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

[HeirofSalvation]

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....

I was not considering Greek Religion as "Uniquely" Western.......It was heavily influenced by the near East: Egypt, Persia, even possibly Judaism to some extent etc...I was referring more to the completely European people groups. Give me the credit of assuming I know at least enough about History and Culture than to be so completely ignorant of Greco-Roman culture....just sayin :saint:

 

[John of Japan]

I was not considering Greek Religion as "Uniquely" Western.......It was heavily influenced by the near East: Egypt, Persia, even possibly Judaism to some extent etc...I was referring more to the completely European people groups. Give me the credit of assuming I know at least enough about History and Culture than to be so completely ignorant of Greco-Roman culture....just sayin :saint:

No offense. I thought maybe it just slipped your mind. Sounds like you know more about it than I do. :flower:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

JoJ..........Philosophy is, I assume not for you.
No, it is not the case that "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview"...(A brilliant introductory book about Philosophy and Theology) be-labours Confuscious, sir.

The reason that book doesn't be-labour Confuscious, is that..........He does us no good whatsoever in finding a:........you guessed-it, "Foundation for a CHRISTIAN World-View"..

I don't want to insult....but Confuscious was a Government Bureaucrat, attempting to consolidate a concept of societal co-hesion for the purpose of proper and easy governance in a socio-political context. He isn't mentioned in the book I linked to, only because....well....his Philosophy isn't very.......................... GOOD!!!!
But, you have dismissed the book I linked to (if read closely) entitled: "Philosophical foundations for a CHRISTIAN Worldview"...out of hand because it doesn't do due dilligence to Confuscious?????? You've totally "gone native" like Lawrence of Arabia then haven't you.

In so many sentences you have actually told us that:
1.) You like/prefer the Philosophy of "Eastern" philosophers such as Confuscious
2.) You have been a missionary to the people of the far-east for 31 years
3.) The Japanese Culture and it's basis in Shintoism is "based-on"....or, at least, heavily influenced by "Confuscianism"

They'll pray to their millions of Shinto "gods" and believe in them, but they have not one ounce of proof.

4.) According to JoJ Confuscious was a Mono-Theist?????
I am exposing the contradiction that premises 3 and 4 are not possibly both true...(Good Philosophy teaches one how to do this)... Which one will you deny????
5.)You have summarilly rejected the link to the book I posted because it doesn't honour Confuscious enough and only mentions the tired and utterly out-dated "Existentialism" <------created by the liberal THEOLOGIAN and not professional Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard btw...only once. Heaven forfend....
6.) Despite the fact that the "Existentialism" of the "Theologian" Kierkegaard is to be honored as legit "Philosophy"...the arguments of the actually Christ-honoring C.S. Lewis (whom you claim to have read exhaustively) do not qualify as "Philosophy"...since, you have never heard him "referred to" as such.

At least we all know that Charles Darwin was a great Scientist though...oh, wait...

This gets better though:

You debated with me when I claimed that I don't believe that Confuscious was quite the mono-theist that you claimed he was...and yet your own post to HT was this:

Confucianism does not have a perfect being as I've pointed out. Taoism has an impersonal Tao ("Way") of the universe that human can tap into--not a being. And so forth.

I rescind my previous post wherein I said I would defer to your greater knowledge...I was indeed correct. I thought I was.....Confuscious was no more a true "mono-theist" in any intelligible sense than anyone else.....No, we arrogant and "narrow-minded" Westerners have little appreciation for the fortune-cookie musings of Confuscious...because, he was simply.............wrong.

Confuscious isn't ignored in modern Philosophical circles because we are too "Europo-centric" or "narrow-minded". He is ignored by Christian Philosophers like Plantinga, Clarke, Van-Inwaagen, Craig and also the godless Philosophers alike such as David Hume, Antony Flew and Michael Ruse.......They all agree....that as far as the definition of useful Philosophy in the modern era is concerned...Confuscious simply has nothing of value to add to the conversation.

 

[OldRegular]

At least we all know that Charles Darwin was a great Scientist though...oh, wait...

I agree with you here: you are seriously confused!

This gets better though:

Confuscious isn't ignored in modern Philosophical circles because we are too "Europo-centric" or "narrow-minded". He is ignored by Christian Philosophers like Plantinga, Clarke, Van-Inwaagen, Craig and also the godless Philosophers alike such as David Hume, Antony Flew and Michael Ruse.......They all agree....that as far as the definition of useful Philosophy in the modern era is concerned...Confuscious simply has nothing of value to add to the conversation.

I am impressed HOSS! Really impressed!:thumbs::smilewinkgrin::laugh:

So you are one of the "WE" of modern philosophers?

 

[John of Japan]

JoJ..........

In so many sentences you have actually told us that:
1.) You like/prefer the Philosophy of "Eastern" philosophers such as Confuscious
2.) You have been a missionary to the people of the far-east for 31 years
3.) The Japanese Culture and it's basis in Shintoism is "based-on"....or, at least, heavily influenced by "Confuscianism"

4.) According to JoJ Confuscious was a Mono-Theist?????
I am exposing the contradiction that premises 3 and 4 are not possibly both true...(Good Philosophy teaches one how to do this)... Which one will you deny????

Wow, this is a grave misunderstanding of the society and religion of Japan. Maybe I'll have time to answer the rest of your post this evening (which also quite misunderstands what I was trying to say), but I have to answer some of this right now. If you had taken time to study the basics about both Shinto and Confucianism I think you would have understood already what I am about to say.

First of all, Shinto and Confucianism have nothing to do with each other, and Shinto is certainly not the basis for societal interaction. Shinto is the native religion that existed way back into the Jomon era, but lost out for a time when Buddhism came in from China, eventually finding a stable peace with Buddhism. Its shrines and priests have existed all of this time, with or without Confucianism. It is a very simple animistic religion with no real doctrine or "holy writings" that claims to have 40 million gods, and has small and large shrines all over Japan. However, it is not the social structure of Japan. The main thing people do with Shinto nowadays is have Shinto weddings (less and less--they like the Western style better), have Shinto priests bless their cars, and pray to Shinto gods to help them with their final exams.

Confucianism came into Japan from China and became the basis for the society of Japan mostly under the Tokugawa Shogunate mostly. This was past the "Warring States" period in Japanese history, and the samurai began to actually study instead of fight each other all the time. What they studied was first and foremost the Confucian classics, and they built, literally, a caste system based on that.

As for Confucius himself, while I think he was a great philosopher, I detest the social system that exists under his name. It is one of the biggest barriers to the Gospel that there is. Yes, Confucius himself was a monotheist, but that certainly doesn't mean that those who followed his system were thus, ergo, monotheists. You loving history should understand how that happens. He instituted a social system, not a religion per se. He only mentioned Tien (who was Shang Ti) in passing in his works. And after his death, the worship of Shang Ti gradually degenerated into a form of idol worship (not connected to either him or his system).

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Wow, I've never seen Japan so misunderstood here on the BB. Maybe I'll have time to answer the rest of your post this evening (which also quite misunderstands what I was trying to say), but I have to answer some of this right now. If you had taken time to study the basics about both Shinto and Confucianism I think you would have understood already what I am about to say.

I am fully aware of why you are now utterly and indignantly in the defense of the separate nature of Japanese Culture, religion, and Philosophy, and why you are now passionately attempting to divorce it from the "Confucionism" of China......I posted as I did on purpose...JOJ...Have you yet to figure out how very much I am simply NOT ignorant of the basic History of both Cultures???? I didn't imply the similarity between "Confuscianism" and the cultural faith of Japan....But YOU un-wittingly DID. I know better than that...And I am FULLY AWARE that they have little or nothing to do with one another....I spent enough time reviewing your own posts to trap you in a self-contradictory position....my long-time passion for Philosophy has armed me with the tools to do that.....

First of all, Shinto and Confucianism have nothing to do with each other,

I know......I was wondering when you would figure that out....I was posting you referencing places where you didn't seem to grasp that yourself John. In this thread...coupled with places I have quoted you elsewhere...you have implied otherwise: I have quoted you stating precisely the opposite of what you state here....You claimed that Shinto-ism/Japanese culture is interrelated to Confuscian Philosophy....and you also claimed that (despite the millions of deities in Shintoism) Confuscian Philosophy is "mono-theistic"....
I simply exposed the obvious contradiction..

and Shinto is certainly not the basis for societal interaction. Shinto is the native religion that existed way back into the Jomon era, but lost out for a time when Buddhism came in from China, eventually finding a stable peace with Buddhism. Its shrines and priests have existed all of this time, with or without Confucianism.

Blah...Blah....:sleep:.....guess what...it's original source was from India...too, Shall I now wax long about how "Siddhartha Gautama" was initially "Hindu" and during the reign of the erudite Akhbar..(who also re-thought and reformed the penal system)... as I am sure you are aware....re-thought the nature of suffering and blah..blah... At what point will you stop speaking to me as though I were a complete moron????? I have, in my possession the sum-total of the entire writings of Will and Ariel Durant....but, I actually read them..So...It may be unfortunate for the average fundamentalist Bible College that some people have actually read some real Historians (and real historians care about the history of the dissemination of certain ideas)....But I am afraid I do not have the benefit of "post-graduate credits" in "Theology" or "Philosophy" from Jack Hyles U....or what-ever....I just have good books...and I linked a good one to you, namely "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview"....and you dismissed it out of hand...like any fundamental "Jack-Hyles-U" guy is trained to do....

It is a very simple animistic religion with no real doctrine or "holy writings" that claims to have 40 million gods, and has small and large shrines all over Japan. However, it is not the social structure of Japan. The main thing people do with Shinto nowadays is have Shinto weddings (less and less--they like the Western style better), have Shinto priests bless their cars, and pray to Shinto gods to help them with their final exams.

After 31 years as a missionary to those people....can you inform us of something we DON'T already know.....Getting reasonably-priced "chia-pets" in the shape of Jerry Garcia's head is the Universal dream of every human on Earth...and that is why Romney should have won, and not Obama (as he is a non-patriotic Communist, but I digress)....These ideas are simply elementary.

Confucianism came into Japan from China and became the basis for the society of Japan mostly under the Tokugawa Shogunate mostly

.
Off of the top of my head.......what specific contribution do you think that Moto-Ori contributed to the dessimination of Philosophical ideas when he wrote that: "Japan gave birth to the goddess of the Sun, and that proves her Superiority above all other nations" (this was 1630) as I am sure you know already....
Lemme guess..."Confuscian" philosophys' entrance to Japan (in Nippon of course) might arguably be traced to the sixteenth century mal-content Fujiwara Seigwa....and so on....
I am also sure that as far as the dissemination of "philosophical" ideas are concerned...the "Tokugawa" nominal heir Iyeyasu...should be credited with stability of culture enough to disseminate their heathen and wicked "Confuscionist/Buddhist/non-Christ honoring" ideas.

This was past the "Warring States" period in Japanese history, and the samurai began to actually study instead of fight each other all the time. What they studied was first and foremost the Confucian classics, and they built, literally, a caste system based on that.

As for Confucius himself, while I think he was a great philosopher, I detest the social system that exists under his name. It is one of the biggest barriers to the Gospel that there is. Yes, Confucius himself was a monotheist, but that certainly doesn't mean that those who followed his system were thus, ergo, monotheists

.
Then, the only thing that would follow is that "Confuscious" who is a "mono-theist" as you claim, had little enough influence to convince a populace whether there were only 1 Omnipotent God or as you say......40 million???...Signifigant, and worthy of mention in his era, Confuscious was, wasn't he????
I am only working off of your own claims.

You loving history should understand how that happens.

I do.......or, at least, I have some notions about it.

He instituted a social system, not a religion per se.

HIs institution of a social system.....I mentioned in this thread...long before and in direct opposition to your insistance that he was a "Philosopher" of merit......"Bureaucrat" I always knew....Philosopher of signifigance, I always have doubted.

He only mentioned Tien (who was Shang Ti) in passing in his works. And after his death, the worship of Shang Ti gradually degenerated into a form of idol worship (not connected to either him or his system).

YEAHHHH....and this is why incurrably "Western" Philosophers don't take him very seriously....nor do they consider any appeal to his existence as a sufficient defeater to any long-held and be-laboured notions Western Philosophy has ever bothered to argue...This is why the link I posted for you doesn't mention "Confuscius".... It's because it was written by Bible-believing Christians, and they feel that "Confuscius" had little or nothing to add to the subject.

 

[John of Japan]

I am fully aware of why you are now utterly and indignantly in the defense of the separate nature of Japanese Culture, religion, and Philosophy, and why you are now passionately attempting to divorce it from the "Confucionism" of China......I posted as I did on purpose...JOJ...Have you yet to figure out how very much I am simply NOT ignorant of the basic History of both Cultures???? I didn't imply the similarity between "Confuscianism" and the cultural faith of Japan....But YOU un-wittingly DID. I know better than that...And I am FULLY AWARE that they have little or nothing to do with one another....I spent enough time reviewing your own posts to trap you in a self-contradictory position....my long-time passion for Philosophy has armed me with the tools to do that.....

If your passion for philosophy has led you to seek to trap fellow believers, I'm glad I'm not a part of it.

But no, I was not indignantly (wasn't mad in the slightest) and "passionately attempting to divorce" Confucianism from the culture of Japan. I'd be a fool to do that. It is part and parcel of the culture of Japan, the foundation of Japanese societal mores. Did you not read where I said it was a barrier to the Gospel here?

Concerning Shinto, almost no Japanese ever says "I'm a Shintoist" or "I'm a Confucianist" (though their society is Confucian). They say "I'm a Buddhist." Shintoism is a part of their culture, but not the origin of their societal mores.

I know......I was wondering when you would figure that out....I was posting you referencing places where you didn't seem to grasp that yourself John. In this thread...coupled with places I have quoted you elsewhere...you have implied otherwise: I have quoted you stating precisely the opposite of what you state here....You claimed that Shinto-ism/Japanese culture is interrelated to Confuscian Philosophy....and you also claimed that (despite the millions of deities in Shintoism) Confuscian Philosophy is "mono-theistic"....
I simply exposed the obvious contradiction..

I said nothing whatsoever about Shinto until you did in your last post. I don't believe that Japanese culture is "inter-related to Confucian Philosophy." Confucianism is rather the foundation for the society (not the culture per se). And I never said or intimated that Confucian philosophy is monotheistic. It actually says very little about religion per se. I said that Confucius was a monotheist. Did you read the quotes about God from the Analects that I posted?

Blah...Blah....:sleep:.....guess what...it's original source was from India...too, Shall I now wax long about how "Siddhartha Gautama" was initially "Hindu" and during the reign of the erudite Akhbar..(who also re-thought and reformed the penal system)... as I am sure you are aware....re-thought the nature of suffering and blah..blah... At what point will you stop speaking to me as though I were a complete moron????? I have, in my possession the sum-total of the entire writings of Will and Ariel Durant....but, I actually read them..So...It may be unfortunate for the average fundamentalist Bible College that some people have actually read some real Historians (and real historians care about the history of the dissemination of certain ideas)....But I am afraid I do not have the benefit of "post-graduate credits" in "Theology" or "Philosophy" from Jack Hyles U....or what-ever....I just have good books...and I linked a good one to you, namely "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview"....and you dismissed it out of hand...like any fundamental "Jack-Hyles-U" guy is trained to do....

I'm sorry you've decided to take the conversation in this direction and make things personal. My MA is from regionally accredited Maranatha Baptist Seminary (Dr. Bob's alma mater also)--never been to Hyles-Anderson or any similar school, and wouldn't go there for a degree; got my BA from Tennessee Temple (which is TRACS accredited and SBC nowadays) way back in 1976.

And I'm sorry you think I was talking to you like you were a complete moron. I certainly didn't mean to "dis" you in that way and didn't realize I was. But since you feel that way, please forgive me for offending you. I had no way of knowing what knowledge you have or don't have about Japan, especially if you were leading me on hoping to trap me.

Then, the only thing that would follow is that "Confuscious" who is a "mono-theist" as you claim, had little enough influence to convince a populace whether there were only 1 Omnipotent God or as you say......40 million???...Signifigant, and worthy of mention in his era, Confuscious was, wasn't he????

Then was your apparant enthusiasm at the book I suggested by a Chinese Christian a sham?

P. S. The 40 million gods are Shinto, not Confucian. Confucius had nothing to do with Shinto. And where in the world did I say Japanese society is monotheistic? It never has been such and I did not say it was!! I'd be pretty dumb to say that having been here all these years and talked to many Japanese about Christ, their religion, etc.

Are you actually reading my posts?

YEAHHHH....and this is why incurrably "Western" Philosophers don't take him very seriously....nor do they consider any appeal to his existence as a sufficient defeater to any long-held and be-laboured notions Western Philosophy has ever bothered to argue...This is why the link I posted for you doesn't mention "Confuscius".... It's because it was written by Bible-believing Christians, and they feel that "Confuscius" had little or nothing to add to the subject.

You posted those links to Amazon in response to my request for you to define what you meant by philosophy in this thread, something those links do not do without reading the books, and something you still haven't done.

 

[John of Japan]

Folks, one thing my grandpa taught me was that when a public debate becomes personal, you should back off. So when one opponent wrote a pamphlet, Facts John R. Rice Will Not Face, attacking him with rumor and innuendo, he stopped the debate, stopped writing articles in the Sword of the Lord about it.

I think my debate opponents on this thread, those defending philosophy, may have begun thinking I'm the enemy somehow. Maybe that's partly my fault, since I seem to have offended HeirofSalvation without meaning to. Plus, I believe I've made my points, plus none of them has exegeted Col. 2:8 and told me why I'm wrong on it (most commentaries are on their side!), plus none of them have defined what they mean by philosophy if it is not philosophical systems or the like. Kind of hard to debate with no definitions.

So I'm going to pray for them right now, then bow out. God bless all!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

ISo you are one of the "WE" of modern philosophers?

NO....I am a "we" in the sense of being a Westerner....Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[OldRegular]

Folks, one thing my grandpa taught me was that when a public debate becomes personal, you should back off. So when one opponent wrote a pamphlet, Facts John R. Rice Will Not Face, attacking him with rumor and innuendo, he stopped the debate, stopped writing articles in the Sword of the Lord about it.

I think my debate opponents on this thread, those defending philosophy, may have begun thinking I'm the enemy somehow. Maybe that's partly my fault, since I seem to have offended HeirofSalvation without meaning to. Plus, I believe I've made my points, plus none of them has exegeted Col. 2:8 and told me why I'm wrong on it (most commentaries are on their side!), plus none of them have defined what they mean by philosophy if it is not philosophical systems or the like. Kind of hard to debate with no definitions.

So I'm going to pray for them right now, then bow out. God bless all!

John

I am not into philosophy though I do believe I can reason logically. I believe that your posts have been very gentle and brotherly in tone and, at least to me, scholarly in content!

Frankly, and I indicated this in my initial response to the OP, I believe the purpose of the thread was to create dissension. humblethinker is an "open theist" and I believe the thread was intended to propagate that view. Instead it became a discussion on philosophy.

Anyone expecting polite, brotherly debate from either Ben or HOSS is destined for disappointment as I believe you have learned! I am sure that you and I would disagree on certain doctrinal issues and I am not one to assert that the tone of my response in debate is what it should be. I do want to commend you for your response to the work God has called you to do.

OldRegular

 

[Benjamin]

Folks, one thing my grandpa taught me was that when a public debate becomes personal, you should back off. So when one opponent wrote a pamphlet, Facts John R. Rice Will Not Face, attacking him with rumor and innuendo, he stopped the debate, stopped writing articles in the Sword of the Lord about it.

I think my debate opponents on this thread, those defending philosophy, may have begun thinking I'm the enemy somehow. Maybe that's partly my fault, since I seem to have offended HeirofSalvation without meaning to. Plus, I believe I've made my points, plus none of them has exegeted Col. 2:8 and told me why I'm wrong on it (most commentaries are on their side!), plus none of them have defined what they mean by philosophy if it is not philosophical systems or the like. Kind of hard to debate with no definitions.

John, no one thinks of you as the enemy, it is a debate and simply, you are the one making this personal by whining about others being too personal. Oldregular, (big breath-exhale long and hard) …nevermind!

First, I wasn’t going to get back into this thread because this “personal” thing with you is pretty much unavoidable if one wants to engage in an argument to which you disagree on the conclusion.

John, “if” your grandpa, a great man that I admire from what I have read of him, had a habit of avoiding facts or even issues claiming its gotten to personal, well maybe you followed in his footsteps in that regard also, so don’t bother “Appealing to Authority” that you must be justified to accuse others of being too personal and using that excuse to back out of the debate. This far from the first time I’ve seen you resort to these fallacious claims when the tension a debate becomes too intense by your measure. Now, “personally” since that is the subject now, I think you you’d do well to leather up man because its apparent to me, and I imagine HoS as well, that when a debate is not going your way you begin to start rabbit holing and if anything are claiming to have become offended once again because others, with philosophical skill designed to draw out the truth, as HoS given has an example of, are setting traps to put an end to those tactics and that seems to be too “offensive” to you also...(

As for your: “OH! he must have been offended because he’s gotten too personal and I don’t participate with people who surpass my standards” rhetorical judgment claims about your opponent’s character (I “personally” believe) you rely on that tactic far too often in a debate which you are not getting your way. Maybe you should consider the problem is that you can’t handle the heat you feel when you are being told your wrong and you begin taking it personal.

Concerning Col 2:8 I addressed that very thoroughly and summed it up in post #107 and ALL I got for my efforts – - - are your Critical Thinking Skills in logical debate ready for this??? Is an “Ad Hominem attack” for my efforts! Yes! You ignored all the questions in the argument, all the issues and claims I brought forth pertaining to issue of bringing Col 2:8 up and thought to simply relied on a single fallacious attack toward the man (BTW, now seem to be claiming victory on that issue for lack of perfection in exegesis skills to your liking and are using a “Perfectionist Fallacy” on that) ...back to the point Sir, even if it were true that I was being “personal” or too personal, it is still a fallacious debate tactic you have resorted to on this issue and if you had a clue of what HoS and I have been trying to say to you about the importance philosophy, edify you on as a matter of fact, …and THAT if you weren’t ignorant (there’s that dreaded “offensive” word again!) it would be rigging in as clear as a bell that your debate skills are NOT geared toward drawing out the truth in an argument BECAUSE of your lack of understand the important philosophical skills which you have demonstrated over and over in this tread and to which we have been trying to explain to you!

On a separate note: “Personally”, I believe a better understanding of philosophical skills would be of tremendous help to you in Japan because they would enable you to be better equipped to draw out the truth from within the words of men while you present the Gospel there.

BTW, sorry I don’t seem to be able to give you a definition of “philosophy” that I think could get around your “Semantic Ambiguity Fallacy” tactics on the phrase but that in no way discards the importance of the philosophical skills we have been trying to explain to you and which the first chapter in the Basic Logic/Critical Thinking Skills college textbook that I posted begins to cover. We could probably spend a whole tread playing the rabbit game of defining philosophy to John’s liking and while trying to “trap” him into accepting one, but…that’s not issue we have been trying to get at. We were trying emphasize the importance of using philosophical skills for drawing out the truth in debate.

So I'm going to pray for them right now, then bow out. God bless all!

…End of the “personal” debate for me! I'm going to return the prayers for you and may God blees you.

 

[Alive in Christ]

..........................................

 

[John of Japan]

John

I am not into philosophy though I do believe I can reason logically. I believe that your posts have been very gentle and brotherly in tone and, at least to me, scholarly in content!

Frankly, and I indicated this in my initial response to the OP, I believe the purpose of the thread was to create dissension. humblethinker is an "open theist" and I believe the thread was intended to propagate that view. Instead it became a discussion on philosophy.

Anyone expecting polite, brotherly debate from either Ben or HOSS is destined for disappointment as I believe you have learned! I am sure that you and I would disagree on certain doctrinal issues and I am not one to assert that the tone of my response in debate is what it should be. I do want to commend you for your response to the work God has called you to do.

OldRegular

Thank you for the kind words. I've learned from this thread--in several ways if you catch my drift. God bless!

John

 

[ktn4eg]

I don't want to derail this thread, BUT since it is talking about "perfection," I've got a question that has perplexed this simple-minded lay person for years that maybe some of my BB friends can help me understand more clearly.

The question is this:

If it is impossible for us humans to attain to absolute perfection (at least in THIS PRESENT life)----and I DO believe that to be true!-------why then did Jesus, in His "Sermon on the Mount" message, tell His listeners in Matthew 5:48, "Be ye PERFECT, even (i.e, in the same sense and/or to the same degree that) your Father which is in heaven is perfect"???? (KJV---emp. mine)

Now, I'm thinking:

Since the Son of God already knew/knows that fallen man could not possibly attain to anything even closely resembling God the Father's degree of absolute and infinite perfection, why would He COMMAND His hearers to attain to the very same level/degree of perfection that His Father in heaven ALWAYS and FOREVER had/has?

And, your answer to this dilemma is........??!!??

Bumping Post #74 cited above because by now it's been a little over five days since I orginally posted it in this thread.

I hope that I'm totally wrong in my thinking, but apparently not one of my BB friends has (as of the present anyway) considers it to be a valid enough question in a thread that deals with this meaty subject of what God's Word is trying to tell us all that He wishes His children to know about "perfection."

I've said it before in many other BB threads in the past that I am NOT a seminary-trained expert on ANY theological topic.

I've not as much as had a micro-second in ANY seminary anywhere on this planet.

I had hoped that after five days that at least one of my BB friends would respond to what I thought was an honest, legitimate question asked by this simple-minded lay person, but, alas, I suppose that is not the case.

Can't ANY ONE out there in BB land help me to understand what Jesus Christ seems (to me at least) to COMMAND us mere mortal, totally fallible, and (apart from His matchless grace) absolutely and eternally incapable of doing even one thing that would even come close to pleasing the Father in heaven, to be in that Matthew 5:48 passage?

 

[John of Japan]

Bumping Post #74 cited above because by now it's been a little over five days since I orginally posted it in this thread.

I hope that I'm totally wrong in my thinking, but apparently not one of my BB friends has (as of the present anyway) considers it to be a valid enough question in a thread that deals with this meaty subject of what God's Word is trying to tell us all that He wishes His children to know about "perfection."

I've said it before in many other BB threads in the past that I am NOT a seminary-trained expert on ANY theological topic.

I've not as much as had a micro-second in ANY seminary anywhere on this planet.

I had hoped that after five days that at least one of my BB friends would respond to what I thought was an honest, legitimate question asked by this simple-minded lay person, but, alas, I suppose that is not the case.

Can't ANY ONE out there in BB land help me to understand what Jesus Christ seems (to me at least) to COMMAND us mere mortal, totally fallible, and (apart from His matchless grace) absolutely and eternally incapable of doing even one thing that would even come close to pleasing the Father in heaven, to be in that Matthew 5:48 passage?

Well, I've signed off from this thread, but since you ask persistently and nicely, I'll give my take.

You are right that we cannot completely fulfill this command on earth and become perfect. We don't believe in the Holiness doctrine of sinless perfection here on earth, you and I.

However, this command will keep us striving, keep us doing our best to walk with Christ. Consider if He had said it differently, like: "Be 95% perfect, though your Father in Heaven is 100% perfect." Some self satisfied person would say, "Hey, I'm there, I'm 95% perfect. I can relax in my Christian life now." But since we are to strive to be perfect as God in Heaven is perfect, we should keep striving (with the help of the Holy Spirit of course) until we die, if we are to obey the command.

 

[OldRegular]

Bumping Post #74 cited above because by now it's been a little over five days since I orginally posted it in this thread.

I hope that I'm totally wrong in my thinking, but apparently not one of my BB friends has (as of the present anyway) considers it to be a valid enough question in a thread that deals with this meaty subject of what God's Word is trying to tell us all that He wishes His children to know about "perfection."

I've said it before in many other BB threads in the past that I am NOT a seminary-trained expert on ANY theological topic.

I've not as much as had a micro-second in ANY seminary anywhere on this planet.

I had hoped that after five days that at least one of my BB friends would respond to what I thought was an honest, legitimate question asked by this simple-minded lay person, but, alas, I suppose that is not the case.

Can't ANY ONE out there in BB land help me to understand what Jesus Christ seems (to me at least) to COMMAND us mere mortal, totally fallible, and (apart from His matchless grace) absolutely and eternally incapable of doing even one thing that would even come close to pleasing the Father in heaven, to be in that Matthew 5:48 passage?

You asked a very difficult question but one that makes more sense than the OP. To be honest I really don't know. It could be that Jesus Christ is setting the standard but I am not sure that is satisfactory. In John 5:14 Jesus Christ tells the one he had healed of paralysis:

Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you."

 

[ktn4eg]

You asked a very difficult question but one that makes more sense than the OP. To be honest I really don't know. It could be that Jesus Christ is setting the standard but I am not sure that is satisfactory. In John 5:14 Jesus Christ tells the one he had healed of paralysis:

Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you."

Thanks for your (& JofJ's) input.

Maybe what Christ was/is trying to tell us is that "perfection" is a goal for which we should strive rather than a state to which "saved sinners" such as you and I can actually attain in this life---sort of like the "high calling of God in Christ Jesus" that Paul mentions in Philippians 3:14.

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

As to what Jesus told the crippled man to do as recorded in John 5:14 (and also the adultrous woman in John 8:11), it's my understanding that both verbs translated (at least in the KJV) "sin" might better be translated some like, "stop practicing sin."

At least that's how Moody Bible Institute's late Kenneth Wuest's The New Testament: An Expanded Translation seems to be telling its readers.

Anyone else care to wade in on "perfect" as found in Matthew 5:48? :type:

 

[OldRegular]

Thanks for your (& JofJ's) input.

Maybe what Christ was/is trying to tell us is that "perfection" is a goal for which we should strive rather than a state to which "saved sinners" such as you and I can actually attain in this life---sort of like the "high calling of God in Christ Jesus" that Paul mentions in Philippians 3:14.

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

As to what Jesus told the crippled man to do as recorded in John 5:14 (and also the adultrous woman in John 8:11), it's my understanding that both verbs translated (at least in the KJV) "sin" might better be translated some like, "stop practicing sin."

At least that's how Moody Bible Institute's late Kenneth Wuest's The New Testament: An Expanded Translation seems to be telling its readers.

Anyone else care to wade in on "perfect" as found in Matthew 5:48? :type:

I have seen that interpretation applied to 1 John 3:6-9 also. But??????????????

I believe some of the Pentecostal groups teach that Christians can reach a state of sinless perfection on earth!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Gonna list some ingenuity by OR: (about why "Philosophy" doesn't matter)

It should be noted that none of those espousing the superior virtues of philosophy are philosophers by profession. It follows then, using logic, that they are simply engaged in the vagaries of philosophy!:laugh::laugh:

<<----stupid laugh emotes.
Actually, no. Nothing follows from that singular premise whatsoever...no conclusion on earth may be deduced from only one single premise...an inferrence might be made... such as when someone says: "of 500 crows observed all of them were black....) <--- oh, but I am sure you already know this, but not a deduction. You cannot play with the term "it follows, logically"...like you do. You are simply provably wrong.

You may "google" the difference between deductions and inferrences at your convenience.

OR, readers, actually threw out an argument which went this way: (and please pay attention)

Premise 1:

No one espousing the superior virtues of philosophy are philosophers by profession

Conclusion: (apparently)

It follows then, using logic, that they are simply engaged in the vagaries of philosophy

OH....and make sure to add the ill-informed and obnoxious :laugh::laugh: Quotes.....

Now proceed to claim that you are capable of "thinking logically"....
Which is as I have shown every single person who ever reads this thread to be provably wrong...

I am not into philosophy though I do believe I can reason logically.

NO....OR....you can't...you simply can't. and as JoJ has said...It all comes from God, and God never gave it to you. Yours is a self-contradictory set of statements which are provably false...and yet, if one demonstrates self-contradiction to JoJ....he also will take his ball and go home...only, you NEVER take your ball and go home...you just continue to make embarrassingly illogical statements, as I have proved (inescapably) above.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

John, no one thinks of you as the enemy, it is a debate and simply, you are the one making this personal by whining about others being too personal. Oldregular, (big breath-exhale long and hard) …nevermind!

First, I wasn’t going to get back into this thread because this “personal” thing with you is pretty much unavoidable if one wants to engage in an argument to which you disagree on the conclusion.

John, “if” your grandpa, a great man that I admire from what I have read of him, had a habit of avoiding facts or even issues claiming its gotten to personal, well maybe you followed in his footsteps in that regard also, so don’t bother “Appealing to Authority” that you must be justified to accuse others of being too personal and using that excuse to back out of the debate. This far from the first time I’ve seen you resort to these fallacious claims when the tension a debate becomes too intense by your measure. Now, “personally” since that is the subject now, I think you you’d do well to leather up man because its apparent to me, and I imagine HoS as well, that when a debate is not going your way you begin to start rabbit holing and if anything are claiming to have become offended once again because others, with philosophical skill designed to draw out the truth, as HoS given has an example of, are setting traps to put an end to those tactics and that seems to be too “offensive” to you also...(

As for your: “OH! he must have been offended because he’s gotten too personal and I don’t participate with people who surpass my standards” rhetorical judgment claims about your opponent’s character (I “personally” believe) you rely on that tactic far too often in a debate which you are not getting your way. Maybe you should consider the problem is that you can’t handle the heat you feel when you are being told your wrong and you begin taking it personal.

Concerning Col 2:8 I addressed that very thoroughly and summed it up in post #107 and ALL I got for my efforts – - - are your Critical Thinking Skills in logical debate ready for this??? Is an “Ad Hominem attack” for my efforts! Yes! You ignored all the questions in the argument, all the issues and claims I brought forth pertaining to issue of bringing Col 2:8 up and thought to simply relied on a single fallacious attack toward the man (BTW, now seem to be claiming victory on that issue for lack of perfection in exegesis skills to your liking and are using a “Perfectionist Fallacy” on that) ...back to the point Sir, even if it were true that I was being “personal” or too personal, it is still a fallacious debate tactic you have resorted to on this issue and if you had a clue of what HoS and I have been trying to say to you about the importance philosophy, edify you on as a matter of fact, …and THAT if you weren’t ignorant (there’s that dreaded “offensive” word again!) it would be rigging in as clear as a bell that your debate skills are NOT geared toward drawing out the truth in an argument BECAUSE of your lack of understand the important philosophical skills which you have demonstrated over and over in this tread and to which we have been trying to explain to you!

On a separate note: “Personally”, I believe a better understanding of philosophical skills would be of tremendous help to you in Japan because they would enable you to be better equipped to draw out the truth from within the words of men while you present the Gospel there.

BTW, sorry I don’t seem to be able to give you a definition of “philosophy” that I think could get around your “Semantic Ambiguity Fallacy” tactics on the phrase but that in no way discards the importance of the philosophical skills we have been trying to explain to you and which the first chapter in the Basic Logic/Critical Thinking Skills college textbook that I posted begins to cover. We could probably spend a whole tread playing the rabbit game of defining philosophy to John’s liking and while trying to “trap” him into accepting one, but…that’s not issue we have been trying to get at. We were trying emphasize the importance of using philosophical skills for drawing out the truth in debate.


…End of the “personal” debate for me! I'm going to return the prayers for you and may God blees you.

Not having been on this board as long as you have...I think you may be on to something.....

If I am debating someone...and I then outright tell them that I have "trapped" them into self-contradiction...is it then not kinda lame to say something like:

"Well...if your Philosophy taught you how to "trap" other Christians...then, I don't want any part of it...." <--------------- When their entire point was that they didn't want any "part of it" to begin with?????

Hey........JoJ...You were already debating about how you didn't "want any part of it" before....did we have something LOSE HERE?????? Is that how you prove your points?
Step 1.)
Randomly invoke some personage called "grandpa"

Step 2.)
Claim that this Almighty and flawless "grandpa" personage taught you the inisputable fact that when one openly calls you on self-contradiction....that you should go home...because they are too "personal"....

Step 3.)
Walk away un-scathed


Guess what...I have a grandpa too actually, two of them, in fact...
<-----this makes me question the biological possibility of your having only the singular "grandpa" that you appear to have.

And He told ME....that when your opponent in a debate has contradicted himself several times in that same debate.
"Draw blood, boy....Draw blood....Let him know you have caught him contradicting himself...and go for the jugular."

Hey...my grampa and his loving wife named: "gram-gram" might have been a contentious person...but he was smart..........And my "Grandpa" was just as big as your "Grandpa"....So...what, then is your argument????

John of Japan....Serious question...Did you not want "any part" of "Philosophy" prior to your debating with us that "Western Philosophy" was useless...or do you only NOW want no part of it if we use it to "trap" you...?
Just askin' :saint:
Tactic worked on me...thank God Benjamin didn't fall for it. He was right.

My "Granpa" also told me that "Hitler was the chancellor of Germany"....I then caught wind that there was this "Angela Merkel" person, and I no longer knew what to think............I assume that I still don't, since I have no wisdom whatsoever or knowledge that didn't come from my own grandfather....