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).