Confucius and Christ: Chinese Philosophy and Christianity in Dialogue

[fhansen]

I do not see much contradictions between Christ and other religions. Instead I see that Christ brings more, build on where other seem to have finished.

Yes. I'd probably tend to say that, if there's ignorance or even contradictions at times, Christ corrects and fills in the erroneus or missing details.

 

[Marston]

The anti-Christ movement isn't so much about being against Christ as it is in offering an alternative to Christ. Many worldly religions are a substitute for Christ and are, by definition, part of the anti-Christ system.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The anti-Christ movement isn't so much about being against Christ as it is in offering an alternative to Christ. Many worldly religions are a substitute for Christ and are, by definition, part of the anti-Christ system.

Mark 9:40 for whoever is not against us is for us.

 

[Marston]

Mark 9:40 for whoever is not against us is for us.

It sounds like your understanding is immense. I look forward to learning from you!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It sounds like your understanding is immense. I look forward to learning from you!

The more we learn the more we realize how little we know. My ignorance is immense. My understand, like a jigsaw puzzle scattered on the floor.

But you made an interesting statement that I had to think about:
"The anti-Christ movement isn't so much about being against Christ as it is in offering an alternative to Christ. Many worldly religions are a substitute for Christ and are, by definition, part of the anti-Christ system."


Yes, some things can lead the way to Christ and somethings can try to substitute for Christ. And they can be the same things!!

It is up to us and how we interpret, or value or discern them. Stoicism, for example. It is very harmonious with Christ and he was a very stoic person. But, one could also opt for a stoic philosophy without Christ. Then it becomes like Buddhism, an ethical way of life with acceptance and even compassion. But that is it. Christ adds infinitely more.

But some things can actually be ant-Christ. I have come to believe the root is selfishness, lack of empathy, me first.

Let me tell you why. A long time ago someone gave me a "Satanic Bible" as a joke. It was all about immediate self gratification without regard for others. That seemed to me to be the opposite of what Jesus taught. Even some forms of Christianity can dabble into that.

 

[FireDragon76]

The more we learn the more we realize how little we know. My ignorance is immense. My understand, like a jigsaw puzzle scattered on the floor.

But you made an interesting statement that I had to think about:
"The anti-Christ movement isn't so much about being against Christ as it is in offering an alternative to Christ. Many worldly religions are a substitute for Christ and are, by definition, part of the anti-Christ system."


Yes, some things can lead the way to Christ and somethings can try to substitute for Christ. And they can be the same things!!

It is up to us and how we interpret, or value or discern them. Stoicism, for example. It is very harmonious with Christ and he was a very stoic person. But, one could also opt for a stoic philosophy without Christ. Then it becomes like Buddhism, an ethical way of life with acceptance and even compassion. But that is it. Christ adds infinitely more.

But some things can actually be ant-Christ. I have come to believe the root is selfishness, lack of empathy, me first.

Let me tell you why. A long time ago someone gave me a "Satanic Bible" as a joke. It was all about immediate self gratification without regard for others. That seemed to me to be the opposite of what Jesus taught. Even some forms of Christianity can dabble into that.

I think the difference between Jesus and the Stoics is really down to theological vision or what is called in the East, theoria. Jesus worldview is enchanted or mystical, whereas the Stoics mostly saw the world in impersonal, rational, and disenchanted ways, and saw no meaning to history. It's all about living in your head with a disciplined consciousness and overbearing sense of self-restraint and resignation, and little else. In fact it's rather sad how there's been a resurgence in Stoic philosophy in the past decade or so, that people should settle for such a paltry view of life. Hopefully it is something that people move on from.

I saw a critique of Stoicism, actually, on Youtube by a philosopher, arguing that Jesus ethics were better, because there a world-positive vision in Jesus, that isn't in Stoicism. It was an interesting perspective, as it wasn't advocating for Christianity, per se, just using Jesus' perspective as a counterpoint to Stoicism. This is specifically evident in how comfortable Stoics were with suicide, and how negatively they tended to view life. Jesus was much more in touch with his animal and thymic nature, and has integrated that into a positive and creative vision that is life-affirming and this-worldly. In that sense, he prefigures something like Aurobindo's Integral Yoga, where all capacities of the human being are developed in service of the Divine Life, or as Jesus said, the Kingdom of God.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think the difference between Jesus and the Stoics is really down to theological vision or what is called in the East, theoria. Jesus worldview is enchanted or mystical, whereas the Stoics mostly saw the world in impersonal, rational, and disenchanted ways, and saw no meaning to history. It's all about living in your head with a disciplined consciousness and overbearing sense of self-restraint and resignation, and little else.

I saw a critique of Stoicism, actually, on Youtube by a philosopher, arguing that Jesus ethics were better, because there a world-positive vision in Jesus, that isn't in Stoicism. It was an interesting perspective, as it wasn't advocating for Christianity, per se, just using Jesus' perspective as a counterpoint to Stoicism. This is specifically evident in how comfortable Stoics were with suicide, and how negatively they tended to view life. Jesus was much more in touch with his animal and thymic nature, and has integrated that into a positive and creative vision that is life-affirming and this-worldly. In that sense, he prefigures something like Aurobindo's Integral Yoga, where all capacities of the human being are developed in service of the Divine Life, or as Jesus said, the Kingdom of God.

Yes, right on. Did you know I am an Aurobindo fanatic?

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, right on. Did you know I am an Aurobindo fanatic?

Yes.

I suspect to fully appreciate Aurobindo, I'd have to dive more deeply into his Hindu context.

Years ago I read a book by Anita Moorjani called Dying to be Me. She had a near death experience and the message she received from the experience was very similar to what I described about this-worldliness and divine immanence. You shouldn't wait till the hereafter to make your life meaningful, but that's what alot of traditional religion has been about. At least in her Hindu upbringing, she just was taught as a woman to resign herself, to negate herself, and it left her miserable and sick. And I think alot of traditional culture in general can do that (especially for women and marginalized people), it's all about knowing your place, even if it comes at the cost of your own dignity, power, and voice. I think people like Jesus, Aurobindo, or Ms. Moorjani have an entirely different view on life, one that can make life alot more joyous and meaningful.

 

[Hawkins]

When we look at China today there has been a great technological upscale but a complete moral collapse.

What? Chinese are important, but completely not in anyway you can imagine or assume. There's never a moral collapse happened to the Chinese, they are just as corrupted as from the very beginning. Confucius is a complete failure in terms of the social engineering he's trying to implement. China is quite hopeless since then. Confucius was the last chance for China's social behavior to be corrected, but he failed.

It's better to compare China with Japan instead of the West. What the Chinese repeatedly built is a society accurately described below,

"Behind red gates, wine and meat rot; on the road lie frozen bones." - from a famous Chinese poet more than 1200 years ago.

The situation was much worsen in recent history. This caused a series of society resets at the cost of millions of human lives (70 million for Taiping Heaven Kingdom before 1864, and another 50 million for the communist revolution before 1949).

What Confucius tried to achieve is similar to what the social ethical framework which Christianity has built. He tried to deal with two fundamental elements in terms of social engineering. That is to deal with greed and selfishness and to deal with rebelliousness, but without success. Since then the two elements like a cancer growth haunting the Chinese back and forth.

Japan on the other hand, is more like a Confucian state. Japanese people never for once seeked to overthrow their society. It's the same dynasty from the very beginning. From mythical stories, formal history till now stands the same Japanese dynasty (more or less with both selfishness and rebelliousness smoothed out, a Confucius' dream come true).

 

[timf]

Confucius pretty much wrote about his idea of how people should live. Like the Jewish law it is helpful to know what is good, but without the power to overcome our own selfishness, making it a reality is out of reach. This is where the Christian has the advantage. The indwelling Holy Spirit (if allowed) can make us the better people that various philosophies aspire to.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, right on. Did you know I am an Aurobindo fanatic?

Something strange has been happening all day today. The word "joy" has been popping up everywhere for me.

I found an Aurobindo quote that seemed deeply meaningful. I think it is from some of his poetry:

"To house God's joy in self, our souls were born"

That encapsulates what is missing from Stoicism. Joy, satisfaction. There is no room for the theological virtues that Paul talks about, faith, hope, and love. Only compassion, perhaps, but it's the compassion of spiritual euthanasia.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Something strange has been happening all day today. The word "joy" has been popping up everywhere for me.

I found an Aurobindo quote that seemed deeply meaningful. I think it is from some of his poetry:

"To house God's joy in self, our souls were born"

That encapsulates what is missing from Stoicism. Joy, satisfaction. There is no room for the theological virtues that Paul talks about, faith, hope, and love. Only compassion, perhaps, but it's the compassion of spiritual euthanasia.

Do you think Stoicism and Buddhism are pretty much the same thing?

 

[FireDragon76]

Do you think Stoicism and Buddhism are pretty much the same thing?

Sometimes, Buddhism can present a "thin" worldview, similar to Stoicism, particularly in its scholastcism, and it can at times seem to have a negative view of life (I don't think this is unique to Buddhism, BTW). But Buddhism is more aesthetic. I don't just mean in terms of art, but the actual substance, in a way that I don't see in Stoicism, and even when it's thin, it is still quite a bit deeper in its profundity about the human condition.

There is a place in Buddhism for deeper intraceptive sentiments, or what is evocative of the same. Jesus washed the disciples feet, but the Buddha was once moved to take care of a sick monk, and chided his disciples for failing to act "You have no mother or father to care for you. If you do not care for each other, who will? He who would nurse me, let him nurse the sick". Buddha also seemed to appreciate the value of friendship, and didn't view the spiritual life as so individualistic as Stoicism. "Good friends and companions are the whole of the holy life". And a Buddhist can have a certain winsomeness that is far more attractive than mere resolve or resignation.

 

[timf]

As I understand Buddhism, the suppression of desire leads to Nirvana. Stoicism is similar in that natural desires are suppressed to demonstrate "virtue". The difficulty for both is that they are attempted using the strength of the flesh which is what causes problems in the first place. Only Christianity offers the means by which to accomplish these noble goals.

2Co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

 

[fhansen]

Something strange has been happening all day today. The word "joy" has been popping up everywhere for me.

I found an Aurobindo quote that seemed deeply meaningful. I think it is from some of his poetry:

"To house God's joy in self, our souls were born"

That encapsulates what is missing from Stoicism. Joy, satisfaction. There is no room for the theological virtues that Paul talks about, faith, hope, and love. Only compassion, perhaps, but it's the compassion of spiritual euthanasia.

This is similar to my belief. Christianity firmly anchors virtue and morality in and to a God who is moral, who is goodness and love and peace and joy itself, making order and goodness foundational to the universe.

Stoicism and Confucianism follow a sort of instinctive understanding that self-control and virtue are their own rewards, or that the golden rule is superior to and smarter than the often harmful "philosophies" that we easily tend towards: selfishness, sloth, licentiousness, greed, hedonism, etc-all things that compete in promising us happier, better lives. But the former constitute an aspiration towards something better yet, something higher, something noble that aligns with both reason and spirit without necessarily knowing the Spirit behind it. Christ fills in the missing pieces, while taking it far beyond.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Message of the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue to Buddhists on the occasion of Vesak 2025

press.vatican.va