When two finally meet, after the Doaist master has traveled 10,000 Li, Khan

finally asks the main question he has been wanting and hoping to find out,
"Have you medicine of Immortality?" to which the priest/hermit replied,
"(There is) no medicines for immortality". Khan is like Gilgamesh in this
sense. The great and famous Mesopotamian King had conquered the wild
forests around his kingdom, slew the mythical beasts that got in the way of
his majesty, and was a force even the gods found difficulty to deal with. But
one thing Gilgamesh saw that he didn't have, when his best friend died in
battle, Gilgamesh saw that his life, too, would one day come to an end,
unless, he sought out the wise Sage who survived the Great Deluge. This wise
Sage was said to be immortal as the gods blessed him by preserving his life
in an Ark. Once Gilgamesh and this Sage meet, and a long conversation
about the great Flood and how this great Sage was saved, Gilgamesh, too,
finally asks him to reveal the secret of Immortal life, a Medicine. In contrast
here, this Sage replies that there once was a Garden that had a plant/fruit,
and if one ate from this plant of Life, then one would live forever, but
unfortunately that place was drowned in the Flood, and now is at the bottom
of the Ocean. The rest of the Quest is Gilgamesh's attempt to reach this
buried and lost "Paradise". In our document we have a very similar figure,
Khan has in seven years conquered most the world, and yet he came from a
humble upbringing. He is the one name that is now feared through most the
world. And now that he has conquered most of the world, he now comes to
the question, what next? And like Gilgamesh, the next great conquest would
be is to conquer death itself. To live forever. The Daoists played an important
part in kind of revolutionizing China during its earlier Imperial times and the
warring states period. The Daoists were huge unsupporters of previous belief
systems in China, and were unsupporters of the incoming Confucian
philosophy on the horizon, at that time. The would take a well known Flood
story from Ancient China about Emperor Yao and how he, after praying for
wisdom from the singular Monotheistic Deity known as Tien(Heaven), or
Shang Di, gained wisdom on how to use pratical means to prevent the River
from over-flooding. The Daosists changed this story to surplant this early
singular Deity, Heaven, with multiple gods to inhabit Heaven. Each of whom
were some legendary person in an ancient past who at some point in their life
found the secret to Immortality and became a god, or lived such a good life,
that the gods granted them the secret knowledge and granted them
Immortality (as in the story Yi the Sun Archer). A lot of these populace of
Heaven were either Immortals, gods, or sometimes the gods took on the form
of now Dragons. The Daosist version of the flood story took on the form of Yao
needing to gain the assistance of multiple Daoist gods and finally to confront
the demon of the River-Flood and have one giant battle with him. And for his
great defeat, at the end of his life he would have been granted Immortality.
So a lot of the Daosist stories outside of the Dao De Ching, all have some
relationship to Yin and Yang principle of Balance but also this overarching
idea of Immortality. There are many tales about how many Taoist priests
sought a sacred Garden which had a special Peach Tree in it, and if you ate a
Peach from this Peach Tree, one would live forever and become an Immortal.
This Garden is said to be on an Island somewhere in the Pacific and Taosists
were crazy about uncovering the location of it to eat of its Fruit. To this day
the Peach is an important fruit in Chinese culture given as a gift which means
may you have long health and a long life. And it is quite customary to
decorate ones houses when one is newly married with Peaches. And I am sure
that one has perhaps seen ancestor shrines in houses, chinese restaurants, or
in films, of the family Shrine having a fresh peach put out daily before their
ancestor idol so that their ancestors can have food in the other life.

Khan must have heard some account of these stories and not necessarily the
the teachings of the Tao De Ching, as, although in Daoism there is no such
thing as a paradox, the Tao De Ching presents an almost opposite message
that polar opposite against the idea of Immortality. The teaching of
Immortality was the idea of in this life being able to live forever, or go to
Heaven and life forever and be one of the immortals. The message of the Tao
De Ching is to escape Reincarnation and all existence altogether and go back
into the Dao, the Way, that which existed before Reality, and before the
Chaos, back all the way to the Nothingness, Inertia. Nothingness is complete
non-existence and absolute non-existent reality, something that transcends
reality itself, whereas Immortality is to co-exist wihtin this reality for all time.
To see Immortality is to not only wish not to die, and not only to wish to live
forever, but it would be to also wish that forever would last Forever. The Dao,
is the complete opposite of this, for Death is what is sought after. They would
want everything to not move foreword, but for everything to revert
backwards into its original Nothingness state. They would reality to be
annihilated of its own self so that it may find freedom from its own
imprisonment called existence. So as a Westerner how thinks very Black and
White, I honestly can not fathom how this paradox was so easily accepted by
Daoist priests who both sought the secrets of the Way and to learn the secret
of Immortality. One would think they were two opposite religions and
philosophies, but they are the same, even though one is a Yin and the other
is a Yang. And as I stated, the Chinese and Daosist form of Heaven, a place,
existed after The Dao, The Way, Nothingness. And yet, those that sought
immortality in Daosim clearly were seeking to go to Heaven the place for all
time, which is not the Dao, the Way, back into the Nothingness before
existence existed. Clearly Khan is referring to Heaven and not going back into
this Nothingness in space, he wants to either live forever on this earth and
rule the world as its emperor, or he is seeking kind of like ones last
confession in Catholicism, where one asks the priest to come visit them in the
hospital so that they can confess their sins one last time and the priest can
pray for them to make sure they can go to heaven. Khan is perhaps going to
die soon, I can't remember when he died from the chapter, or he just sees
that now that he's conquered the world, now that one has the world it is
meaningless if one doesn't have life to enjoy that which you gained (these
were the conclusions of Solomon when he became the top, that "All is
Meaningless, like chasing the Wind). Khan has probably heard Daoist stories
about how some Daoists were given Immortality. He therefore wants to find
out who the most Holy Daoist priest is, he learns of this Hermit, a lowly man,
passing Khan's standards of who he was looking for, Khan then concludes
that if any living Daoist today knows the secret to immortal life of has the
fruit/medicine of Immortality or knows where it is at, it is this man. It would
be like summoning the Pope, or Billy Graham, or the Dali Lama, to travel all
the way to your death-bed, let's say, so that you can hear one last wisdom
from the greatest men of that faith, hoping they impart that one thing or
truth or wise thing that you hadn't thought of heard your whole life but were
searching for. Khan is eager if this man has the medicine, and hopefully
brought some with him. But Khan soon get's his hopes let down, "of such
medicine or fruit, the truth is, Universal Ruler, is that such a fruit or medicine
does not exist, in this world at least, it is just a fairy tale, the truth is, Khan,
you will die, and so will I, no matter how great your kingdom is and how many
lands you've conquered, and no matter how many times I've prayed or
fasted".

And as in the end of the Gilgamesh story, when he falls asleep and the
serpent steals his Plant of Life, where Gilgamesh finally accepts his mortality
and comes back to his kingdom a changed man with this knowledge, so too
does Khan accept his mortality at the end of this story and comes to terms
and grips with one day he will die, and most likely one day this great empire
he built from nothing will return back to nothing, and he too undergoes a sort
of transformation as Gilgamesh does. For both men sought to be great and
search out for immoralities fruit and thought of nothing else. And both men at
the end gained the wisdom that they were both looking for and dreading at
the same time, the Great Gilgamesh will die one day, the Great Khan will die
one day. And with this knowledge and Truth they no longer seek to chase
immortality, but accept the life that they've been given, and both chose to
spend their last days ruling from that wisdom.

2
"Heaven has abandoned China owing to its haughtiness and extravagant
luxury... I hate Luxury and exercise moderation".

This chapter has put an emphasis on that so far we have been looking at
empires and civilizations that came from agricultural societies, Khan's Empire
is not an agricultural one but a Pastoral one. There has been many chapters
in this textbook and other ancient sources as well, including the Biblical one,
showcase a feud and hatred and bickering between Pastoral and City-Based
societies. Today we can still see this perspective from lets say the small town
of Sterling Kansas verses the big city life of Wichita. Those that live in
Sterling, some at least, talk about how they enjoy Sterling because it is a safe
community. Everyone knows everyone. Everyone is friendly. It is a good place
to raise your children. And Sterling is a faith-based community with lots of
churches and religious people who respect one another. There is a certain
peace to simplicity of life in China. Whereas the reason they don't want to live
in Wichita, that is some Sterling-ites that is, is because Wichita is "too big".
"Too many people". "Too violent and dangerous". It has too much going on for
it. Or it is too worldly (I've heard people discuss their distaste for Wichita as
they heard that in old times Wichita as a place where Indians would sacrifice
babies, and that that is Abortion is so big and prosperous there, because
there is a Demon of Abortion and "Curse" that hangs over the city that goes
back over in ancient Indian times). To normal Sterling-ite, whereas a big city
is nice and you can get lots of things from Wichita in a day trip, Sterling is the
preferred Haven, overall, for now. Now obviously how small town Sterling
verse big city-state Wichita has no real comparisons between Mongol and
China, I was just using an example of how this small town folk verse big city
feller talk and disputes is an ol' tale to tell of.

In this quote we can see that the Pastoral and the simplistic liver of life has a
negative view on the livelihood of those who live in big extravagant cities. In
this quote Khan marks that Heaven has abandoned China because sought big
city-state based life and gave life over to the elites and oppressed the
farmers and country people. He looks down at their silk-wear and the fine
style of luxury. This is similar to the Daoist view of things, as they too were
against big grand city life and talked about life in the country and in nature,
"For a long time thou hast lived in the caverns of the rocks, and hast retired
from the world", and in contrast to Confucious' idea of a Golden Past, their
Golden Past was more like a Garden of Eden, where men and women lived as
equals in the garden of nature and lived in peace and harmony with the
animals. Khan, perhaps like the Daoists, saw this greed of higher life and
luxurious one as vain and fleshly, to which Heaven with His Mandates has
abandoned China's dynasties and has instead favored the lowly Khan,
because Khan lived a life against Luxury, thus Heaven chose him.

"I have only one coat and one food".

As stated above, by this time China was world famous for its silk. The Elites in
China would live life with extravagant dresses and clothes, to the Pastoral
Khan this was detestable as he saw that one should be content and satisfied
with the clothes already on your back. Clothes are meant to keep you warm,
not award you esteem from men, if the clothes you are wearing serving their
purpose, then that is all you need. Likewise, food's job is to fill your belly and
to stop you from starving. You don't need food to be extravagant, you just
need it to fill its purpose. This is the kind of life Khan is presenting here, a
simple life, where one just lives off of the means that they've been given and
a life needs verses wants, a life of contentment verses luxury. Khan sees that
China was given lots of wealth but wasted all that wealth on high living and
extravagant clothes, houses, and food.

"I eat the same food and am dressed in the same tatters as my humble
herdsmen... At military exercises, I am always am in the front".

So far we these quotes have not only been attacked at higher and
extravagant quality of life verses lowly ones and common and simple ones,
but I also want to point out that in this particular statement there is a notion
of being anti "Class-System-Based" Society. Confucianism was huge about
social class with Elites and Men being at the top of the social ladder. But in
this quote, the King and Emperor, Khan dresses the same way as a farmer
and perhaps if stood side by side we couldn't distinguish who was whom. This
looks at man as a kind of equal, in that we are all humans, he calls his men
his "brothers", family members. Whereas in a class based Confucian society
the Emperors brother was definitely treated different than the common
peasant or solider and was placed in a different level in society.

In question 1, this is stated at the top: One of the things that we look for
when reading primary source documents is the motivation for the document.
One one is examining any Myth or old story from China one that is primarily
crucial to interpreting and understanding it is which Philosophical background
and stance does this Myth belong to? Is Taosim, Confucianism, or Buddhism?
Most of the time one will find that that most ancients "children's stories" from
China are from a Taoist "motivation". Most of these stories originate in a time
post Waring States period during a time when China was stable and
Confucianism was the main philosophical school accepted by the government
and emperor. Therefore, Taosim was sort of banned during this time. Traveling
Taoist priests were not really allowed to walk down the streets and proclaim
the "Good News" of the Tao De Chin (much like Christian Evangelists are not
allowed to do the same in post Mao China). So the only real way a Priest was
able to propagate his message to society and the youth was by coming up
with stories to tell to children on the streets. The stories and fairytales
seemed harmless, so they were allowed to tell stories on the streets, but
secretly behind these stories were messages that were Pro Taoist thought and
either anti-Confucian or made fun of it. So when one comes to old chinese
stories, they need to peel back the exterior fluffy imagery and go to its core
teaching from which political/religious/sociological/philosophical perspective
and stance it is taking, what is more, one also needs to understand how this
story either criticizes or makes fun of the other two schools of thought, and
which one is it attacking, is it attacking Confucianism or Buddhism? So one
that is extremely important about chinese stories that are Daoist in origin is
that they are against class-systems and either make fun a big cities based
societies or poke holes into Confucius thought. Therefore, I can summize that
out of the two schools of thought, Khan supported Taoist way of thinking and
rejected Confucius as that would seem to instrumental, or at least submissive
and passive to it, to this high class society where ones where one could live in
luxury, big houses, dress in fine clothes, and be regarded as higher and
better than the other classes. So to be honest when I read these quotes I can
see them as Khan trying to appeal to the Taoist master's distaste for Class-
Based philosophy, and if Khan can appeal to how this Taoist Master thinks
and views life, then perhaps I can convince him to make the long journey and
get his magical medicine to live forever.

As the chapter talked about, unlike how Mao aborted religious and
philosophical thought (Confucianism) when he ruled China, the Mongols were
okay with people keeping their faith and beliefs. For example in Russia, if you
were Orthodox this was sort of an advantage as you didn't have to pay as
much of a tax if you were apart of the Church. And in Persia this actually
helped their eventual re-take-over of their country, for because the Moguls
didn't terminate Islamic belief, eventually locals were able to convert the
Mongol rulers into the Islamic faith. I think, as stated above, Khan would be
against philosophies such as Confucius' that talked about high class life, but
as far as religious beliefs that supported simplistic pastoral ways of life, this
was not seen as detrimental to their control of a nation. So although China
was controlled by Mongol, Daosim was allowed to flourish, and it seems of
the Asiatic belief systems, Khan had a particular respect for Daism's
spirituality. In the chapter it discusses that the god of the Mongols was
"Tengri", recall that the original god of China was Tien, Heaven/Sky, or his
other title, Shang Di, Heavenly Emperor or Lord, Tien being the formal title for
the diety and Shang Di being the personal title. Now I would wager that
etymologically there is a root connection between "Ten"gri and Tien. In the
most ancient of ancient of times in China the Son of Heaven would need to
travel all the way to northern boarder of China, annually, to perform the
Boarder Sacrifice to Tien, he would sacrifice one Ox, and would stand in for
China as its high priest and ask "The Father" to forgive the sins of the Chinese
people, his children. Eventually Taosim and self-worshiping emperors would
root out th ancient monotheistic belief in China, and supplant it with either
worship of the emperor as god, worship of ancestors, or worship of the Tao or
a Taoist idea of Heaven or its deities. When we speak of "Heaven" in Chinese
culture, or ancient culture at least, we could be referring to perhaps 3
different concepts: 1, Heaven as a singular Deity, Tien, this is the most
ancient view and the etymological root and concept of the idea in China; 2,
Heaven as something as "Real" but maybe not fully corporal, if that's the
world, something that is not just philosophical, but something that is hard to
realize in the mind and know, this would be Confucius perspective; and
lastly, 3, a physical place in the sky or realm where the Immortals and past
emperors live, like the Yellow Emperor, who now stood in the place of Shang
Di, or the Jade Emperor, who later supplanted the Yellow Emperor and stood
his place, this would be the Taoist concept (If I've understood it correctly, it's
actually quite confusing and has taken me some years to understand how
Tien can mean 3 separate things). But here Khan talks about Heaven, which
in Chinese is the word Tien, and that it was the will of Heaven that allowed
him Khan to rise up in power. Now what does Khan mean? Does he mean it
was the will of the Mongolian Tengri, or one of the 3 concepts in Chinese
thoughts of Heaven? And then we have the Taoist master coming and making
the journey all the way to see Khan, and when Khan asks you rejected to see
the other's that have asked of you, why visit me? And the Taoist master
responds that it was the will of Heaven. You know this is the most interesting
peice of the whole letter and Source Document. Because what did Khan mean
say the beginning when he said Heaven has abandoned China, what did he
mean by Heaven? And what did the Daoist mean by that it was the will of
Heaven for him to see Khan? When Khan uses Heaven at the start of this
letter is he referring to Tengri, Shang Di (or a universal concept of the too, the
idea of singular deity who lives in Heaven), or is he referring to the
philosophical idea of Confucius Heaven, or is he refering to the place in the
sky where the past ancestors live and the gods. And when the Master says
that Heaven willed him to make the journey to see Khan which Heaven was
he referring to? Now it is important to note that a Daosit should be pretty
much against the idea of a singular monotheistic deity known as Heaven and
what is more they should be against this philosophical notion of Heaven that
Confucius held. What is more, China had by this time accepted Buddhist
thought, so now we have pull in a 4th or 5th possible concept of what Heaven
could mean from their philosophy and belief. And we must recall, as well, that
this document and the "Quote" of this Daoist priest is not written by himself,
all of his words are being recorded by people of the court of Khan, himself. So
when the Daoist priest says, "It was the will of Heaven", we can not be
certain that that is exactly the way he worded it, or if some his words or ideas
were changed to fit in with a Mongolian notion of what Heaven was, seen via
the lens of Tengri. So that is what stuck out to me the most, in fact. I believe
also the text book also talked about how the Mongols thought that Heaven,
god, had many fingers on his hand, therefore some saw god as Allah, some
saw him as YWHY, some saw him as Jesus, some saw him as Tien/Shang Di,
but all belonged to the same hand. So if this is true, then perhaps Khan had a
kind of universalism about his respect to different religions. You say Tien I say
Tengri, but both come from the same hand.

Final

I think what the chapter concluded on in chapter 11 about how perception

can change once perspective is switched. 11 was talking about how usually
we've thought of Mongol's and Khan's take-over of the world in a negative
light, and how it had a negative impact on world history and culture, but
chapter 11 concluded that alternatively, with unbiasim, one can take a
neutral view, then one can see that in fact a lot of world history issued forth
because of Mongol empire. Like as an empire itself its ways of life or ideas
had very little impact on other cultures, unlike the Roman culture had on its
cultures it took over, but because they were involved in history, many tracks
and streams of historic events were altered or changed because of their
placement on the chessboard called History. I found that to be insteresting,
because until that chapter I had no idea how far-reaching the Mongol empire
was, and only living in China did I know kind of a little bit about it, due to the
history that is here, but I guess I would have been one of those that would
have had a basic idea that the Mongols were a bad thing and maybe had little
impact on world history, as I knew very little about them. But in reality, they
had a big impact on history just like the Roman conquest of the world did. So
when this question asks what event or person can help us understand the
world today, I think this chapter and conclusion at the end has an important
lesson to it, and that is that one, every side views itself as the good guy and
the other side as the bad guy. Every Empire that has tried to take over
another country feels very much Justified in their take over. This can be seen
realistically in todays events with Russia's take over of Chimera, and its
desire to take over Ukraine and other countries that have become
independant post USSR. China's desire to take back Tiwan. China's desire to
control the South China Seas. North Korea's desire to take back South Korea.
Isis' desire for a Isis contorlled Islamic state that has Israel in the center of
this new state and government. Now from a Western perspective all of these
are negative things are negative, but from China, Russia's, Korea, Isis' point of
view they are justified and right and the others are wrong. If one is in China
there is no way you can convince the average person on the street that
Tiawan does not belong China. Another thing that this lessson teaches is that
everything leads into other things. And I think that is the most fruitful thing to
gleam here. From that chapter we learned that Europe failed in the Crusades
to take back Juruslum and take out a Muslim controlled middle east was
primarily because of Mongols absesense. History would look so much
different if the Crusades had been won, but that Jursulum was taken over and
controlled by the Mongols instead of Europe. An interesting modern day
example is that it was because of the Imperialsitic and genocide attempt by
Hitlar and Nazi Germany, a 20th century example of Mongol-like take over of
the world, that ultimately lead back to Israel to take back Israel. Had there
been no Holocaust would Israel be in Jursuluem today? Now that Israel is back
in Israel, geographically, what future events will that lead into?

Advice to the English Church

"For there is no doubt that it is impossible to efface everything at once from

their obdurate minds; because he who endeavors to ascend to the highest
place, rises by degrees or steps, and not by leaps". I want to compare this
statement by the 601 AD Pope to how Chapter 10 starts with the Chinese, Yao
Hong, "Nor did she find the Christian faith alien to her Chinese culture. To the
contrary, she felt conversion to Christianity as a patriotic act, even a way of
becoming fully modern". Previous chapters, or maybe 10 I can't remember,
talked about that there was a prior Western/European version of Chrsitianity.
There was the "Asiatic" one, in Turkey. There was the African ones in Egypt
and Eutheopia. Then there was the early early Church of Acts in the
Jursuleum. What we have in this primary Source is that Pope Gregory was
basically saying that Faith should not take out culture, and that Christianity
can co-exist within divierse cultures and how the Gospel is presented in one
culture may look different in another. The core message is Jesus, keep that
the same, and the hearts pure, then externalaties are minor. So I took Yao
Hong's quote about how her Christianity in China did not make her feel
alienated from her culture, but actually helped her become more Chinese.
She wasn't China to adopt Western Chrsitainity, she was sayign that she was
hoping that one day China will be more open to Chrsit, so that we can see
Christ's blessings poured out in China more and more, not to make China a
replica of Cathedrials in Euorope. I think there is an extremely important thing
to understand, Jesus was not Western. The Gospel is not Western. The idea of
the "West" was still emerging. The setting of the Gospel and the life of Chrsit
was Middle-Eastern/Asiatic one. One that cultural exchange with Western
Rome, yes, but at the same time was NOT Roman. That would come later. I
feel that every Chrsitian should want His Message spread to the Ends of the
Earth, to all people groups, but what we must understand is not all cultures is
like America. In China, here is a culture which a lot of the time seems to me
to be the counter opposite of my own. What is polite in America is rude here,
and what is rude here is polite in the USA, that's just a fact of daily life here.
You never know if when someone is being rude to you is actually trying to be
nice to you. Or if someone who is nice to you is in fact insencere and false-
faced. For example, if I lied to you, you probably think that was rude and
unkind of me. However, lieing to your friends in China is a very kind thing.
Just think about that for second. What is to be polite here is the lie to your
face. That is more polite then telling you truthfully how they felt. So when the
Bible talks about thou shalt not lie, how do you recon that with a culture that
is all about saving face? To make the Gospel work here do we need to remove
Saving Face from China, to make Christianity prosper here in Chinna, do we
need to rewrite their culture? Or is there way that we can keep both, the
Gospel and Saving Fcae? For example 20 years ago in China this was a
common response to say to someone's child, oh, they are very beautiful. Oh
no, my child is not beautiful. They are ugly. Or they just average. But today
they are little more modern so it is okay for parents to say thank you for
saying so. But now "Every-child" is beutiful or handsome.

Anyway my point that I'm trying to make is that I want to see his Gospel
flourish here in China, however, I recognize that there is a long standing
culture here. So how does one present and represent Christ in this culutre,
one that is very alien to it? I believe the answer lies in what the Bible teaches
and demonstrates to us. Paul, for example, primarily, ministered to a Greco,
Roman, and sometimes Roman/Celtic culture. Because of this, he used
"Western" ideas to help illustrate what the Gospel is about. For example, take
Galations 5, Spirit vs Fruits of the Flesh. Now how Paul speaks about Spirit
and Flesh is not one that is showcased in the Old Testiment by Moses and re-
echoed by Jesus. Instead, Paul's illustration is more in line with Platonic
understanding of these concepts, where the Mind standing as the Carriteer,
and there is the Horse called Spirit and there is the Horse called Flesh. So
viewing Galatians 5 more in a Platonic Philosphy helps us to understand how
his non-Jewish audiance would have understood this concept verses us using
a Dueteronmy understanding of Spirit and Body. One can not just interpret
that the Greek/Roman model is identical to the Jewish model in the Old
Testament. And there is no reason that the Gaelic Roman people of the early
Galtia church would have had a profound understanding of the Torah and its
usage of these concepts and terms, but instead a more Roman/Greco one. A
second example: "Crown of Glory" imagery from Paul. When we read these
words, what do we think of? Everyone in my family that I've asked has come
up with an image that is more like the Crowns worn by English Kings or
Europeans one. But the problem is that those types of crowns did not exist in
the time when Paul said those things? So when Paul said "crown" in that
illustration, visually speaking what did he mean? Perhaps a Jewish Crown like
one worn by David. But then again we'd be wrong, because Paul, again, was
not speaking to Jewish audience, but to a Roman one. In context of his
conversation, Paul is most likely referring to the Laurel Crown won by victors
who have run marathons at the Olympics. Hence the whole langauge about
using "Running a good Race". It's Greek imagery, NOT Jewish. The point I am
making is that at the time the "West" was open to the Gospel, God used Paul
and others to minister to their culture using Western ideas and images to
help illustrate the Truths that they were being presented to, so that they
would understand it more clearly and that wasn't so foreign to them.
Likewise, I believe Pope Gregories statement is helpful for us when it comes
to how to minister to Asiaitic culture. If the Church is going to respond to this
call, then we must do what Paul did, and that is he understood their culture
from their point of view and he understood how "foolish" the Gospel would
seem to a Western Eyes. Therefore he approached it from their point of view,
as a working spot, and then he started to talk like a Roman, using examples
that they were familiar with. This is how the Roman Missionaries ministered
the Gospel to Pagan Northern Regions we call Europe. That happened 1000
years back. Now today we are faced with how to bring the Gospel message to
China and the East, now that doors are slowly being opened. One thing we
have to be careful about is trying to present it in a way that we understand it
and instead need to look at it how they might understand it. Second, we have
to allow for Eastern Christianity culture to develop, instead of taking out
Chiense culture and surplanting that Westernism. We, like Yao Hong, have to
present the Gospel as not the Western thing to do, but that its very Chinese.

Well I don't know if my answer really counts as Universal because ultimately

we can have sense of really fully knowing how things will be when Christ
returns, or how things were like in Adam's or other Biblical times that are kind
of pre-historical, but as far as the "in-between" goes, one thing that I am
reminded of is our first assignment and how I stated that if there was one big
defining moment in Human History that shaped all of history, that regardless
if such an event took place, that doesn't meant people in all societies or in all
of history would recognize it as such. For that assignment I used Jesus' life
and time here on earth as an example to that Hypthosis, but now that we are
at the end of the class and this is a personal reflective assignment, I would
like to put forth that I do believe that Christ's life, death, ressurection, and
assenstion were/was the biggest defining moment in human history. Not just
physically speaking, but spiritually as well. Historians look at the physical
world and the physical facts and data of life and civilazations, but spirituality
doesn't really play into history, nor am I saying that is should, but my point is
what if there is more to reality than what can be seen and touched. What if
there is a "program" that is already running, a software, and we are just
seeing the outputs of that program? What is more, how can we be sure that
our perception of time is accurate, you and I say time is running forward, but
what if that's not how time works, if time even exists in and of its-self. Now
I'm not trying to be philosphical or hypothetical or sound crazy, but one
"universal" truth is that people don't know, but think they do. That will be
consistant. Talk to anyone on any political fence and they are certain that
their view is right and they see things clearly, its the other-side that is either
wrong or just is missing something. Take Calvinsists vs Arminism, both sides
ascert that there is just "something" that the other side isn't getting or
doesn't see clearly, but they do. Both don't take into account that they both
might be wrong. Socratic reasoning begins at the basis of ignorance,
admitting that what I might know might not be right, and a humility that says,
for the sake of truth, I might have "Sacrfice" my view of being right. I feel that
this is a delimia that we see in our daily lives, my ideas may not line up
exactly with yours, but my view is most likely more accurate than yours, or
vice versa, one may say in any given situation. Although I'm not in the USA
right now, I have been able to witness through the internet over the last
years election and other PC culture topics. So I don't know if I can say this to
all people and everywhere, but someone's got to be "Wrong" and not
everyone can be "Right". Now sometimes things are not as Black and White,
and there are Grays and Purples and Pinks and Greens. But daily I see there is
either this context of either a disagrement of ideas or agreement of ideas,
and their eihter be a mutual tolarance of such views or those disagreements
will lead to disputes, arguments, distance, or outbursts. Everyone wants to
find truth, but at the same time everyone has the truth. Or so it seems. But
like I said someone has to be wrong. We live in a world where Absolute Truth
as either died or is dying. But not many ask the opposite, what about
Absolute Falsehood, does that exist? If Good doesn't exist, then does Evil not
exist? If nothing is True then is nothing False? I know that Science, Scientific
Reasoning, and Historical practice, works off the basis of only holding to
something if it is backed up by supported evidence. We know there was an
Egyptian civilization because there is evidence to it, there must have been.
But was a people group called the Hebrews ever in Egypt and was Moses a
Historical person? So there seems to be the delmia, well we need evidence to
back that up, or do we use what the Bible states and what supposdly Moses
said, himself, if he wrote parts of the Bible? Now it would be great to not have
to make an either or choice, and to have a sea of evidence that backs up the
Bible's claim, i.e., the written historical document is supported by the
physical evidence, but at the same time, what if how everyone is approaching
the topic at hand is limiting their view in some way? What if there is a key
and crucial acheological evendice that ties everything together, but we
haven't found it yet? Let's say Amazingly tomorrow a dig site uncovers an
Egyptian document, written in Eygptian, that is a record of Genesis and
historical evidence of the Hebrew people turning into slaves. What if with that
document we found some other documents that specefically talk about
Moses being raised in Egyptian court and of the plagues. If this is found
tomorrow, then what does say for the Archeolosgist who is maybe 70 years
old today and has spent his life's work excavating and studying this point his
entire life? This discovery will cast everything his research has dug up and
put all of it into a new light. There was a time when we could not read
Egyptian Hilogrphics, but then there was a tomrrow when the Rossata Stone
was found and translated. There was a time when the Hittites were seen as
only to exist in the Bible, until we found other historical evidence. There was
a time when David was just thought to be some Arthur like character to the
Hebrew People group, until we found his name written by a conquering
enemy. Universally I believe there is a Truth, that there is Truth and the Right
way, but for the longest time, and I feel we'll have to slosh through a few
more years of it, that Truth is not fully seen by everyone, if it did and was
real. And finally, almost everything that we look at we probably are missing
one key thing that if we had that that might change how we have seen
somethign our whole life. There is always "one thing" that we don't factor into
our stances that we are unmoveable on.

Well basically my answer was that there always something that we're
missing, and sometimes that one thing could really reshape how we have
periceved things or make us rethink our conclusions. And secondly, that most
of the time everyone is very sure about how they feel about something, or at
least once they come to a final conclusion about something, then they are
pretty sure about it, but there will always be someone out there who has
come through very similar processes of thinking, but reached the opposite
conclusions. And finally, that everyone thinks slightly differently and not one
person matches up identical with how someone else sees things, or at least
experiences it in an identical way. For example, you and may have watched
the sun rise today, but I'm in China, so my perception of the sunrising is 13
hours ahead of yours, and it may look different than how it looks in Sterling
Kansas, especially if the Smog is really bad that day, however, its the same
sun and same day. I think there is both a good thing and a personal struggle
about this at the same time. For example, interacting with someone who is
not of the same faith as me, and if we don't get along, then of course we're
going to see things and experience things from different perspectives and
hardly come eye to eye on things. Especially if we are different ages and
come from different countries. Or what if there is things that I simply am very
sold on, at the moment, but I'm wrong, or what if my ideas or convications
about such a thing will change over the years, and what if you or someone
else is more right than I am, but I can't see that, and if I didn't take the
moment to consider your point or someone elses point, then what if I miss
something that will take me maybe 5 years to grasp. Or let's say I was more
right about something, but I was so young our innexperienced, or I was bad
articulating the idea properly, then my point may not really sink in. And there
is that whole idea about what if there is no way that how I view things and
person B views things will ever be the same, how can we co-exist in mutual
agreement to respect one another's ideas and thoughts, and instead of trying
to have others see my way, how do you, instead, work to work past
differences and have mutalality? And then there is the opposite side of the
coin, like with another believer, what if our views are a little different from
one another, yet our differences and different views and perspectives help
challenge the other and we help one another grow? So there is a bueaty to
seeing things differently and at the same time there can be a hurtles to
overcome. Another problem, is how do you stop being you? What if my views
are so opposite to someone elses, and what if on top of that our personalities
just don't jive together, but you want there to be some form of co-existence
where you can get along, how do you stop being you, or do you stop? I feel I
could spend all of life and figured out a lot of answers, but that still will create
conflict with who you meet because you will always come across those who
are just simply don't agree or see eye to eye, regardless of what is right or
wrong. I've experienced some of that in China working with other foreign
teachers. Sometimes just the mere fact I'm a Christian, even though I say
nothing, can create a tension in the relationship and turn everything
awkward. I might be ignorant of things, but so are other people.

Like I said I'm not sure if this "univeral truth" is that universal or if the one
I've given for this post is the best example to give. I guess I could have talked
about mankinds desire to be Loved or Forgiven. And I'm sure there's a lot of
other areas I could have walked down, and perhaps my topic is way to broad
and hard to nail down into a single thought, but I guess it does come from
personal experience, but at the same time its what I see when I trun on the
tv, or when I read comments on Youtube, or when I see another Brother or
Sister argue with one another over "Doctrines" or other things. I would like to
say that I get a lot of my Truth from God's Word, but then you run into that
even bigger dilima of how to get an unbelieving world to believe in that Word,
when they can't see it or evidence. Or what is more, a scholarly world who
definately doesn't see it. This Bible verse comes to mind, "Knowledge puffs
up, but Love Builds up".

I think the human-mind and human-reason, although they come from God, it
is also faulty and in a fallen state. Not that I mean it is bad or evil, but it's
"imperfect", I don't think we need to nescarily to equate fallen as meaning its
bad or wrong but imperfect, unable to really fully grasp. In just mere seconds
we could find where our brain has its limits. Think of five people that you love
most on this earth. How far between yourself at this moment are you to
them, right now? Now how from each of them are they to one another? See,
already the mind hurts. Yet, He knows the count of the hairs on our heads.
What is a color that you have never seen before? What if Heaven is made up
of 50 Primary colors that do not exist in this world. Think of a new instrument
that produces a new sound you've never heard of before? How does the
Trinity Work? When was Jesus created, or was he not created? How can God
have no beginning? These are all things that show the mind has its limits.
What is more, maybe in this life we can't find these answers or are meant to
understand them. But then there are things that are knowable, but then
again, our minds or thinking lines are imperfect and because of this we might
miss one key point to help us lead to the right conclusion. Finally, as
mentioned about, there might be that one key thing we haven't thought of
yet, and had one had that thing it might change every notion you have about
the topic. And that's not a hypothetical situation, that type of thing happens
every day. What we're sure about today 100 years from now could change
due to finding out new things.

I feel pretty strongly that something exactlly like or simlar to the Tower of
Bable story is historical. And I feel we have evidence to it. But that the
moment our understanding is limited and our fields of understanding aren't
broad enough yet. The evidence is out there but the data that's been
collected is small. In fact I believe, society and education, is pretty limiting
and understanding may be increasing but it also decreasing at fast fast rate.
C.S. Lewis famously once called that the 20th Centruy was the Dark Ages not,
the Dark Ages themselves. We may be increasing in things to learn about, but
at the same time we are decreasing our understanding. Scientests could
probably learn a lot more about science if it reaccounted for a Creator and
Designer. So we're moving forwards but backdwards at the same time. Yes
there were things that people back a ways didn't know that we do know now,
but then again they understood some things better than some today
understand them. I feel that the Moses story and Exodus are also Historical,
but I just simply rest that on belief because the Bible says so, but I think
there, again, is more evidence then we think that there is, but again, are
perspective is being narrowed or conclusions are being made while missing a
key crucial piece to the puzzle.

I also feel that I don't understand quite everything and have lots and lots of
more questions. But that's okay. And ten years from now if I'm wrong, I hope
can be humble enough to get on the right track. My main topic has been on
what is the right answer and truth and dealing with that dilimia with what if
I'm or we're missing something. Or we're looking at all the wrong way. Or
somewhere down the road we lost the right track and we've been going down
the right one and didn't realize it. I believe in the Bible and what it says but
I've had to run into the delmia that how I see it is different then other
Chrsitains see it as. I still believe I'm quite young in understanding and if I am
wrong maybe this is the path I needed to take to get on the right one. But at
the same time these differing opinions help to support the Bible's validity
rather than discredit it. And yet I feel that at the same time it alienates me
other believers. But I'm not a skeptic nor a doubter. I'm a pretty optimistic
person. And I'm usually one to give anyone the benefit of the doubt and take
there word for it. I'm more a puzzler, looking at things from different angles
and perspective and asking questions. I like a good mystery and like a good
story. I also believe there is a yes and no, a right and wrong, and there are
somethings that black and some things that are white, but at the same time,
sometimes there are things that we thought were black and white turn out
not to be so black and white. For example, no where in the Bible does it state
that Moses wrote Genesis. Nor, if I'm not mistaken, will the Bible Proport that
Genesis was the first book ever written in the Bible. Regardless if it was or is.
But if it wasn't the first recorded book which was? And Genesis was oral
tradation when was copied down originally and by who? And were any
changes made along that oral history? What exactly did the people at Bable
believe? See there is still lots of questions left unanswered. And I feel that's a
good way to perceive history or any event or historical record, Biblical or non-
Biblical. There will still be many questions we don't know yet, and are we sure
we've asked the right questions, yet? And we have to be satisifed that we
won't know all the truth or all of it. However, we shouldn't stop now because
of it because what if there is something still knoweble that is still left and we
haven't discovered it yet, but that one thing will help us understand the
whole better, even though there will still be a hole and gap to the whole
picture.