if Tom had, at any point made a simple mathematical mis-computation in his design, and our college "Junior" discovered and explained the simple error...would Tom ignore it? Of course not....we are not claiming that our young sycophant has more knowledge of the entire engine in toto....but any INDIVIDUAL argument he might make respecting a particular detail stands on it's own merits. Your analagy is somewhat flawed anyways inasmuch as you merely dismissed the original essay because of the "source" without the provision of a competing argument. (There was no "Tom" who countered his argument. He just posted an article...either it was good, or it wasn't, but the article you objected to poses arguments worthy of consideration in their own right.

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.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0830826947/?tag=baptis04-20


http://www.amazon.com/dp/1576830160/?tag=baptis04-20

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.

 

[John of Japan]

MMOTW= Mirror, mirror on the wall

Aha! Thanks, friend. :thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

MMOTW= Mirror, mirror on the wall

Many thanks! Now everything makes sense!