Supplement: A Dissection of Eastern and Western Traditional Culture

Tell Me, what is the truth? Haven’t we fellowshipped on this topic before? (Yes, we have.) Well then, tell Me what the truth is in your own words. (The truth is the principle and criterion by which all people, events, and things are measured.) Good. Anyone else? Is there a different way of putting it? Don’t think about which words of doctrine to use, or which line of God’s words to choose for your answer, just answer using words from your own actual experience and actual understanding. It’s fine if they’re not so profound. Some people say, “God’s words are the truth.” While this is correct, if you are only able to speak these words, but do not understand their actual meaning, then they’re just a doctrine to you. Let’s go one step further now—what is the truth? What are God’s words? What is the essence of God’s words? Is the truth the criterion that people produce through thought and consideration? (No, it isn’t.) Is the truth the summation of what people have experienced and the knowledge they have acquired, or a kind of social culture, or a traditional culture produced within a certain societal context? (No, it isn’t.) Then, is the truth the principles people summarize on their own for their comportment and actions? (No, it isn’t.) So, what exactly is it? How can we specify the principles spoken about here, so that they have a definite meaning and people know it’s the truth as soon as they hear it? How can we put this in a way that people feel is succinct and precise? (God’s requirements for man are all the truth.) God’s requirements for man are all the truth, that is correct, but how could you say that in an even more exact way? (The truth is the reality of all positive things.) This was often said before. We often said that God’s words, His requirements of man, and the reality of all positive things are the truth—what else is there? (The truth is the criterion and path for how people should handle matters and conduct themselves.) The truth is the criterion and path for how people should handle matters and conduct themselves, this is also correct. Now put all these aspects together and define the truth in one succinct sentence. (God is the truth.) God is the truth; this is a little too broad, too general. It needs to be more specific, so that when people hear it, they feel it’s a precise definition, not hollow but quite concrete and practical, and think that it sounds fitting. Try summing it up again; how exactly could you put it more precisely? (The Above has fellowshipped before that the truth is the criterion for man’s comportment, actions, and worship of God.) Is that not succinctly put? (Yes, it is.) The truth is the criterion for man’s comportment, actions, and worship of God. Why define it as a criterion? How should we understand this word “criterion” in a literal sense? (As a precise principle.) As a precise principle or rule; it can also be called a regulation. So, what does a “criterion” refer to? (A standard.) It refers to a standard, precise rule and principle. That is what we call a criterion. The criterion for man’s comportment, actions, and worship of God—if these definitions are accurate, then what does this criterion relate to? What does it refer to here? It’s as previously defined: the criterion for man’s comportment, actions, and worship of God. This is the truth. Now, when someone reads that sentence, could they think, “Our traditional culture is also the truth”? Can this be put under the category of the truth? (No, it cannot.) It cannot. Can they say, “We have an academic research conclusion which is the truth,” or “Our people have a culture, or an experience, or a good moral standard which is also the truth”? Can the truth be defined like this? (No, it cannot.) Why can’t we use these things to define the truth? Why do we say that these things have nothing to do with the truth? (They have nothing to do with worshiping God.) That’s right. They might relate to people’s comportment, but they don’t relate to worshiping God. What does the comportment they talk about refer to? What are their standards and rules? Good conduct that comes from Satan. They aren’t about worshiping God, they are about worshiping and defending Satan. They’re a set of sayings or cultures about comportment that have been summarized from human imaginings and notions, and from what people believe to be good morals or conduct. They don’t involve the truth or worshiping God—they have nothing to do with worshiping God.

Chinese people have summed up a traditional culture which is only suitable for Chinese people, and which Westerners cannot accept. Westerners have their own national heroes, national senses of moral integrity, and national cultures, but if they were to bring their cultures to the East, would people there accept them? (No, they wouldn’t.) They would likewise not be accepted. Therefore, no matter how highly people view these cultures, or how noble they perceive these traditions to be, is there any relationship between them and the truth? (No, there isn’t.) There’s no relationship. For example, there’s a kind of traditional culture in the East which states that owls are not auspicious animals. What do people say? “It is not the owl that cries that you should fear, but the owl that laughs. Hear them call, and bad things are bound to happen.” In Eastern traditional culture, owls are believed to be inauspicious and unlucky. So, do Eastern people like this “unlucky” animal? (No, they don’t.) What is this dislike based on? It is based on Eastern traditional culture, and what’s passed down through the generations, which says “Hearing an owl call out is a harbinger of a death in the family.” This might be a law that people have summarized, or a human imagining, or a coincidence, and people thereafter believe in their hearts that owls are bad. They think that no one should worship them or treat them as auspicious animals, and that, if they see an owl, they should quickly drive it away, and not welcome it. Isn’t this a kind of culture? (Yes, it is.) Regardless of whether this kind of culture is positive or negative, it’s a kind of folk inheritance. For now, let’s not talk about whether it’s right or wrong, and just say that this sort of culture is thoroughly endorsed by every person in the East, particularly in China. Every person there believes in their heart that owls are bad and not auspicious animals, so they will hurry to avoid one if they see it. But in the West, some people believe that owls are a kind of auspicious animal, and use owl statues and paintings as decorations. All kinds of embroidered works and totems also have owl designs, and they’re treated as auspicious animals. What does it mean to be an auspicious animal? It’s that this animal might bring you good luck, and you won’t encounter misfortune after hearing one call out or seeing one. This is a kind of popular traditional culture in the West. We won’t make a judgment about which of these cultures is right and which is wrong; we won’t pass judgment on this. But through this matter we can see that the same animal created by God is subject to different views and notions in the East and the West, that are moreover completely disparate. Eastern people don’t view it as a good thing, and no matter if an owl laughs or cries, it’s not considered good for them, while Western people think it’s auspicious regardless of whether it is crying or laughing, and that just seeing one might bring them good luck, so they treat owls as auspicious animals. These two viewpoints and ways of dealing with owls come from traditional culture: one which believes owls to be unlucky, and one which sees them as auspicious. Looking at it now, which one is in line with the truth, and which isn’t? (Neither is in line with the truth.) What are you basing that assertion on? (Neither view comes from God.) That’s correct. When people say that owls aren’t auspicious animals, what are they basing that on? It’s Eastern traditional culture; what they believe to be auspicious or inauspicious, or to bring disaster, bad luck, or good luck, is measured according to traditional culture. It’s a way of looking at things derived from imaginings and notions, from which arises this sort of culture. Westerners think this kind of animal can bring people good luck, and of course this is slightly better and more progressive than treating and viewing it as unlucky. It makes people feel that it’s a quite good animal, and at the very least they’ll feel calm and stable after seeing one, which is better than feeling unlucky. But what can you gain from understanding it like this? Can owls really bring you good luck? (No, they can’t.) If you were born in China, could owls really determine your luck? Also no. So, what can you see from this? Regardless of whether you believe this animal can bring you bad luck or good luck, it’s just a human belief and notion, not a fact. What does this prove? (That traditional culture is not the truth.) Correct; no culture is the truth. So how should you treat owls in a manner that is in line with the truth? This touches upon the criterion for man’s comportment, actions, and worship of God. What is the criterion here? That is, what sort of perspective you should view this creature from, and how you should treat it when one appears before you, no matter if it is crying or laughing—these things involve criterion. What is the criterion? (The truth.) The criterion is the truth. When it comes to how you should treat an owl, what should you base this on? (On God’s words.) And what does God’s word say about dealing with this kind of creature? His words don’t specifically say, “You must treat owls correctly, and cannot be biased in this matter. You can’t say that owls are unlucky, nor that they will bring you good luck. You must treat owls objectively and fairly.” God didn’t say this. So, what basis do you need to have for your views on owls to accord with the criterion, with the truth? (The fact that God created all things.) Your basis should be the fact that God created all things, this is the truth. In God’s hands all things have their function, mission, and value in existing. What else? (All things are good from God’s perspective.) Correct, all things created by God are good, have value in existing, and need to exist. As long as something comes from God and was made by Him, then it will never be unnecessary. What does this “never be unnecessary” mean? It’s that it won’t randomly bring people misfortune. Could a little owl really randomly bring you misfortune? Wouldn’t that make the owl too mighty? Which is higher: man or owl? Humans are the stewards of all things, and it’s more accurate to say that they control owls’ destinies, and they could wipe out all owls just like that. It’s impossible for owls to change man’s destiny. So, what way of treating this creature is in line with the truth? Treating it according to God’s words. God created all things, all the different creatures, and humans too. Owls are creatures, so we should approach them according to the perspective that we treat all created beings with. First, we can’t casually destroy the laws of its survival. For example, the habit and characteristic of owls is to sleep during the day, and hunt and be active at night. If you come across an injured owl, and you kindly take it in, how should you treat it? (According to its habits.) Correct, you must respect the laws by which it lives. Don’t think about making it sleep at night, feeding it sleeping pills if it doesn’t sleep. This is wrong. If it’s always noisy at night, and this disturbs your rest, then you can move it somewhere where it won’t disturb you, but you cannot disrupt the laws by which it lives, or violate its way of survival. Isn’t this the right way to treat it? (Yes, it is.) This should be your perspective toward all things created by God. Firstly, have a correct perspective. This is the first step you should take when doing anything. Secondly, you must put this correct perspective to use when doing things or handling affairs, so what you do will be in line with the truth. These are criteria. Criteria, plainly speaking, are precise rules and laws. For example, when a cat sees a mouse, it wants to catch it. Say that you think that mice are also God’s creations, and want to restrain the cat, and prevent it from catching the mouse—is this wrong? (Yes, it is.) What do you think about this approach? (It violates the laws.) It goes against the laws of nature. When some people see a fish in the water they wonder, “Everyone says that fish can’t live without water. But I’ll try everything to get it out of the water and make it live on land.” This results in the fish dying shortly thereafter. What’s this called? (Absurd.) This is absurd. By discussing owls, have you more or less been able to understand what criteria are, and what they’re based on? (They’re based on God’s words.) Correct, they’re based on God’s words. So, how should you treat owls in the future? If, one evening, an owl was crying by your window, how should you handle it? At least, we know it has the right to cry, and we should allow it that right. If it’s too noisy, you can drive it off, but there’s no need to worry about whether you’d encounter misfortune the following day. It’s unnecessary to think this, as man’s fate, life, and death are all in God’s hands and under His sovereignty. People don’t understand the truth, so they are easily prejudiced toward things, and can even have imaginings and notions, or become somewhat superstitious. This leads people to have incorrect views on many things, and to fail to act in line with the truth principles or to meet the criterion for man’s comportment, actions, and worship of God in everything. What’s the reason for this? (Not understanding the truth.) This is brought about by not understanding the truth.

When some Eastern people come into contact with Westerners, they see their distinctive features—their high nasal bridges, their big eyes, their varied hair colors, and how elegant they all look—and unconsciously develop a sense of envy or admiration toward them. Then, through ongoing contact, they continually accept Western culture. Why are they able to accept it? Because of the envy in their hearts, and their desire to be like them. They think that appearances are ordained by God and cannot be changed, but that they’d be dignified if they could match Western ways of living, such as how they eat, dress, and the way they use things, as well as their manner of speech, way of thinking, and culture. What do you think about this kind of idea? Does everyone possess it? (Yes, they do.) Some Eastern people like to imitate Westerners, and the first thing they imitate is drinking coffee. They feel like Easterners drinking tea is too unsophisticated, so they learn to drink coffee from Westerners. Particularly, some Easterners see many Westerners rushing to work every morning, clutching their cups of coffee, and over time they learn to do this too, sometimes even when they’re not actually busy. This is called imitation. Easterners don’t actually have this habit, but they think Westerners’ customs are good, lofty, and elegant. They believe that, if they don’t have this habit, then they must learn and imitate it, and if they do learn it, and live according to this habit, they think they’ll surely join the ranks of Westerners and become one themselves. This is a kind of worship of Westerners. If you really like something then by all means study it, but if you’re just learning this kind of custom as a facade to show off to others, then that’s imitation. If someone doesn’t understand the truth, they’ll have no criterion in anything they do, and they’ll be like a headless fly, with no goal and no direction. When they see Westerners, they’ll study how Westerners act; when they see what’s fashionable in the world, they’ll study that. Nonbelievers are like this, and if someone who believes in God does the same, then what sort of person are they? (A disbeliever.) That’s right. Do they have any standards or principles when doing things? (No, they don’t.) They have no principles. Why? Because they adore worldly trends and wickedness; they don’t admire God, they don’t love the truth in their heart, and they don’t accept and seek the truth. Such people are all disbelievers. Because this type of person has these essences, even if they’re in the church reading God’s words and listening to sermons, they’ll still never be able to find the criterion for man’s comportment, actions, and worship of God. This implicitly means that they can never gain the truth. Isn’t that right? (Yes, it is.) Imitating others drinking coffee can reveal a person’s preferences, the path they take, and the principles of their actions. Tell Me, is drinking tea the truth, or is drinking coffee the truth? (Neither are related to the truth.) Well said. So, what is the truth? Some people say: “Everything that comes from God is the truth. God’s words which say that it’s good for you to eat seasonal things are the truth.” This is correct. The truth is the criterion for man’s comportment, actions, and worship of God. So, what does the criterion for comportment include? It touches on every aspect of the truth concerning comportment. How about the criterion for actions? It’s the manner and the means by which you handle things. Needless to say, we all know the criterion for worshiping God. The scope of this criterion refers to these things, and they all involve the truth. Suppose that someone says, “How come you don’t like tea?” and you say, “Is me not liking tea incompatible with the truth?” Another person says: “You’re in the West, so why haven’t you learned to drink coffee? It’s so tasteless, not drinking coffee!” and you say, “Are you trying to condemn me? Is it a sin to not drink coffee? Is ‘taste’ the truth? How much is taste worth?” It’s totally worthless, right? Not understanding the truth is what’s really worthless! What should people understand through this example? They should understand what views they should have toward these people, events, and things, and how to deal with them as God requires, so that His required standards are met. What should people understand and seek from all of this? The criterion they should follow to deal with all kinds of things.

Do you think that a traditional culture or a national sentiment can be worthy of the term “criterion”? (No.) For example, “Being human means you must love your country”—is this a criterion? (No, it isn’t.) “Being human means you must be filial to your parents”—is this a criterion? (No, it isn’t.) Some also say, “Women must be virtuous,” or “Women must follow Confucian values,” but are these criteria? (No, they’re not.) “A man can only have one wife, and must be faithful”—is this a criterion? Does it qualify as the truth? (No, it doesn’t.) It’s a correct behavior and moral, and the most basic and fundamental thing within humanity, but it falls short of the truth. It’s in line with the moral and behavioral standards of normal humanity, but can it be considered the criterion? What does criterion refer to? (The truth.) Criterion refers to the truth, and whatever falls short of the truth is therefore not the criterion. Do you see? Are the requirements of men and women in traditional culture that I just mentioned God’s requirements? (No, they’re not.) Well, what does God require of men? What does the Bible say? (That they labor and sweat to support their families.) This is God’s requirement for men, and it’s the most basic thing that a man should be able to do. What about God’s rule for women? (That their desire shall be to their husbands.) Since this is what God’s words say, it is the truth, and it’s what people should abide by. Whatever comes from man’s traditional culture or moral scriptures, however correct it may be, is not the truth. Why do I say it’s not the truth? (Because God didn’t say it.) What God doesn’t say is certainly not the truth, nor is that which has nothing to do with the requirements of God’s words. What are the standards by which Easterners define women? They believe that good women must first be gentle and virtuous, cultured and refined, cute and petite, and that after marriage, they must take care of everyone else in the family, young and old, without complaint. They’re just doormats. This is the image of women created by Easterners; these are the required standards they have for women. Let’s look now at what Westerners’ required standards are for women, that is, what they educate and advocate through their thoughts and viewpoints. Westerners believe that women should be independent, free, and equal—these are essentially the women’s rights that the West advocates for. These rights have a fundamental definition and requirement for women, that is, they present a fundamental concept for a woman’s lifestyle and appearance. What is this concept? That women should not be submissive, pitiful, and well-behaved all day long, like doormats. They think this is bad, and that women must be strong and bold. These are required standards for women in the hearts of Westerners. They believe that women don’t need to be like puppets, meekly submitting to adversity on a daily basis, waiting for others to scold them or give orders. They think there’s no need for this. Westerners advocate for women to be proactive, independent, and courageous in their actions. Of course, what we understand might not be totally commensurate with their thinking, but this is basically the main difference between Eastern and Western women. Which of these two views is correct? (Neither is correct.) Actually, this isn’t about right and wrong. Under an Eastern social background, within such a community, you have to live like that. Could you rebel if you wanted to? Within a family, you risk death if you rebel. In the West, you could live as a Western woman does, but no matter how you live, under which social background or in which community, which view is in line with the truth? (Neither of them is in line with the truth.) Neither view is in line with the truth, they both violate it. Why do I say this? Easterners want women to always be well-behaved, to embody the Confucian values, to be virtuous and gentle—for what purpose? To make them easy to control. This is a malignant ideology which has grown from traditional Eastern culture, and it is actually harmful to people, ultimately leading women to live lives without direction or ideas of their own. These women don’t know what they should do, how to do it, or what actions are right or wrong. They even offer their lives to their families, but still feel they haven’t done enough. Is this a type of harm to women? (Yes, it is.) They do not even resist when their own rights, the rights they should enjoy, are taken away. Why don’t they resist? They say: “It’s wrong to resist, it’s not virtuous. Look at so-and-so, they do so much better than me and have suffered much more, yet they never complain.” Why would they think like this? (They’re influenced by traditional cultural thinking.) It’s this traditional culture which has taken root deep within them, and caused them great suffering. How are they able to tolerate this kind of torment? They know full well that this kind of torment is painful, that it makes them feel helpless and hurts their hearts, so how can they still take it? What is the objective reason? That this is their social background, so they can’t break free, but only meekly resign themselves to it. This is also how they subjectively feel. They don’t understand the truth, or how women should live with dignity, or the correct way for women to live. No one has told them these things. As far as they know, what is the criterion for women’s comportment and actions? Traditional culture. They think that what has been passed down through the generations is right, and that if someone violates it, then their conscience should be condemned. This is their “criterion.” But is this criterion actually right? Should it be put in quotation marks? (Yes, it should.) This criterion isn’t in line with the truth. No matter how approved of or favorable someone’s behavior is under the control of this type of thinking and viewpoint, is it actually a criterion? It’s not, as it goes against the truth and humanity. For a long time, women in the East have had to take care of their whole families, and they’ve been responsible for all the little trivial matters. Is this fair? (No, it’s not.) Then how can they tolerate it? Because they are bound by this kind of thinking and viewpoint. Their ability to tolerate it indicates that, deep down, they mostly believe that it is the right thing to do, and that if they just endure, then they’ll be able to meet the standards of traditional culture. So, they are running toward that direction, toward those standards. If, deep down, they thought it was wrong and that they shouldn’t do it, that it wasn’t in line with humanity, and that it went against humanity and the truth, could they still do it? (No, they couldn’t.) They would have to think of a way to get away from those people, and to not be their slaves. But most women wouldn’t dare do this—what do they think? That they could survive without their community, but that they’d bear a terrible stigma if they left, and suffer certain consequences. After weighing it up, they think that if they were to do it, their colleagues would gossip about how they weren’t virtuous, society would condemn them in certain ways and have certain opinions about them, and all this would bring serious consequences. In the end, they mull it over and think, “It’s better just to tolerate it. Otherwise, the weight of the condemnation would crush me!” This is how Eastern women are, down through the generations. What must they endure behind all these good deeds? The deprivation of their human dignity and rights. Are these thoughts and views in line with the truth? (No, they aren’t.) They’re not in line with the truth. They have been deprived of their dignity and human rights, and lost their personalities, their independent living and thinking spaces, and their rights to speak and express their own desires—everything they do is for those people at home. What is their purpose in doing this? To meet the standards required of women by traditional culture, and to have other people praise them, calling them good wives and good people. Is this not a kind of torture? (Yes, it is.) Is this way of thinking proper or distorted? (It’s distorted.) Is it in line with the truth? (No, it isn’t.) God created free will for mankind, and what are the thoughts that come from this free will? Are they in line with humanity? These thoughts must be in line with humanity at the very least. Aside from this, He also meant for people to have accurate views and understandings of all people, events, and things in the course of their lives, and to then choose the right path to live and worship God. Life lived in this way is given by God and should be enjoyed. People, however, are restricted, bound, and distorted by these so-called traditional cultures and moral scriptures their entire lives, and ultimately become what? They become the puppets of traditional culture. Isn’t this caused by people not understanding the truth? (Yes, it is.) Would you choose to walk this path in the future? (No, I wouldn’t.) So, what should you do? Suppose that you say, “I’ll fight them,” or “I’ll serve them no longer. I have human rights, and I have my own personality.” Is this okay? (No, it’s not.) This isn’t okay. This is going from one extreme to the other, and it isn’t bearing witness to God or glorifying Him. So, how should you act? (In line with the principles.) Of course it’s right to act in line with the principles, and you should treat everyone in line with the principles, treating them as brothers and sisters if they believe in God, and as nonbelievers if they do not. There’s no need to wrong yourself, distort your personality, or give up your dignity and rights by sacrificing your life for them. They don’t deserve it. There is only One in this world who’s worth spending your life for. Who is it? (God.) Why? Because God is the truth, and His words are the criterion for man’s existence, comportment, and actions. As long as you have God, and God’s words, then you won’t deviate, and you’ll be accurate in how you comport yourself and act. This is the ultimate effect that God’s words achieve on someone once they’ve been saved.

“What Is the Truth?” is too vast a topic. We just gave a few examples, one of which was how to treat owls. What other examples were there? (Easterners imitating Westerners drinking coffee.) (Easterners’ and Westerners’ required standards for women.) These are the most obvious examples. So, between Eastern and Western people’s views on various things, which is the criterion? (Neither.) Neither involves the truth, they are both human views and opinions. More precisely, they’re both erroneous viewpoints and fallacies. They’re not criteria, they are Satan’s strategies, theories, and philosophies that harm people. Do you understand this matter a little more, after fellowshipping on it like this? (Yes, we do.) If I hadn’t talked about this, perhaps one day you might have considered imitating Westerners by drinking coffee and eating hamburgers, emulating them. Does that accord with the principles? Even if you eat Western food every day, it’ll all be useless if you don’t pursue the truth, you still won’t have the criterion for how to comport yourself. The key is whether you can seek the truth and act according to the principles—this is of benefit to you. Through Me fellowshipping like this, do you have some understanding of the truth and the criteria? (Yes, we do.) Is there truth within people’s traditional culture or moral criteria? (No, there isn’t.) Is there truth in the moral scriptures? (No, there isn’t.) Can you now be certain that God’s words are the truth? (Yes, we can.) After confirming His words to be the truth, you have to consider: What are God’s words? What are the principles required in His words? What are the criteria that He has told to man? How exactly should they act in order to be in line with God’s words, and what are the correct principles for doing this? This is what you must seek, but for now that’s all on this topic.