145 replies to this topic

[TMPikachu]

I don't see how Christianity fits into his talk. He just described how Chinese were such swell folk to one another.

I think he's hyped up by the exoticism though, greener grass and all.





Chinese religion... I think it would be not having one. While Europeans were centered around the Church and the Arabs followed their Imams (I think that is what they are called?) and Hindu's organized by their Brahmin, Chinese have carried on following mortal men, government officials and the Emperor and such. Even things that could be called religion, such as ancestor worship, Daoism, or how Buddhism was practiced, it seemed more personal than with, say Judaism where that tribe was specifically the chosen people, or with Christianity, where the head of Religious affairs, the Pope, also had much political power.

I am over generalizing, yeah, very much. I hope the feeling of my ideas came across though.

Edited by TMPikachu, 20 October 2005 - 06:12 PM.

[somechineseperson]

True, he didn't say anything about Christianity and Confucianism in that, but I never said he did. He commented about that elsewhere. I simply brought up a (what I think is rather interesting) piece of European commentary about ancient China.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Previously you opposed somechineseperson for claiming that Dao is the same as the Christian God. Such a view might indeed be seeing the East through the Western lense. But you're doing the same thing in opposite -- you're interpreting other religions through a Chinese construct. This is a glaring double standard.

Sorry, but I don't see any double standard, if people want to ask me what is religion, I would tell them what a religion is in the western definition of religion. But if they ask me what the original Daoism mean I will categorize things according to the original definition of Daoism. And Buddhism certainly fit here and so would Christian monks.

In China someone practicing Dao refer to the monks, not the ordinary people.

[MengTzu]

Sorry, but I don't see any double standard, if people want to ask me what is religion, I would tell them what a religion is in the western definition of religion. But if they ask me what the original Daoism mean I will categorize things according to the original definition of Daoism. And Buddhism certainly fit here and so would Christian monks.

In China someone practicing Dao refer to the monks, not the ordinary people.

In so far as Dao means the ultimate truth, it makes sense. But God also means ultimate truth in the Western terminology, hence why is it is ethnocentric to say that Dao is God, but not ethnocentric if one say that every religion cultivate Dao? Dao, like God, is a word engrained in a particular cultural context. You either permit that both God and Dao are universal constructs or both are not.

Note: it is pointless to try to find the etymology of God and show that it didn't originally meant ultimate truth, because it has become the word that means that in at least the dominant Theology of the West (though God = ultimate truth is not the unanimous definition in the West.)

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

In so far as Dao means the ultimate truth, it makes sense. But God also means ultimate truth in the Western terminology, hence why is it is ethnocentric to say that Dao is God, but not ethnocentric if one say that every religion cultivate Dao? Dao, like God, is a word engrained in a particular cultural context. You either permit that both God and Dao are universal constructs or both are not.

Note: it is pointless to try to find the etymology of God and show that it didn't originally meant ultimate truth, because it has become the word that means that in at least the dominant Theology of the West (though God = ultimate truth is not the unanimous definition in the West.)

I didn't say every religion cultivated Dao, reread my post.
Dao isn't in any sense engrained in a cultural context, it is a very simple terminology literally meaning the way. Don't make it more mysterious than what it suppose to be. A little later, practicing Dao start to mean "metaphysical" cultivation. And I see no reason why Christian monks doesn't fit in here. If we want to take Dao in the very original sense, anybody that does anything are Daoists. Christians are no exceptions.
But that doesn't work the other way around, since the Christian God is very well defined. And Dao is clearly not God. Its not even ethnocentricity, its a simple logical fallacy to even connect them.

[MengTzu]

I didn't say every religion cultivated Dao, reread my post.
Dao isn't in any sense engrained in a cultural context, it is a very simple terminology literally meaning the way. Don't make it more mysterious than what it suppose to be. A little later, practicing Dao start to mean "metaphysical" cultivation. And I see no reason why Christian monks doesn't fit in here.

You said Christianity and Buddhism practice the Dao. The former especially seems like a big stretch if we are keeping the cultural background in context. Christian monks' cultivation share similarities with that of various forms of mysticism around the world, and yet God also shares similarities with Dao -- the question is where do you draw the line? How much difference and similarity do we need to consider before we identify trans-cultural concepts?

If we want to take Dao in the very original sense, anybody that does anything are Daoists. Christians are no exceptions.

But in the same way some Christians believe that all the world are in reality honoring God without knowing it (see St. Paul's sermon about the "unkwown God"), and in the same way that (some?) Muslims say that everyone is born a Muslim, and conversion to Islam is really reversion. Just because Daoism defines itself in universal terms, doesn't mean it therefore transcends its cultural context. Sometimes universal terms that are not especially particular to a culture can, when used by a culture to describe another, carry with it the self-reflection of the culture that the terms are from. I'm not suggesting absolute incommensurability -- that is left to everyone's judgement. I'm simply saying that you employed a double standard without even realizing it.

But that doesn't work the other way around, since the Christian God is very well defined. And Dao is clearly not God. Its not even ethnocentricity, its a simple logical fallacy to even connect them.

But Christian mysticism is also heavily defined, and it has tremendous differences from Daoist cultivation. I suggest reading these great saints: St. Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Teresa of Avila. These are some examples of Christian mysticism.

The underlying problem, as noted before, is where does one draw the line. But there is yet another problem: when an uninformed student approach a foreign culture through the aid of a culture familiar to himself, and he learns, for example, that Dao is God, or vice versa, he might begin to draw similarities that really don't exist between them.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

You said Christianity and Buddhism practice the Dao. The former especially seems like a big stretch if we are keeping the cultural background in context. Christian monks' cultivation share similarities with that of various forms of mysticism around the world, and yet God also shares similarities with Dao -- the question is where do you draw the line? How much difference and similarity do we need to consider before we identify trans-cultural concepts?

The whole concept of Dao, Men Tzu, is that you don't draw a line whatsoever. Westerners now don't even know what category they should put the Dao De Jing under. The writer of Lao Zi might have very well tried to write a book that is not fit into any specific category. The Daoist cannons is very well meant to include, religion, philosophy, politics, divinition, mythology, science and history all in one. Its like an encyclopedia.

But in the same way some Christians believe that all the world are in reality honoring God without knowing it (see St. Paul's sermon about the "unkwown God"), and in the same way that (some?) Muslims say that everyone is born a Muslim, and conversion to Islam is really reversion.

Thats irrelevant, since we are defining whats religious, God is not what we are discussing. And not everyone is religious or Christian, but everyone is a daoist. The fact is the very definition of "honoring God" puts God in a definition of personization and is not what Dao is. Dao is abstract, its a path not an entity. It simply means doing. And there is no culture that lacks that term.


"Just because Daoism defines itself in universal terms, doesn't mean it therefore transcends its cultural context."

There is nothing cultural about it, I don't know why you want to make it cultural, it just mean the way. In Japanese you have the way of making flowers, the way of kombat(karate), the way of just about everything. Its bluntly put it, a job. And Westerners do understand what a way is.


"Sometimes universal terms that are not especially particular to a culture can, when used by a culture to describe another, carry with it the self-reflection of the culture that the terms are from. I'm not suggesting absolute incommensurability -- that is left to everyone's judgement. I'm simply saying that you employed a double standard without even realizing it"

I didn't You try to do that. Later Daoism can be religious, but all religion and everything else can be considered Daoists. You don't need cultural context for that, its simple definition translation.

But Christian mysticism is also heavily defined, and it has tremendous differences from Daoist cultivation. I suggest reading these great saints: St. Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Teresa of Avila. These are some examples of Christian mysticism.

The underlying problem, as noted before, is where does one draw the line. But there is yet another problem: when an uninformed student approach a foreign culture through the aid of a culture familiar to himself, and he learns, for example, that Dao is God, or vice versa, he might begin to draw similarities that really don't exist between them.

And what is your so called Daoist cultivation? Again, there is no one single set of Daoist cultivation, they can differ from each other as much as Christian mysticism is to one branch of Dao. Thus Dao can include Christianity since Dao is not a restricted term but application of simply doing something cultivating or not.

[MengTzu]

The whole concept of Dao, Men Tzu, is that you don't draw a line whatsoever. Westerners now don't even know what category they should put the Dao De Jing under. The writer of Lao Zi might have very well tried to write a book that is not fit into any specific category. The Daoist cannons is very well meant to include, religion, philosophy, politics, divinition, mythology, science and history all in one. Its like an encyclopedia.

I understand that. The problem is that this is Daoists' own definition for Dao. In like manner the Christians also see Christianity as the universal way, and some Christians would opine that even non-Christians are in some way worshipping the same God. To them, Christianity also has no line or boundary, since God is the ultimate truth of all of reality.

Thats irrelevant, since we are defining whats religious, God is not what we are discussing. And not everyone is religious or Christian, but everyone is a daoist. The fact is the very definition of "honoring God" puts God in a definition of personization and is not what Dao is. Dao is abstract, its a path not an entity. It simply means doing. And there is no culture that lacks that term.

In like manner (some?) Muslims might argue that everyone is a Muslim. You seem to misunderstand the idea of "honoring God" as viewed from Christianity. To the Theologians, God is not particular. In Natural Theology (which originates out of Western, Christian thought) this point is even more magnified -- in Natural Theology, God is honored by various non-Christians in their own ways. Matteo Ricci held somewhat of a Natural Theological point of view and concluded that the Chinese Confucian rites are in fact honoring the same ultimate truth as the Christians. Some Natural Theologians would suggest that the same God is honored under the veil of diversity of cultures.

There is nothing cultural about it, I don't know why you want to make it cultural, it just mean the way. In Japanese you have the way of making flowers, the way of kombat(karate), the way of just about everything. Its bluntly put it, a job. And Westerners do understand what a way is.

You're still missing the point. My point is that when some Christians say that God is the same as Tian or Dao, they mean precisely what you insist regarding Dao -- that God is extra-cultural, because he, like your concept of Dao, is simply the truth, or the way, and is evident in nature without any dependence of culture.

I didn't You try to do that. Later Daoism can be religious, but all religion and everything else can be considered Daoists. You don't need cultural context for that, its simple definition translation.

Again, in the Christian view, God is simply by definition the ultimate truth outside of any cultural context.

And what is your so called Daoist cultivation? Again, there is no one single set of Daoist cultivation, they can differ from each other as much as Christian mysticism is to one branch of Dao. Thus Dao can include Christianity since Dao is not a restricted term but application of simply doing something cultivating or not.

Neither is there a single set of Christian cultivation. Nonetheless, historically, Daoist cultivation has seen particular cultural forms, just as Christianity has (of course, some Christians, such as Catholics, insist that certain forms are Divinely inspired and not cultural. The idea of particular revealed forms are also present in Daoism.) Analogous to your definition of Dao, God is also said by Christians to be "simply the truth."

The point comes back to this: while you accept the Daoist universal definition for Dao (and aptly so within the thought of Daoism,) you deny the Christians own right of treating God is universal -- by simple definition, to borrow from your logic, God is not bound by any culture at all. While a Daoist can claim that everyone practices the Dao without calling it the same name, a Christian can also claim that everyone is honoring God in some way without knowing that they are honoring the same God. The universalist logic is present in both, hence this is why I said that you're employing a double standard when you agrees with one and does not agree with the other. In both instances the idea of a basic universal definition is used. It is a double standard to treat them non-equivalently.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"I understand that. The problem is that this is Daoists' own definition for Dao. In like manner the Christians also see Christianity as the universal way, and some Christians would opine that even non-Christians are in some way worshipping the same God. To them, Christianity also has no line or boundary, since God is the ultimate truth of all of reality."

But they aren't. Thats the problem, Daoists don't worship the God. The major difference here is that Chrsitians are setting a objected goal while the Dao in Daoism doesn't limit itself to religion.
Its a flaw to say that Daoism is a form of religion, it would be more correct to say that religion is a form of Daoism.


"In like manner (some?) Muslims might argue that everyone is a Muslim. You seem to misunderstand the idea of "honoring God" as viewed from Christianity. To the Theologians, God is not particular. In Natural Theology (which originates out of Western, Christian thought) this point is even more magnified -- in Natural Theology, God is honored by various non-Christians in their own ways. Matteo Ricci held somewhat of a Natural Theological point of view and concluded that the Chinese Confucian rites are in fact honoring the same ultimate truth as the Christians. Some Natural Theologians would suggest that the same God is honored under the veil of diversity of cultures."

Except that these theologists do not think Daoists and Buddhists are worshippong that God which is where your flaw lies, it is not inclusive. In Daoism, even Satan worship is practicing the Dao. Doing nothing is also Dao, while I doubt Christians contend that mud also worship God, since they already defined God as something to be worshipped.


"You're still missing the point. My point is that when some Christians say that God is the same as Tian or Dao, they mean precisely what you insist regarding Dao -- that God is extra-cultural, because he, like your concept of Dao, is simply the truth, or the way, and is evident in nature without any dependence of culture."

But there is the problem, they describe God as "he" or "it" and thats personizing it. If they really think God is just a practice they would state, it but God clearly doesn't mean a practice. The very fact that they tend to describe God and practice Christianity shows that they are defining God and a goal.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"Neither is there a single set of Christian cultivation. Nonetheless, historically, Daoist cultivation has seen particular cultural forms, just as Christianity has (of course, some Christians, such as Catholics, insist that certain forms are Divinely inspired and not cultural. The idea of particular revealed forms are also present in Daoism.) Analogous to your definition of Dao, God is also said by Christians to be "simply the truth.""

Exactly, so Christians are Daoists, whats wrong with the statement?,If God is simply defined as the truth without personification, I never had any disagreement over it, but somehow I doubt thats what the older Christians defined it as, even if they considered it infinite they still has the sense of describing him as a entity. And if you are talking about modern form of Christianity, then they are not really the original ones. But then again, I doubt these people are Christians since you the very name of that religions has to do with Christ while you don't have to believe in LAo Zi o be Daoist. And so far you've done nothing to prove me wrong, because I only refuted what SomeChinese PErson's definition of God is, not "others". And he is certainly describing God as something with intelligence. Thus I missed the "ironic part" you are speaking of.



"The point comes back to this: while you accept the Daoist universal definition for Dao (and aptly so within the thought of Daoism,) you deny the Christians own right of treating God is universal -- by simple definition, to borrow from your logic, God is not bound by any culture at all. ""

Wrong, I never denied any of their right, reread my post, I told I was proving his comments wrong not ALL Christians, and do tell me which branch of Christianity does not need Jesus to be called Christians? Find me one and your argument would fit.
The very ironic part about Christianity is that it already defined the religion, and certainly no one would call them selve Christians if they don't believe in Christ, stop making up your own definitions for argument's sake.



"While a Daoist can claim that everyone practices the Dao without calling it the same name, a Christian can also claim that everyone is honoring God in some way without knowing that they are honoring the same God. The universalist logic is present in both, hence this is why I said that you're employing a double standard when you agrees with one and does not agree with the other. In both instances the idea of a basic universal definition is used. It is a double standard to treat them non-equivalently."

Then find me a Christian that doesn't believe in Christ, if they don't they are not Christians. You or they, can create your own meaning of Christianity, and I could create my own meaning of athiesm,the fact is, the accepted definition of Christianity isn't what you are saying and thats a fact.

[MengTzu]

From the get go, I must put one of your premises to question: why is it that, when the ultimate truth is described as personal, it is no longer universal truth? Whether the truth is "personalified" has no relation to whether the truth is or isn't extra-cultural. With this said, let's continue:

Exactly, so Christians are Daoists, whats wrong with the statement?,If God is simply defined as the truth without personification, I never had any disagreement over it, but somehow I doubt thats what the older Christians defined it as, even if they considered it infinite they still has the sense of describing him as a entity.

That's exactly the point then. For one thing, somechineseperson isn't one of the older Christians. (In fact, his Theism doesn't even necessitate a Christian God.) For another thing, even "older Christians" (I'm talking about St. Paul and early Church fathers) believe that God is the ultimate truth. This is seen in the Letter to the Romans. Some early Church fathers and Scholastics believed that God is evident in different cultures, such as in pagan Greek philosophy. As to "personalification" -- the Christians believe that the ultimate truth IS personal, and that personalification doesn't make God any less extra-cultural. I recommend dotrincal readings, such as the Catholic Catechism, that give clear explanations of this.

There is some basic Christian concept that we need to clarify as well. "Christ" is a particular revelation of the Divine Godhead. But there is the Son and there is the historical Christ -- the Divine Son is universal and extra-cultural. This is somewhat analogous to the Mahayana Buddhist idea that Buddha has an universal form as ultimate truth, as well as a physical form as a particular historican figure.

But then again, I doubt these people are Christians since you the very name of that religions has to do with Christ while you don't have to believe in LAo Zi o be Daoist. And so far you've done nothing to prove me wrong, because I only refuted what SomeChinese PErson's definition of God is, not "others". And he is certainly describing God as something with intelligence.

Just because the Christians believe that the ultimate truth has intelligence doesn't mean that they don't also believe that this ulimate truth is universal.

As to citations to prove my point, again, I draw your attention to the Letter to the Romans, the Patristics, and the Scholastics. To avoid too long a post with a lot of quotes, I'm not gonna cite the quotes here but instead invite you to study them.

Wrong, I never denied any of their right, reread my post, I told I was proving his comments wrong not ALL Christians, and do tell me which branch of Christianity does not need Jesus to be called Christians?

I never said that there is a branch of Christianity that doesn't need Jesus to be Christians. I have no idea why you interpret my posts to say that. I think we are talking about two very different things here. Let me try to sort it out:

For some reason you seem to insist that ultimate truth cannot be a person. Whether this is philosophically correct (it might be) is besides the point: the point is that many Christians believe that ultimate truth is personal, and our point here is what they believe, not what is true. In other words, even if the Christians are mistaken with their belief, many of them believe that God is ultimate truth in person and is extra-cultural.

The very ironic part about Christianity is that it already defined the religion, and certainly no one would call them selve Christians if they don't believe in Christ, stop making up your own definitions for argument's sake.

I never said that there is a Christian who doesn't believe in Christ. Where on earth did I say that? You have utterly and completely misread my posts. What I said instead is that Christians believe God to be extra-cultural ultimate truth -- that is at the same time personal. Whether or not it is possible for the truth to be personal is a different question: the issue at hand is what Christians believe. To them, there is no contradiction between ultimate truth and persons. Many of them also believe that God is extra-cultural: that the Father created all reality, that Christ the Son is found in all things (such as in Old Testament types and in nature,) and that the Holy Spirit is Giver of life to all things. The Trinity manifests Divinity through various cultures and forms. Some Christians believe that one can honor Christ without expressly and knowingly doing so -- that is, one can honor Christ without calling the truth he honors the name "Christ." This is not some obscure idea, but a well known (and debatable) concept among informed Theologians, as I can tell you from five years of Theological studies. This idea is known in the Catholic Theology as implicit faith: http://www.catholic....91/9111chap.asp

Then find me a Christian that doesn't believe in Christ, if they don't they are not Christians. You or they, can create your own meaning of Christianity, and I could create my own meaning of athiesm,the fact is, the accepted definition of Christianity isn't what you are saying and thats a fact.

I don't want to keep repeating myself, so I'm gonna say this once and for all: I did not say that there are Christians who don't believe in Christ. Therefore you're asking for irrelevant evidence: I did not say that there are Christians who don't believe in Christ hence EXAMPLES OF CHRISTIANS WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN CHRIST HAS NO RELEVANCE AT ALL TO WHAT I'M SAYING. I believe I have made adequate explanation regarding this. I don't want to make a comment about what you know because I can't read your mind, but simply from what you wrote you don't seem to understand the subtlety of Christian Theology. Please refer to the various sources cited above, and if you need more specific quotes from Scriptures, Church documents, Patristics, Scholastics, and other writings, let me know.

If you're going to put words into my mouth, and make false accusations that I'm "making up definitions for argument's sake," I can no longer honor this debate with any further reply. Once again, I never said that belief in Christ is not a pre-requisite for a person to be Christian. All I said was that Christians believe God to be ultimate truth and extra-cultural, but I didn't say they believe him to be impersonal. To borrow from your own words: read what I wrote. And don't add words to what I wrote.

In all fairness I don't think you intentionally misinterpreted me: the problem really seems to be that you are not familiar with the Theological discourse of the Christians. Keep in mind, again, this discourse isn't only found in some little known, overly rationalistic Christianity, but can be found in any level of Christian thought in any time period, whether you find it in Scriptures (Letter to the Romans,) hymns (St. Francis of Assisi's Canticle of the Sun), or Theological writings (St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica).

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

That's exactly the point then. For one thing, somechineseperson isn't one of the older Christians. (In fact, his Theism doesn't even necessitate a Christian God.) For another thing, even "older Christians" (I'm talking about St. Paul and early Church fathers) believe that God is the ultimate truth. This is seen in the Letter to the Romans. Some early Church fathers and Scholastics believed that God is evident in different cultures, such as in pagan Greek philosophy. As to "personalification" -- the Christians believe that the ultimate truth IS personal, and that personalification doesn't make God any less extra-cultural. I recommend dotrincal readings, such as the Catholic Catechism, that give clear explanations of this.

There is some basic Christian concept that we need to clarify as well. "Christ" is a particular revelation of the Divine Godhead. But there is the Son and there is the historical Christ -- the Divine Son is universal and extra-cultural. This is somewhat analogous to the Mahayana Buddhist idea that Buddha has an universal form as ultimate truth, as well as a physical form as a particular historican figure.

That doesn't really matter, since I didn't talk about Christians other than him.
You still are confused about what I'm trying to get through, I don't care what the God they speak of is. I merely said they are Daoists, and so far you haven't proved that wrong. I didn't say whether their God is infinite or not, but because its personal, its different from Dao. What are you trying to tell me?

Just because the Christians believe that the ultimate truth has intelligence doesn't mean that they don't also believe that this ulimate truth is universal.

As to citations to prove my point, again, I draw your attention to the Letter to the Romans, the Patristics, and the Scholastics. To avoid too long a post with a lot of quotes, I'm not gonna cite the quotes here but instead invite you to study them.

I didn't say they did. You put it in my mouth.
Your original accusation of me is to use Chinese terms and apply it on the West and saying Dao isn't God. The thing, is Daoists do apply to Christians, but the term God is clearly not Dao, I'm stressing on the terminology, not whatever they believe in.

I never said that there is a branch of Christianity that doesn't need Jesus to be Christians. I have no idea why you interpret my posts to say that. I think we are talking about two very different things here. Let me try to sort it out:

For some reason you seem to insist that ultimate truth cannot be a person. Whether this is philosophically correct (it might be) is besides the point: the point is that many Christians believe that ultimate truth is personal, and our point here is what they believe, not what is true. In other words, even if the Christians are mistaken with their belief, many of them believe that God is ultimate truth in person and is extra-cultural.

And I have no idea what your point is since so far your accusations are simply groundless. Christians do fit into Daoists. And Dao is not God by the terminology that it is implied. If you want to play infinite game, I can say that anything I believe in is inifinite. But the term Dao is clearly implying a different meaning than the personized form of God. Daoists do have an equivalen of God and thats Tien Di.

I never said that there is a Christian who doesn't believe in Christ. Where on earth did I say that? You have utterly and completely misread my posts. What I said instead is that Christians believe God to be extra-cultural ultimate truth -- that is at the same time personal. Whether or not it is possible for the truth to be personal is a different question: the issue at hand is what Christians believe. To them, there is no contradiction between ultimate truth and persons. Many of them also believe that God is extra-cultural: that the Father created all reality, that Christ the Son is found in all things (such as in Old Testament types and in nature,) and that the Holy Spirit is Giver of life to all things. The Trinity manifests Divinity through various cultures and forms. Some Christians believe that one can honor Christ without expressly and knowingly doing so -- that is, one can honor Christ without calling the truth he honors the name "Christ." This is not some obscure idea, but a well known (and debatable) concept among informed Theologians, as I can tell you from five years of Theological studies. This idea is known in the Catholic Theology as implicit faith: http://www.catholic....91/9111chap.asp

As you are utterly misinterpreting mine, I found no other mean to even reply since you still haven't told me what Christians do doesn't fit in the category of Daoists.
But I CAN tell you that the term Dao is not the same as that of God in the terminology sense even if God is suppose to be infinite. God is personal, Dao isn't. Thats the difference. And thats all I was talking about. I don't care about the rest.

I don't want to keep repeating myself, so I'm gonna say this once and for all: I did not say that there are Christians who don't believe in Christ. Therefore you're asking for irrelevant evidence: I did not say that there are Christians who don't believe in Christ hence EXAMPLES OF CHRISTIANS WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN CHRIST HAS NO RELEVANCE AT ALL TO WHAT I'M SAYING. I believe I have made adequate explanation regarding this. I don't want to make a comment about what you know because I can't read your mind, but simply from what you wrote you don't seem to understand the subtlety of Christian Theology. Please refer to the various sources cited above, and if you need more specific quotes from Scriptures, Church documents, Patristics, Scholastics, and other writings, let me know.

If you're going to put words into my mouth, and make false accusations that I'm "making up definitions for argument's sake," I can no longer honor this debate with any further reply. Once again, I never said that belief in Christ is not a pre-requisite for a person to be Christian. All I said was that Christians believe God to be ultimate truth and extra-cultural, but I didn't say they believe him to be impersonal. To borrow from your own words: read what I wrote. And don't add words to what I wrote.

In all fairness I don't think you intentionally misinterpreted me: the problem really seems to be that you are not familiar with the Theological discourse of the Christians. Keep in mind, again, this discourse isn't only found in some little known, overly rationalistic Christianity, but can be found in any level of Christian thought in any time period, whether you find it in Scriptures (Letter to the Romans,) hymns (St. Francis of Assisi's Canticle of the Sun), or Theological writings (St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica).

Its not really my problem of Christian theology but your misinterpretation of my point to begin with. I speak in terminology, not their indication, and Dao is clearly a different concept than God. Thus they are different. But A Christian still fit under the terminology of Daoists since Daoists simply mean someone that takes a path whatever it might be.

For some reason you seem to insist that ultimate truth cannot be a person. Whether this is philosophically correct (it might be) is besides the point: the point is that many Christians believe that ultimate truth is personal, and our point here is what they believe, not what is true. In other words, even if the Christians are mistaken with their belief, many of them believe that God is ultimate truth in person and is extra-cultural.

I didn't insist that at all. You are accusing me of that on groundless terms. I merely said that God is personal, the CONCEPT is different from Dao. And that would mean God is NOT Dao. You can look that up in a dictionary if you like. Everything is Everything, Dao doesn't mean Everything. Even if thats what Dao is. I am human, that doesn't mean "I" and human is the same thing. Thats where you are confused at in this argument.

[MengTzu]

That doesn't really matter, since I didn't talk about Christians other than him.
You still are confused about what I'm trying to get through, I don't care what the God they speak of is. I merely said they are Daoists, and so far you haven't proved that wrong. I didn't say whether their God is infinite or not, but because its personal, its different from Dao. What are you trying to tell me?
I didn't say they did. You put it in my mouth.

Seems like we are having some major communication issues. So let me do my part to sort out what I'm trying to say here so we don't go into a loop of mutual misinterpretation.

1) I'm not trying to prove that Christians are not Daoists. Hence your saying, "I merely said they are Daoists, and so far you haven't proved that wrong," is irrelevant to my argument. I'm not trying to establish that.

More explanation to follow.

Your original accusation of me is to use Chinese terms and apply it on the West and saying Dao isn't God. The thing, is Daoists do apply to Christians, but the term God is clearly not Dao, I'm stressing on the terminology, not whatever they believe in.

It is about terminology. I'm talking about the definition of God for the Christians (and for the Natural Theologians. In fact our focus here shouldn't be the Christians per se, but on particularly Natural Theology, which is what somechineseperson proposing.) That is a terminology issue. They use the term God to mean ultimate truth, much like you use the word Daoism to simply mean "practicing something."

And I have no idea what your point is since so far your accusations are simply groundless. Christians do fit into Daoists. And Dao is not God by the terminology that it is implied. If you want to play infinite game, I can say that anything I believe in is inifinite. But the term Dao is clearly implying a different meaning than the personized form of God. Daoists do have an equivalen of God and thats Tien Di.

But what the Natural Theologians mean by God is ultimate truth. Your Daoist perspective seems to operate on a different premise here (it's not all about terminology, after all,) that ultimate truth can't be personal. That is not the premise for Natural Theologians when they use the term "God." Perhaps the issue here is that you focus on the difference and somechineseperson focuses on the similarity, but that is something to take into account -- to him, the ultimate truth being personal is taken for granted, but for you, the ultimate truth being personal is extremely different from the ultimate truth.

As you are utterly misinterpreting mine, I found no other mean to even reply since you still haven't told me what Christians do doesn't fit in the category of Daoists.

Please refer to the beginning of this post: I don't care if Christians fit into the category of Daoists. That wasn't my point. My argument is whether you had a double standard or not.

The rest of your post doesn't deal with anything substantially new other than a repetitive complaint about how I misinterpreted you, so I will stop here. In all fairness, I also complained that you misinterpreted me. I believe we should both take a moment to reflect how is it possible that we both feel the other person is "utterly" misinterpreting. And to be honest, the only thing I said you're misinterpreting is when you accused me of saying Christians don't have to believe in Christ -- I've never suggested this, and for some reason half of your post two posts ago was about this (speak of strawmanizing!) The source of our mutual misinterpretation is perhaps that we each have so much to say we can't hear the other person. I hope I did my part to try to listen and explain myself.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Seems like we are having some major communication issues. So let me do my part to sort out what I'm trying to say here so we don't go into a loop of mutual misinterpretation.

1) I'm not trying to prove that Christians are not Daoists. Hence your saying, "I merely said they are Daoists, and so far you haven't proved that wrong," is irrelevant to my argument. I'm not trying to establish that.

More explanation to follow.

Then state your problem

It is about terminology. I'm talking about the definition of God for the Christians (and for the Natural Theologians. In fact our focus here shouldn't be the Christians per se, but on particularly Natural Theology, which is what somechineseperson proposing.) That is a terminology issue. They use the term God to mean ultimate truth, much like you use the word Daoism to simply mean "practicing something."

I repeat, yoou assued me of viewing it from a Chinese standard, and so far you have failed to tell me how. Somechineseperson said God had intelligence and creates the world. And that is not what the Dao is. What is your problem with that statement?

But what the Natural Theologians mean by God is ultimate truth. Your Daoist perspective seems to operate on a different premise here (it's not all about terminology, after all,) that ultimate truth can't be personal. That is not the premise for Natural Theologians when they use the term "God." Perhaps the issue here is that you focus on the difference and somechineseperson focuses on the similarity, but that is something to take into account -- to him, the ultimate truth being personal is taken for granted, but for you, the ultimate truth being personal is extremely different from the ultimate truth.

No, read my lips; I did not say it. Show me my quote where I did because thats simple DISTORTION. My point is very straightfoward, the term Dao is different in meaning than God. Stop wasting your effort to prove they are the same because they are not. Chinese don't translate God to mean Dao, it uses other terms. This is a cultural difference. However, saying that Christians are Daoists is not, because there is nothing cultural about the term "way". It is universal. Substitute Dao with way and it would work in any literary translationg without misinterpretation. "I" don't use the word Dao, thats simple common sense, look it up in a dictionary.

But what the Natural Theologians mean by God is ultimate truth. Your Daoist perspective seems to operate on a different premise here (it's not all about terminology, after all,) that ultimate truth can't be personal. That is not the premise for Natural Theologians when they use the term "God." Perhaps the issue here is that you focus on the difference and somechineseperson focuses on the similarity, but that is something to take into account --.

Its not "my" daoist perspecitive. Its what Dao means in Chinese. Dao differs from God in that its not personal, and since you admitted that, there is no reason to force an argument to prove they are the same because they are not for the simple reason that one is personal and the other isn't. How anyone could even say Dao means God needs to learn simple Chinese grammar.

to him, the ultimate truth being personal is taken for granted, but for you, the ultimate truth being personal is extremely different from the ultimate truth.

No, You are totally missing the point. I don't care what the ultimate truth is. I only stated that the term Dao and God is different. Its terminology, don't make it more complicated than what it suppose to be. Religion is not what I am discussing. Since I don't think there is a ultimate truth.

The rest of your post doesn't deal with anything substantially new other than a repetitive complaint about how I misinterpreted you, so I will stop here.

That is the whole point of the discussion. Dao and God is different in terminology, but Daoists and someone practicing a way is not. So far you are still trapped into the God vs. Dao ultimate truth theory, I'm merely focusing on the terminology of what each means. What these people experienced is irrelevant, since the intended meaning is clearly different, other than both been everything, the very fact that the God is personal means its different to Dao.

[MengTzu]

Then state your problem

I already did several times: that you are using a double standard. That is the problem. I thought you already knew that, and were zealously defending yourself.

I repeat, yoou assued me of viewing it from a Chinese standard, and so far you have failed to tell me how.

Dao is a Chinese term, its meaning is in accord with Chinese definition. That is obviously a Chinese standard, isn't it?

My point is very straightfoward, the term Dao is different in meaning than God.

In like manner a Christian might deny that he is a Daoist because he's not "simply practicing." This is just another manifestation of your double standard:

1) Dao is the truth/way; God is truth (also the way; see John 14) in person; there is one extra trait, "being a person," hence God is not Dao.
2) Daoism is simply "doing something"; Christians simply "do something" and "cultivate metaphysically . hence Christians are Daoists, even though Christians do something extra other than just "do something" and cultivate metaphysically.

Christians don't simply "do something," there are other things in addition to the bare minimum of "doing something" or "metaphysical cultivation" (these are exacts words taken from your previous post, hence I'm not misinterpreting you here.) Then how is it that God, being the ultimate truth, is not the same as Dao because it has something extra (that God is personal,) where as Christian monks who also have something extra to "doing something" or "metaphysical cultivation" are Daoists? That is a double standard.

To make this easier: by definition Christians aren't people who "do something." I don't think I need to waste many more words at the obvious conclusion one should draw, operating with your premise: Christians aren't Daoists because by definition Christians are not people simply "doing something." Isn't this your reasoning after all, the reasoning of "straight forward" definition?

Stop wasting your effort to prove they are the same because they are not.

I wasn't and am not trying to prove that they are the same. I didn't waste any effort in that regard, because I wasn't trying to prove that at all. Have you not read my debate with somechineseperson? I debated with him when he identified God and Dao (also on the ground of ethnocentricism.) ALL that I've been trying to prove in THIS debate is that you are using a double standard. That is all.

Dao differs from God in that its not personal, and since you admitted that, there is no reason to force an argument to prove they are the same because they are not for the simple reason that one is personal and the other isn't.

It's true that description of God as personal is something extra to Dao (it wasn't said that Dao is impersonal or personal -- it just wasn't an issue. Some passages of Lao Tzi speak of Dao as though it has a will, some passages speak of it as having no partiality.) But in like manner Christianity is more than "doing something" or "metaphysical cultivation." This point is already made above, but let me repeat it here: this is a double standard that you identify two and not the other two.

As I said above, I do not believe (nor disbelieve) and don't try to prove that God is Dao (I debated somechineseperson when he said that.) I'm also not trying to prove that Christians aren't Daoists (again, they might or might not be.) I'm simply saying that you're operating on a similar premise as somechineseperson, that it is a double standard for you to say that his conclusion about God is wrong when your conclusion about Daoism is based on a very similar premise.