Recently Sam the Steamroller argued the Bible was not reliable for the following reasons:

“The KJV of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England. There were no original texts to translate. There still aren't. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike. The King James translators used none of these manuscripts. None. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliament would approve. 21st century Christians (you...), believe the "word of God" is a book edited in the 17th century from 16th century translations from 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century..”

Surprisingly this statement against the reliability of textual transmission of the Bible is made up of a number of intertwined arguments and misrepresentations. To get at the heart of this we will need to untangle the intermixed arguments and assess them separately and determine if as a whole they make a compelling case against the reliability of the transmission of the Bible.

Argument 1

Overall this statement can be simplified in the following conditional syllogism:

• Major premise: “The King James Version is not reliable.”
• Minor premise: “The King James Version the Word of God (Bible).”
• Conclusion: “Therefore the Word of God (Bible) is not reliable.”

First the argument is logically invalid and is a strong defeater for the whole argument. Just because the KJV is not reliable does not mean that Word of God is not reliable. There are a multitude of translations of the word of God and it is a fallacy of composition to assume that because one translation is unreliable that they all are.

Separate from the invalid argument the major premise is falsifiable.

Yes there are known errors in the KJV translation of the Bible. We know there are minor errors because today we have over 5824 Greek manuscripts we can compare (New Testament alone). However, none of the errors effect any major Christian doctrine. Therefore the translation is reliable for Christian doctrine.

Argument 2 (implied and unstated)

• Major premise: “The King James Version is not reliable.”
• Minor premise: “New English translations are based on the King James Version.”
• Conclusion: “Therefore, new English translation are not reliable.”

While this syllogism is logically valid the premises are both false making the argument false.

I have shown in a previous statement why the major premise is false.

The minor premise is false because new translations are not based on the KJV they are based on the oldest most reliable manuscripts. For example the English Standard Version is based upon an entirely different Greek texts than the King James Version which is based primarily on the Textus Receptus.

Argument 3

“There were no original texts to translate.” In this statement there is the unstated presupposition that you have to have the original documents in order to have an accurate translation. We can turn this statement into the following conditional syllogism:

• Major premise: If you don’t have the original documents, you can’t make an accurate translation.
• Minor premise: We don’t have the original documents.
• Conclusion: Therefore, we don’t have an accurate translation.

It should be clear that just because we don’t have the original documents does not mean that we cannot have a reliable translation based on copies, provided that the copies are reliable.

Incorrect facts:

1.) “There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike.”

At last count there are over 5824 Greek New Testament manuscripts. There are over 10,000 New Testament manuscripts in other languages such as Coptic, Syriac, Latin and Arabic and an additional 10,000 manuscripts quoting passages from the New Testament. Many of the earliest Church fathers (such as Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp) quoted portions of the New Testament and we have their writings. From those writing we can reconstruct the entire New Testament. In fact only 2 books Jude and 2 John were not quoted before 100 AD after 100AD they are all quoted. These manuscripts equate to millions of pages of text. It is because we have so many manuscripts and sources that we can determine the differences and reconstruct the originals with a high degree of accuracy. In fact, the more manuscripts we have the more we can compare and contrast these manuscripts and the higher degree of accuracy.

2.) “…they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliament would approve.”

This statement is a circumstantial ad hominem. Attacking the translators by claiming they had vested interests is fallacious unless it can be showed that they had the bias and that that bias resulted in material mistranslations.

3.) “21st century Christians (you...), believe the "word of God" is a book edited in the 17th century from 16th century translations from 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.”

A minority of Christians, those in the King James only camp, believe that the perfect “Word of God' is a book edited in the 17th century and that the KJV is innerrant (true and without error). Overwhelmingly, Christians believe the Word of God was faithfully written by the original authors and reliably transmitted to us.

4.) "8,000 contradictory copies"

The textual differences (variants) are often cited as being in the hundreds of thousands of differences. 99% of the textual differences can be spotted easily because we have so many manuscripts and most of them are differences are in word order, grammar and spelling. These are all minor textual variants don’t amount to material errors that would change the meaning of the text. In fact 200,000 variants, over half, are spelling errors. Of the estimated 396,000 variants we can still reconstruct the original with a high degree of accuracy and confidence.

5.) "4th century scrolls"

There are plenty of other manuscripts that date before the 4th century. Recently we have discovered the earliest manuscripts ever, it is a portion of Mark that dates from the 1st century, and previously the earliest was from the early second century and was from the book of John known as the John Rylands Papyri.

From the second century alone we have 18 manuscripts that include 40% of the New Testament. There are over 60 manuscripts from the 3rd century. In addition, as previously stated we have second generation Church leaders form the 1st century quoting from all but two books of the New Testament in over 10,000 separate manuscripts.

6.) The translators were "8 members of the Church of England"

In truth 54 scholars were approved for the translation but 47 actually undertook the task of translating. The translators were divided into 6 committees translating different portions of the Bible. The names of the translators are publicly accessible. See: Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.

Conclusion

One of the unstated claims is that copyists made so many errors that we cannot consider the text we have as being reliable. They point to thousands minor textual variants as proof that the Bible we have is unreliable. However, even the hyper-skeptical Bart Erhman agrees that most of these variants are minor.

“…Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another.” - Bart Ehrman [1]

Greg Koukl sums it up this way:

“…Our New Testament is over 99% pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.” - Gerg Koukl [2]

Most of this information has about the New Testament. Well what about the Old Testament? According to Peter Flint PhD, excluding spelling, word order and grammar errors, we can determine that even over 2000 years of coping, the Old Testament is 99% accurate. This is due in large part to the discovery of the Dead Seas scrolls which had been lost for the last 2000 years. This is strong evidence that suggests we can determine a statistical error rate for the scribes that copied the Bible over the years. For the Old Testament we are talking about a material error rate of less than 1%. This is in line with our current estimates of 0.2% material error rate for the New Testament.

I think I have done a good job in untangle the intermixed arguments and assess them separately and determined as a whole they do not make a compelling case against the reliability of the transmission of the Bible. As you can see almost all of the assertions are wrong and the logic does not follow from those facts.

Much more could be said but it should be apparent that Sam failed to make the case the Bible is unreliable. In fact, a good case can be made that the transmission of the Biblical text is free from material errors.

Endnotes:

[1] Ehrman, Bart D. ‘’Misquoting Jesus.’’ Kindle Edition. HarperOne. 2009 Kindle Edition. (Kindle Locations 884-886).

[2] Koukl, Greg. Stand To Reason Solid Ground Newsletter “Misquoting” Jesus? Answering Bart Ehrman September/October 2010 by Gerg Koukl

For further information see: ReasonWiki.org's List of Resources on the Reliability of the Bible

 

I had a long dialogue with an Atheist here in PDF form. I did change the names of the participants for privacy reasons. The conversation started with a post from a friend of mine that turned into an interesting dialogue. I have kept all of the posts even the ‘Troll’ posts, to preserve the feel and flow of the conversation.

The conversation takes some time to get going, but, the bulk of the 23,000 plus words of the conversation is Sam’s objections to Christianity and his support for Atheism. Normally I would not take the time to try and address the numerous assertions he made. However, a number of people were interested and in asynchronous conversation more time can be spent addressing them.

Some interesting comments by Sam included

• Christianity barrowed from Paganism, implied is that this disproves Christianity
• Science and Religion are at odds (specific example of Galileo)
• He wants scientific evidence for God
• Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others
• The Bible is hopelessly corrupt
• Judeo-Christian ethnics are bad for society
• God should show Himself
• Free will is a myth
• America's Founding Fathers were Deists

I addressed all of these and others. If I did not refute his claims, I gave him at least an alternate explanations that should raise some doubts on his positions.

Click here for PDF

Buddhism and Christianity On Pain and Suffering

Introduction

There are many religions and many views of what life is like in the world today. Some of the differences in these views of the meaning and purpose of life make it difficult to find common ground in which a person can communicate with people who hold views that are different from our own. The cultural divide can be, especially, wide between Eastern and Western religions. Any common ground between these religions or philosophical systems becomes a bridge of understanding and aids in communication between people of different religions. Now, there is one universal experience for all humans and that is pain and suffering. The idea of pain and suffering is, universally, understood to be a part of life. This seems, to me, to be a great bridge between different religions, cultures or views of life.

In this paper, I plan to compare Buddhist and Christian worldviews on the question of pain and suffering. My hope is this will lead to great dialogue between Christians and Buddhists and, hopefully, will lead to great understanding of Buddhism for Christians and Christianity for Buddhists. I will describe the Buddhist worldview answers to the questions of pain and suffering, its source, and its solution. I will then describe the Christian worldview answers to the questions of pain and suffering, its source, and its solution. Finally, I will compare the two worldviews and see if I can draw out any similarities or differences.

Before we begin such a task as comparing two different worldviews,[1] it is important to remember that there is a danger of distorting or oversimplifying a worldview by unreflectively importing assumptions, frameworks, and biases.[2] This is especially true for Buddhism. As David Wong Professor of Philosophy at Duke University put it, “However, Buddhism may have especially challenging implications for Western ethics in its special emphasis on the elimination of suffering and on the way it explains suffering by referring to the human attachment to self as fixed ego entity.”[3] Because we have all seen and experienced pain and suffering in our lives, I think this is a worthwhile area of study. Challenges aside, there is much to be gained by this endeavor. If we do not explore the ‘possibility space’, how can we, truly, have an appreciation for the depth of the question of pain and suffering? I however, do see some similarities and some key differences. The question I find most useful is; which worldview has the best explanatory power for the world we live in?

Buddhism and Pain and Suffering

Before I begin to explain how Buddhism views pain and suffering (dukkha), I first must note that there are many schools of thought within Buddhism and it is beyond the scope of this paper to call out all the nuances within Buddhism on this question. Second, it is important to understand that that the problem of pain and suffering in Buddhism is rooted in the teaching of karma (kamma) that is shared in various forms with other eastern religions such as Hinduism and Jainism. The concept of karma has also made its way to the west in various fashions and belief systems. Finally, please note that, in order to make the best representation of Buddhism, I have relied upon Buddhist authors. This will help develop an accurate picture of Buddhist thought.

Buddhism is a worldview of liberation from pain and suffering. In fact, Buddhism’s central teaching, the Four Noble Truths, is about pain and suffering. The Dalai Lama explains the Four Noble truths this way, “As most of you might know, these Four Truths are the truth of suffering, the truth of the origin of suffering, the truth of the cessation of suffering, and the truth of the path leading to this cessation.”[4]

The first of the Four Noble Truths tells us that pain and suffering exist. This is something that we sense in our lives. We know something is wrong, amiss or not in harmony. To compound the problem, we know there is a problem but we really don’t know what it is or what we should do about it.[5] The first Noble Truth, "The noble truth that is suffering",[6] tells us that we long for something; we feel pain, loss and suffering. This ongoing and profound dissatisfaction is the first truth.[7] For Buddhism, ignorance is the root cause of our cyclic existence[8]. In the first Noble truth we have a realization of our problem. This realization begins our journey from ignorance to enlightenment or self-awakening.

The second Noble Truth, "The noble truth that is the arising of suffering,”[9] means that it is imperative for us to recognize that our dissatisfaction originates with us.[10] In Buddhism, evil or suffering is not something external to us;[11] it is in us and originates in us.

Our own ignorance…gives rise to attachment; an attitude that exaggerates the good qualities of people and things or superimposes good qualities that are not there and then clings to those people or things, thinking they will bring us real happiness. When things do not work out as we expected or wished they would, or when something interferes with our happiness, we become angry.[12]

It is our desire or attachment that originates in our mind that is the root cause of our pain and suffering. For Buddhists, the root cause is our own ignorant and undisciplined state of mind.[13]

The Third Noble Truth, "The noble truth that is the end of suffering,” recognizes there is a cessation of suffering. The Dalai Lama puts it this way: “The happiness we seek, a genuine lasting peace and happiness can be attained only through the purification of our minds. This is possible if we cut the root cause of all suffering and misery – our fundamental ignorance. This freedom from suffering.”

The Fourth Noble Truth is the path that we need to follow to end suffering. This path is called the Eightfold Path. The goal of the Eightfold path helps us to clarify our mind by developing insight into the true nature of phenomena (or reality) and to eradicate greed, aversion (hatred), and delusion. The Eightfold Path or eight factors are divided into three divisions as seen in the diagram below.

The Dalia Lama explains the three divisions in this way:

When we engage in the practice of morality, we lay the foundation for mental and spiritual development. When we engage in the complementary practice of concentration, we make the mind serviceable for and receptive to this higher purpose and prepare the mind for subsequent higher training in insight, or wisdom. …Then, on the basis of a very stable mind, you can generate genuine insight into the ultimate nature of reality.[14]

Our existance is a cycle of life, death, rebirth or reincarnation until we reach a state of true happiness called Nirvana (Nibbana). “This repetitious process goes on endlessly unless one arrives at 'Right View' and makes a firm resolve to follow the Noble Path which produces the ultimate happiness of Nibbana.”[15]

The cycle of rebirth is governed by the law of Karma (kamma). In the Western world, karma is often seen as a universal justice system or even as fate. However, this is a crude approximation of the law of karma. In Buddhism, there is no God to direct karma to reward some people and punish others. It is just cause and effect. Thich Nhat Hanh puts it this way, “Every time you produce a thought, that thought is a continuation. That thought will have effects on us, on our body, our mind, and on the world. The effect of that thought is our continuation. Producing a thought is the cause; the effect is how that thought impacts us and the world.”[16] As you can see, the seeds of karma start with our thoughts and those thoughts affect the world we live in. Hanh continues, “That thought will have an effect on our mental and physical health and on the health of the world. And that health, good or bad, is the fruit of the karma, the fruit of the thought.”[17]

Because Buddhism in concerned with our thoughts, it is important that the motivation of our actions is much more important than the actions themselves. Intention is the essence of the law of karma; it is the motivating force behind karma.[18] Our thoughts are the root of our actions and they are the root of greed, aversion (hatred), and delusion.

Our thoughts and actions will create karma. Karma is best understood as the law of cause and effect. In the west, we will often talk about good and bad karma; however, it is not that simple. In the terms of karma our actions are either kusala (skillful) or akusala (unskillful).[19] Kusala is often translated as “good”, but a better translation would be skillful, beneficial, wholesome or more precisely ‘that which removes affliction’. Akusala which is often translated as “evil” is better translated unskillful, unintelligent or more precisely ‘that which invites affliction’. Both kusala and akusala arise in the mind and then become eternalized by action.[20] In a way, the best understanding is kusala thoughts start a chain of cause and effect that move you away from pain and suffering and toward nirvana while akusala thoughts start a chain of cause and effect move you toward pain and suffering and away from nirvana.

In Buddhism, karma is a natural law that governs the cycle of rebirth. Ultimately, there is just action and reaction; cause and effect. Simply put, the law of cause and effect will govern how you progress toward or away from pain and suffering. People who understand this natural law of cause and effect are often called a "dhammic" person, which is often translated as "righteous". Now, the result may seem like "reward" and "punishment" however, it is simply the fruit of our volitional actions.[21]

"By oneself, indeed, is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself, indeed, is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another." (Dhammapada, chapter 12, verse 165)

Christianity and Pain and Suffering

Like Buddhism, the answer to why we have pain and suffering in the world varies amongst Christians. Volumes have been written on the differences between Christian understandings to this question. For this paper, however, I am limiting this to the most often cited answers.

To start with some background, a Christian person’s life is to love God. Freedom to love necessitates a choice. Man was created to have a choice to love and serve God; sin (evil) is a rejection of this. The choices we make not to love and serve God then are the source of our pain and suffering. This wrong choice then, is the source of the problem of pain and suffering for Christians.

Form the Christian point of view, pain and suffering is caused by evil; either directly or indirectly. Moral evil, or evil performed by other moral beings, would be direct evil. This evil is when another person causes the pain and suffering of another. Indirect evil is like natural evil. Natural evil is pain and suffering caused without volitional intent, such as an earthquake or tsunami. The Christian view is this evil is indirect in that its root cause is from the fall (initial choice) of mankind.

The Christian view of evil is that “evil does not just exist, it happens.”[22] Augustine, in Confessions, defined evil as “a privation of good, even to the point of complete non-entity.”[23] What this means is that “evil is not a being, thing, substance or entity…evil is real, but not a real thing.”[24] It is as if good was light and evil was darkness. Darkness is not a thing but, rather, it is the absence of light. In the same way, evil is the absence of true good. If evil is the source of pain and suffering, what is then the source of evil?

Because evil is the absence of good, the source of evil is our free will to choose evil over good. From the Christian view, God created man and woman and gave them a free will, or the ability to choose. Often, critics would counter with, why did God give them a choice if they could choose evil? The counter-question is how could anyone love if it were not possible not to love? How could people love God if they did not have a choice to not love? C. S. Lewis put it this way, “their freedom is simply that of making a single choice - of loving God more than self or the self more than God.”[25] Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga sums up the situation this way, “to create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He [God] must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so.”[26] Without this freedom to do evil we would no longer be human. Kreeft and Tacelli explain what would happen if we didn’t have freedom to choose, “free will is part of our essence. There can be no human being without it. The alternative to free will is not being a human but an animal or machine.”[27]

Pain and suffering then originate with our free will and our choices. However, freedom to choose is not the problem; the problem is when we choose the evil over the good, when we choose hate over love. With this freedom of choice we can choose to love. James Spiegel describes the benefits of our freedom this way, “The ultimate good for which such autonomy is a critical means in genuine loving relationships between persons, whether between humans or between God and humans.”[28] Without choice it would be impossible to understand or know love. “Even omnipotence could not have created a world in which there was genuine human freedom and yet no possibility of sin, for our freedom incudes the possibility of sin within its own meaning.”[29]

Christians will agree that just as it is logically impossible for God to create a square circle likewise, He cannot create the possibility of good and love without the possibility of evil and hatred. This seems like a difficult situation for God. God had to give us a freedom but that freedom means that we can choose poorly. However, God is not left in a difficult situation; He can use the evil in the world to bring about good. Spiegel observes, “There are greater moral goods to be achieved in this way than could ever be achieved by God’s simply giving them to us in creation.”[30] This may not make sense until you consider how you would learn forgiveness, a good, without having been wrong. Spiegel notes, “There are numerous moral virtues that cannot be achieved except by struggling against or in the midst of evil. These ‘second-order’ goods include patience, courage, sympathy, forgiveness, mercy, perseverance, overcoming temptation, and much greater versions of faith, hope, love and friendship.”[31] This view that God teaches us through our experiences is called soul-making.

The Christian view of pain and suffering includes the concept that we do not suffer alone, nor does God avoid pain and suffering for Himself. Kenneth Sample relates his experience with pain and suffering like this:

My experiences with suffering have caused me to appreciate even more the great historic Christian truth-claim that Jesus Christ took on human flesh in order to suffer with human beings and for us receptively on the cross. God, therefore, is acquainted with evil, pain, and suffering and has a greater good to accomplish through them.[32]

In the Christian view, God takes pain and suffering in the world, a necessary consequence for love, and uses it for good. C. S. Lewis sees this as a means for God to speak to us through or pain. "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world."[33] For C. S. Lewis, pain and suffering is a means to an end.

For Christians, there is an end to pain and suffering. The end does not come in this life, but in the life to come. However, in this life, Christians can start to view their life’s experiences from a new perspective. For Christians, the life we live now is but a temporary ‘boot camp’ where we learn valuable lessons like how to forgive and how to love. It is not until the boot camp is over do we truly appreciate the difficult and often painful lessons we learned. Christians often call this an eternal perspective, the view from outside of our current time and lives, looking in from our future homes. The future home for Christians is with God in heaven a state of liberation from pain and suffering.

For those who do not choose heaven, a gift from God, they will receive their desire as well. C. S. Lewis puts it this way, “They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free”[34] In summary, for Christians hell is liberation from God and heaven is liberation from pain and suffering.

Comparison of Buddhism and Christianity on Pain and Suffering

In researching this paper, I have found a number of similarities or bridges of understanding between the Buddhist and Christian worldviews. First, I noticed that both worldviews recognize that things are not the way they ought to be. They both understand that pain and suffering is not the ideal or true existence. For Buddhists, the ultimate end, Nirvana, is liberation of pain and suffering. Likewise for Christians, the ultimate end, heaven, is also liberation from pain and suffering.

Another similarity I found was in the concept that the source of our pain and suffering starts within us. I found it curious that many Buddhists believe Christians see evil as an external force.[35] The Christian view is, evil ultimately comes from us and any perceived external force of evil is coming from within other moral agents. It seems that Buddhism and Christianity both see that the source of pain and suffering in this life come from within us and from our choices.

In life, we seem to experience that our thoughts often lead to actions and those actions often cause pain and suffering. Both Buddhism and Christianity agree that much of the pain and suffering we experience in life come from thoughts that lead to actions. Those actions then cause us or others pain and suffering. I think that it is significant that Christianity and Buddhism, in concept, see us and our choices as one of the causes of pain and suffering.

We often experience pain and suffering that is not a result of another person or our choices. Often, people have pain and suffering from external natural events such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. Thus, in life, it seems that all pain and suffering is a result of our choices; some pain and suffering seems to be, in one way or another, not related to our direct choices. According to the Pali Canon, there are overt and covert dangers. Overt dangers, which seem to equate to natural causes of pain and suffering, are not based upon people’s individual choices. Covert dangers are those that equate to choices made by the individual.[36] The Christian worldview recognizes the same phenomena and divides the source of pain and suffering into moral evil and natural evil.[37] Moral evil is rooted in the direct actions or inactions of ourselves or others. Natural evil is seen as the consequence of indirect moral evil.[38] This concept starts with the Bible’s account of how people chose to disobey God and then man and creation then entered into a fallen state.[39] This fall was a fall from the perfection in which it was created.

In these two worldviews, there are similarities and differences in pain and suffering that afflicts the seemingly innocent from events outside of their control. For Buddhism, these events are dangers that may lead you to have akusala thoughts. For Buddhism, it is important to not let bad things that happen to you control your thoughts and rob you of an inner happiness. Our reaction to negative events in our lives is seen in much the same light for the Christian worldview. Christian theologian Chuck Swindoll said it best:

The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company... a church... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you... we are in charge of our Attitudes.[40]

Where these two world views take a deep departure is in the solution or how we can reach an end to pain and suffering. Simply put, for the Buddhist, the end of suffering and pain comes from as the Dalai Lama puts it, “freedom and liberation can only be achieved when our fundamental ignorance, our habitual misapprehension of the nature of reality, is totally overcome.”[41] For Buddhists, overcoming ignorance is not an easy task. “You must bear in mind that the attainment of enlightenment is not an easy task. It requires time, will, and perseverance.”[42]

To summarize, when we engage in the practice of morality, we lay the foundation for mental and spiritual development. When we engage in the complementary practice of concentration, we make the mind serviceable for and receptive to this higher purpose and prepare the mind for subsequent higher training in insight, or wisdom. With the faculty of single-pointedness that arises from concentration, we are able to channel all of our attention and mental energy towards a chosen object. Then, on the basis of a very stable state of mind, you can generate genuine insight into the ultimate nature of reality.[43]

As you can see the, Buddhist solution is to clear our minds to allow ourselves to become enlightened. Herein lies the biggest difference between the Buddhist and Christian worldviews.

The Christian worldview differs in that it claims we cannot reach liberation from pain and suffering on our own. The Christian worldview claims that man has fallen and cannot do anything to regain what we have lost. God, therefore, had to provide a solution for man. God’s love was demonstrated when He became a man and took on our pain and suffering for us; to provide a way for us to choose, once again, to follow God and reciprocate His love. Ultimately, the Christian view rests on choice. A wrong choice lead to the evil, pain, and suffering we all currently experience. God has given us a type of second chance, however, unlike the Buddhist, view we don’t get endless “do-overs”. We have this life to make our choice. Either we chose to follow and love God and be with Him forever or we chose eternal separation from God.

Conclusion

What we see here with these two worldviews is a bit of agreement that pain and suffering are caused by us. We see that when our thoughts, choices and actions are out of sync with what they should be, we create pain and suffering. These worldviews even agree that our attitude and how we react to events in our lives plays an important role. Finally, both agree that our ultimate end, either Heaven or Nirvana, will be liberation from pain and suffering. I see these areas of commonality as a great opportunity to create dialogue between two very different worldviews. I think greater understanding for those with either worldview of the other worldview will benefit.

Where these worldviews disagree sharply is how one reaches that end. We all want an end to pain and suffering. Ultimately, we all must choose an answer to the question. Knowing how others find answers to life’s pain and suffering and being able to see which worldview has the best explanation for what we know from our experiences in life and in our hearts, becomes an opportunity for dialogue about how one finally solves the issue of pain and suffering.

End Notes
1 Note here that I did not use the word “religion.” Alan Watts a British philosopher, best known for popularizing Eastern philosophy for a Western audience criticizes Westerners for calling Buddhism a religion and then trying to compare it to the Christian religion. While we may not be able to compare them as religions we can compare them as worldviews. Alan Watts, Buddhism And Christianity, YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV7FLlRmuf0 (accessed May 19, 2012).
2 David Wong. “Comparative Philosophy: Chinese and Western.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (October 1, 2009). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comparphil-chiwes/ (accessed May 3, 2012).
3 David Wong. “Comparative Philosophy: Chinese and Western.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (October 1, 2009). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comparphil-chiwes/ (accessed May 3, 2012).
4 His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice, trans. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, Kindle edition (Boston, Wisdom Publications, 1995) location 220.
5 Steve Hagen. Buddhism Plain and Simple, Kindle edition (Tokyo, Broadway Books, 1998) location 210.
6 Encyclopedia of Buddhism Volume One ed. Robert E. Buswell (New York, Gale/Cengage Learning Macmillan, 2004) p. 296.
7 Steve Hagen. Buddhism Plain and Simple, Kindle edition (Tokyo, Broadway Books, 1998) location 212.
8 Thubten Chodron. Buddhism for Beginners, Kindle edition (Ithaca, New York, Snow Lion Publications, 2001) location 73.
9 Encyclopedia of Buddhism Volume One ed. Robert E. Buswell (New York, Gale/Cengage Learning Macmillan, 2004) p. 296.
10 Steve Hagen. Buddhism Plain and Simple, Kindle edition (Tokyo, Broadway Books, 1998) location 257.
11 Taigen Leighton. Evil in Buddhism. Mountain Source Sangha (October 6, 2001). http://www.mtsource.org/talks/evil.htm (accessed May, 3 2012).
12 Thubten Chodron. Buddhism for Beginners, Kindle edition (Ithaca, New York, Snow Lion Publications, 2001) location 75.
13 His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice, trans. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, Kindle edition (Boston, Wisdom Publications, 1995) location 240.
14 His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice, trans. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, Kindle edition (Boston, Wisdom Publications, 1995) location 294-296.
15 K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera. The Buddhist Concept of Heaven and Hell. BuddhaSasana. http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/whatbudbeliev/303.htm (accessed May, 20 2012).
16 Thich Nhat Hanh. Karma, Continuation, and the Noble Eightfold Path. Mindfulness Bell Magazine (August 5, 2005). http://www.mindfulnessbell.org/articles/karma1.php (accessed May, 20 2012).
17 Thich Nhat Hanh. Karma, Continuation, and the Noble Eightfold Path. Mindfulness Bell Magazine (August 5, 2005). http://www.mindfulnessbell.org/articles/karma1.php (accessed May, 20 2012).
18 Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto. Good and Evil in Buddhism. UrbanDharma.org. http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/goodevil.html (accessed May 3, 2012).
19 Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto. Good and Evil in Buddhism. UrbanDharma.org http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/goodevil.html (accessed May 3, 2012).
20 Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto. Good and Evil in Buddhism. UrbanDharma.org. http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/goodevil.html (accessed May 3, 2012).
21 Barbara O’Brien. Evil, Karma and Buddhism, About.com. http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/evil.htm (accessed May 3, 2012).
22 Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1994) p. 126.
23 Doug Powell. Holman Quicksource Guide to Christian Apologetics, (Nashville, Holman Reference, 2006) p. 334.
24 Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1994) p. 132-33.
25 C. S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain, (London, Harper Collins Publishers, 1940) p. 20.
26 Alvin Plantinga. God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001) Kindle Locations 342-343.
27 Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1994) p. 138.
28 James S. Spiegel. “On Free Will and Soul Making, Complementary Approaches to the Problem of Evil,” Philisophia Christi vol. 13, no. 2 (2011): 407.
29 Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1994) p. 138.
30 James S. Spiegel. “On Free Will and Soul Making, Complementary Approaches to the Problem of Evil,” Philisophia Christi vol. 13, no. 2 (2011): 407.
31 James S. Spiegel. “On Free Will and Soul Making, Complementary Approaches to the Problem of Evil,” Philisophia Christi vol. 13, no. 2 (2011): 407.
32 Kenneth R. Samples. 7 Truths That Changed the World. (Grand Rapids, BakerBooks, 2012) p. 193.
33 C. S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain, (London, Harper Collins Publishers, 1940) p. 90-91.
34 C. S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain, (London, Harper Collins Publishers, 1940) p. 130.
35 Taigen Leighton. Evil in Buddhism. Mountain Source Sangha (October 6, 2001). http://www.mtsource.org/talks/evil.htm (accessed May, 3 2012).
36 Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto. Good and Evil in Buddhism. UrbanDharma.org. http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/goodevil.html (accessed May 3, 2012).
37 Note that not all Christians want to call natural evil as evil. Some reserve the term evil only for moral actions or inactions. I use the term natural evil here based upon common understanding and usage.
38 Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1994) p. 384.
39 Or the initial choice of Adam and Eve.
40 This quote was taken from one of Chuck Swindoll’s books. I can’t seem to locate my copy to properly reference however, this is a well know quote of his.
41 His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice, trans. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, Kindle edition (Boston, Wisdom Publications, 1995) Kindle Location 158-9.
42 His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice, trans. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, Kindle edition (Boston, Wisdom Publications, 1995) Kindle Locations 204-205.
43 His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice, trans. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, Kindle edition (Boston, Wisdom Publications, 1995) Kindle Locations 293-297.
�

 

Was Jefferson a Christian, Atheist, or Deist?

Email from a student:

Sorry to bother you with yet another article, but I have come across several over the last few days that I think are germane to things that have been discussed in your Tuesday night class.

I take everything with a grain of salt these days and am admittedly not a Glenn Beck groupie. However, I do believe that much of his information regarding the Founding Fathers has been fairly accurate.

But to cut to the chase ... I have heard for years the story about Thomas Jefferson cutting up his Bible to accommodate his own beliefs and I heard you again mention it in class the other night.

The following article seems to shed new light (at least for me) on that story:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-you-know-the-real-story-behind-the-jefferson-bible-david-barton-shared-it-with-beck/

I'd like to hear your take on this.
Thanks,

My return email:

For a period of time, Thomas Jefferson was known as a Deist. Not because he had affiliation with any Deist organization, but because his Theology was Deist. Deism is, in reality, a catch-all for many beliefs of God. Recently, Atheists have claimed that Jefferson was an Atheist. This theory is making-the-rounds online. I just debated with an Atheist on Facebook about this. Finally, some Christians claim Jefferson was a protestant Christian. What we do know for sure is that Jefferson was raised as an Episcopalian/Anglican. Later in life, he wrote that he would like to join a Unitarian church, but he could not because there were none in Virginia at the time.

I think it is import to make a distinction between attendance or membership in an organization and what a person actually holds or believes. People can often claim to be one thing while holding a different worldview or theology. Certainly, we would not put it past a politician to “be all things to all men.”

David Burton has recently claimed that he is a Christian in an attempt to bolster or recover the view that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. His comments, however, have sparked some sharp criticism. I think it would be a good idea to look up David Barton. Check out the controversy over his misquotations to see it the criticism is legit.

You can find references to most of it at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author)
Look under Criticism and Unconfirmed Quotations.

The question is whether or not the criticism of Burton is correct and if it is material to his assertions.

So what do we think were Jefferson’s actual beliefs? He wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Sounds Christian, for sure. To take a lesson from Greg Koukl, I would ask, what did Jefferson mean by Jesus? That is, who would Jefferson say He is?

Here are some quotes from Jefferson that might shed some light on this:

About Science and Religion
The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

About the Gospels
We find in the writings of his biographers ... a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to William Short, August 4, 1822, referring to Jesus's biographers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

About the God of the Old Testament
That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.
-- Thomas Jefferson, referring to the god of the Jews under Moses, in his letter to William Short (August 4, 1822)

It would appear that Jefferson thought Science trumps religion, that the gospel accounts were lies and the god of the Old Testament we cruel and capricious.

In addition, I have a copy of the Jefferson Bible and in the forward there are comments about Jefferson’s dislike of the supernatural references.

With comments like this, one would think he is in the New Atheist crowd other than the fact he did believe in a god. We just aren’t certain which version of god (theology) that would be. But who can really know the heart of a man? I think it is safe to say he was a Deist or Unitarian. To say he was a Bible believing Christian or an atheist, while certainly possible, I don’t think it is probable.

Either way, what does his worldview have to do with anything today?

As for Burton, I don’t know if the criticism is sound or not, or whether it was intentional or unintentional. If he has misrepresented the facts, then he has done a great disservice to the Christian community (Body of Christ). Even if our intentions are noble, we should never misrepresent or bare false witness to anyone.

Book Review: Finding God in Ancient China by Chan Kei Thong with Charlene L. Fu

“Finding God in Ancient China: How the Ancient Chinese Worshiped the God of the Bible,” by Chan Kei Thong with Charlene L. Fu, caught my eye after I had seen some interesting websites that made a connection between the Genesis flood account and Chines pictographic characters (logograms).

Thesis
The thesis of the book is, “we will show that there is sufficient light peeking through the windows of general revelation in Chinese history, records, literature, and practices to convince one to take the next step, into the sunlight of God’s special revelation.”(40)

What this book is not saying
This book is not making the claim that there is more than one way to God. The claim is that the ancient Chinese had a rudimentary knowledge of the one true God that would have come from the revelation up to the point of their migration to the steps of China.

Chapter 1
The book starts with an explanation of the differences between myths, legends, and history. The book transitions into an explanation of general and special revelation of God. These become key points and a foundation for moving forward with their thesis. The book then promises to review the “signposts” that point to their thesis.

Chapter 2
Chapter two gives us a brief overview of the pictographic and ideographic nature of the Chinese written language. Further, the authors show how some of these characters correlate to the Genesis record and the basic tenants of sin, forgiveness, sacrifice, redemption, and salvation. The authors rightfully acknowledge that this can be dismissed as circumstantial evidence, however, “these characters should, however, compel us to seek further evidence within the Chinese culture to see if, in fact, the ancient Chinese worshipped the One True God.”(71)

Chapter 3
Chapter three addresses the name and concept of God for the ancient Chinese. The name given to God in Chinese is 皇天上帝 (Huang Tian Shang Di) which translates to Supreme Lord of the Great Heaven. Often, He is referred to only as 上帝 (Shang Di). For the ancient Chinese, this is the Creator God who is above and distinct from all other lesser gods (shen or spirits). The chapter continues with parallels between Shang Di and the Creator God of the Hebrews and Christians.

“We saw an abundance of references that strikingly show how the attributes of Shang Di (Tian) match those of the One True God of the Bible, leading us to the conclusion that Shang Di (Tian) is the general revelation to the Chinese people of the same God worshipped by the Hebrews of the Old Testament and the Christians of the New Testament.”(105) The author finally laments “It is unfortunate, therefore, that the Chinese have not worshipped this God alone; they have also worshipped a multitude of other beings. …many Chinese around the world have fallen under the power of a host of fearful superstitions and syncretistic religious beliefs.”(105)

Chapter 4
Chapter 4 compares the Great Border Sacrifice at the Temple of Heaven (which should actually be translated “Alter of Heaven”) with the Old Testament sacrifices to God. They conclude this chapter with this thought, “I found striking similarities in the ceremonies associated with sacrifices performed by the ancient Chinese and the ancient Hebrews. These very discoveries, though, raised further questions. Where did the concepts of substitutionary death – that is, an innocent dying for the guilty –and of atoning death – the requirement of death to pay for sin – originate?”(151)

Chapter 5
Chapter five covers the next “signpost” which is the blood covenant. The chapter explores the parallels in the covenants in the Bible and the rituals performed by the ancient Chinese. They conclude “The parallels between China’s practice of covenants and God’s perfect revelation of covenants in the Holy Scriptures are vivid and eloquent. God uses these dramatic ceremonies to teach eternal principles that were finally fulfilled in Jesus Christ.”(179)

Chapter 6
In chapter six, the authors explore the actions and discoveries of some of the first missionaries to China. In particular, they explore the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci (1550-1610) and his missional approach. Ricci’s approach was to demonstrate respect for the Chinese people and culture by such things as learning the native language. This was not common-place for most missionaries of the time. Ricci’s approach was not to convert the Chinese to a Western Culture Christianity but to a Chinese Christianity. (I have a past post on Christianity and the fact that it is culturally agnostic to a point). Ricci’s work, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, is in part, a basis for this book.

“Therefore, having leafed through a great number of ancient books, it is quite clear to me that the Sovereign on High and the Lord of Heaven are different only in name.” “He who is called Lord of Heaven in my humble country is He who is called Shang-Di in Chinese.” - Matteo Ricci, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven

Others such as Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1591-1666), Ferdinand Verbiest (1623-1688), and James Legge (1815-1897) built on the goodwill built by Ricci. Particular for Legge, the key to understanding Chinese thought was by reading the classic works.

“I maintain that the Chinese do know the true God, and have a word in their language answering to our word God, to the Hebrew Elohim, and the Greek Theos.” - James Legge

Chapter 7
In this chapter the authors explore how the ancient Chinese understanding of God played a role in politics. In fact, I think this was one of my favorite chapters. The ancient Chinese had a concept they called the Mandate of Heaven 天命 (Tian Ming). This concept was that the ruler was given power by God to rule. This, however, did not mean that the emperor was free to do whatever he wanted. The concept included Tian Xia Wei Gong (Righteousness Rules), which meant that he was to be a righteous and virtuous ruler. If the emperor was not righteous in his rule, he was seen as having lost the Mandate of Heaven. This form of meritocracy is quite appealing to me. The person who was to be the next ruler was based upon that person’s merit, 禪讓 (Shan Rang), not their genealogy, wealth, or even popularity. The concept of 禪讓 (Shan Rang) is that the emperor was above all else, a servant, albeit the servant-leader.(241)

I have to admit, my biased libertarian bent, leads me to an affinity for the Mandate of Heaven.

Chapter 8
In this chapter, aptly entitled ‘Enter the Dragon,’ the authors show how the original worship of Shang Di was corrupted by the dragon cults. As you might bet, they show there are many parallels between the dragon in the Bible and those of ancient China. Much of China’s original heritage has been lost to the dragon and today, you see the principle of the dragon prominent in Chinese culture, government, and business. “Power, pleasure, and position are very enticing. But, they do not last. Like the dragon, they do not serve us; we end up serving them when we pursue them.”(291)

Chapter 9
The book finishes with a discussion of the parallel in the concepts of truth and some astronomy. The author relates a story of a doctoral student who made the statement, “The Chinese Shang Di cannot be the same as the God of the Bible because the latter is a Western deity.” The author, then, offers an illustration of two cups. If he made the claim that both cups are made up of the same material and you objected, how would you resolve the difference? The answer is, you break-down the composition of both cups and, if they prove to be similar or identical, then the two cups are the same. This is to say that you perform careful observation, critically examine the facts, and arrive at a logical conclusion.

“That is what we have sought to do in this chapter and indeed throughout this book. We have presented facts from China’s ancient historical records, records that secular scholars and experts agree are reliable and true, and we have arrived at our conclusions, which we have presented in this book. These facts are now before you, for you to draw your own conclusions.”(321)

My thoughts
I think this book is a primer for any apologetic, evangelistic or missionary work to people in the Chinese culture. The book is especially useful for contextualizing your message. I have to admit that I have a deeper appreciation for the richness of Chinese culture. I have to admit I find Chinese culture fascinating and I want to learn more about their culture.

Further, I find it absolutely fascinating how God works and leaves his fingerprints everywhere around the world. I think God is much like an artist; He loves the different cultures and expressions. It is amazing that, in each of the cultures around the world, God has “set them up” for the truth.

Other books have been written on this subject, however, this is the best treatment of the subject that I have found.

One of the problems I have found with some Christian apologists is the propensity of some of them to be disingenuous, at best, when characterizing Satanists. Many of them fall into the trap of the informal fallacy of composition. In logic and reasoning, a fallacy of composition is when someone makes the assumption that what is true of a small portion of a population is true of the whole population. A composition fallacy is like asking one student in a classroom what their favorite color is and then making the assumption that it is the favorite color of all of the students in the classroom.

When someone hears the term Satanist, they cannot help but imagine blood sacrifices, ritualistic murder, demon summoning and all sorts of other wild magical things. This perception of Satanism is actually taken from a very small minority of Satanists that have been popularized by the media and disingenuous apologists. The truth about most Satanists is much less exciting than the perception and, as it is in the newspaper business, not worthy of print. Most people don't know what a true Satanist is or even have a true perception on one.

John Smulo demonstrates this point in his article in the Sacred Tribes Journal called "Spiritual Warfare Profiles of Satanism: Are They Misleading?” John asks the question, are Satanists fairly portrayed in work by popular Christian authors? John then demonstrates that the truth is, most Satanists are actually atheists, and they don't even believe in an evil entity named Satan or Lucifer. A vast majority of them do not engage in animal sacrifice or conjure up demons.

We may wonder then, why do they choose to call themselves Satanist if they don't believe in Satan? When Saul D. Alinsky dedicates his book, Rules for Radicals; to Lucifer what does he really mean? Does he believe in the devil and sacrifice goats? Doubtful. Satan is an icon for Satanists and other people. Satan is an icon that, in their minds, stands in drastic opposition to the western culture and the Judeo-Christian ethic we call the “golden rule;” do unto others as you would have them do to you or love your neighbor as yourself. Satan stands as an icon of selfishness, self-fulfillment and do unto others before they do unto you.

Satan becomes an icon of their worldview and philosophy. He is viewed as a nonexistent representation of their philosophy. Notice how he is characterized in the Satanic Bible:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical; from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer." Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Why do Christian apologists tend to paint with a broad brush when characterizing Satanists? If I was only to read their books and then I ran in to a real live Satanist and started asking them about conjuring demons and animal sacrifices, they would look at me as if I was crazy. I would have lost all credibility I had up until that point. They won’t care what I have to say after that. I don’t know why some popular Christian apologists make such generalizations, but, if I am not careful to check their facts, I could end up looking like a fool.

We characterize people and make the assumption that the real difference between us is they worship a spiritual being called Satan, Lucifer or the Devil. In reality, the difference is one of philosophy. It is important to make sure we know where they are coming from if we want to engage in any type of meaningful dialog.

One of my Christian friends commented that my issue is just one of semantics, because Satan is still behind the philosophy. I don’t disagree that Satan is behind it because, technically, from a Christian point of view, Satan would be behind all the world’s false religions and teachings to one extent or another. However, the issue is how Satanists view themselves and their beliefs. We have to addresses them from where they are.

Check out my past blog on the Domains of Spiritual Warfare

I was talking with a friend of mine concerning Jehovah's Witness and Muslim view on the divinity of Jesus. Having discussed this with Jehovah's Witness (JW) friends of mine in the past, this one area is the central division between JW doctrine and that of other Christians (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant). You see you really can't say that Jesus of Nazareth was just a prophet or a great moral teacher if he claimed to be God. He either is or is not God. If He is not God and He claims to be, He is a lair and not to be trusted as a prophet or great moral teacher. In fact a prophet who lies should be put to death (Deu 18: 20-22). 

Eipen autois ho Iesous Amen amen lego humin prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi

Greek test for John 8:58

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

John 8:58 (NASB)

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a good moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.  But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great moral teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C. S. Lewis

“After Tripoli declared war on the United States in 1801, Barbary pirates captured 300 U.S. sailors and marines. President Jefferson sent navy squadrons to the Mediterranean, but he also authorized a secret mission to overthrow the government of Tripoli. He chose an unlikely diplomat, William Eaton, to lead the mission, but before Eaton departed, Jefferson grew wary of the affair and withdrew his support. Astoundingly, Eaton persevered, gathering a ragtag army, including eight U.S. Marines, and leading them on a brutal march across 500 miles of desert. After surviving sandstorms, treachery, and near death from thirst, Eaton achieved a remarkable victory on "the shores of Tripoli", as commemorated in the Marine Corps Hymn. His triumph gained freedom for the American hostages and newfound respect for the young United States, but for Eaton, the aftermath wasn't sweet. When he dared to reveal that the president had abandoned him, Jefferson set out to crush him.”  – Audible.com

I recently finished reading the Tao Te Ching or Daodejing (Dao De Jing), depending upon how you Anglicize it, by Lao Tzu and listening to a series of lectures (12 hours) by Professor Mark W. Muesse on the 'Religions of the Axial Age: An Approach to the World's Religions'.

The Dao De Jing did not come across as a religious text to me. It came across more like a guide book for rulers. The 'Way' is really about the way to govern which does includes spiritual concepts, however spirituality is not the focus of the text. When I was finished reading the text I was left with the impression that Daoism is a very libertarian philosophy with respect to governing.

One concept discussed in the lectures by Prof. Muesse was how the ruling classes were encouraged to avoid self-aggrandizement at public expense and to interfere as little as possible in the lives of their subjects. This concept sounds like something right out of the Libertarian playbook. Another concept of Daoism was that the governed (people) would follow the lead of the governing. Meaning, if those who govern do so amorally then the people will be amoral. This is very much like leadership by example.

A few of my favorite quotes in the Dao De Jing:

• "In studying, each day something is gained." - a great reminder to keep learning
• "Therefore the sage grasps the one and becomes the model for all." - lead by example
• "How could the ruler of a large state be so concerned with himself as to ignore the people?" - politicians should never forgot they work for the people.
• "You would not dominate the people by military force." - win with heart not force
• "Therefore the sage says: I do not force my way and the people transform themselves. I enjoy my serenity and the people correct themselves. I do not interfere and the people enrich themselves." - do not over manipulate people

Am I on the mark in seeing it as political and not spiritual?
What do you think of the concepts I have posted?

[Water is often used as a metaphor for the Dao (or Tao) hence the picture.]