There's a deep connection between the Tao from the Tao Te Ching and the God from the Bible. Both are "the nameless". Here's the comparison...

The first two quotes are very similar in nature, and the last one gives the meaning of the Bible's God name...


Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1
"The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The name is the mother of the ten thousand things.

Send your desires away and you will see the mystery.
Be filled with desire and you will see only the manifestation.

As these two come forth they differ in name.
Yet at their source they are the same.
This source is called a mystery.

Darkness within darkness, the gateway to all mystery."

http://www.thebigview.com/tao-te-ching/chapter01.html


"John 1
The Eternal Word
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=50


As far as the last quote goes, I don't have it because the internet is filled with crap. But somewhere in Exodus, Moses asks God what His name is and He says "Yahweh" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_that_I_am). In other words, God tells Moses that He has no name. He's the nameless. (And, supposedly, people should even "be put to death" for calling Him Yahweh because His name is NOT Yahweh, Yahweh is rather a representation of His namelessness.)

Interesting, uh?

In some sense, there are similarities, but there are extremely significant differences. Tao is inherent in all things, God is seen as a separate entity. Through the inherent quality of Tao, things grow from their own nature. With God, he creates from without. So, the difference is between growing and designing.

In some sense, there are similarities, but there are extremely significant differences. Tao is inherent in all things, God is seen as a separate entity.
Who said God is a separate entity? The church? Like they know anything? :rolleyes:

God says He is within us and everywhere. Is that " inherent in all things"?

Through the inherent quality of Tao, things grow from their own nature. With God, he creates from without. So, the difference is between growing and designing.
As I said, God is not separate from everything.



... that is not to say there are no differences. But thanks to the churches, the concept of God has been incredibly distorted over centuries...

The difference between a passive quality and an active entity are vast.

Those are just different perspecives. The Tao is also part of nature. So everything that happens in nature is the "work" of the Tao. The difference is that Taoism stress that "work" is natural, effortless.

The Christian God isn't part of nature. God is the creator of nature, and seperate. God is present in all things, but he also has a SEPERATE aspect which the Tao lacks.

So the Tao is not within us? And the Tao didn't create nature?

So the Tao is not within us? And the Tao didn't create nature?

Actually I think it was Nature that created the Tao and the Christian God.
The main difference between them is that the Christian God version comes complete with a face that the people could take their personal problems too. Sort of the for runner of modern day psychologist and support groups.

I doubt anyone has a real grasp of who "God" is....

Identical simply because both are ineffible?
You will need a lot more than that.

From my understanding, Tao and "soul" are pretty much the same thing, not Tao and God.

According to many I have read, Tao, can pretty much be translated to "breath" (as can "soul" in the Bible).
It is the energy elemental.

Tao, Soul and Prana are all very similar concepts.

God, in the Judeo-Christian concept, has intention - that starkly sets it apart from the other notions.

God, in the Judeo-Christian concept, has intention - that starkly sets it apart from the other notions.

I have to agree.

Imagine a Taoist text where the Tao bans homosexuality, or comes up with a list of rules of behavior, or gets pissed off when 'he' is not listened or worshipped above other gods, or destroys certain groups of people to protect his chosen ones

and so on.

One could play mind games and twist these (behaviors and attitudes) into the Tao, but I doubt the intent of the writers of the OT were in line with these mind games.

God, in the Judeo-Christian concept, has intention - that starkly sets it apart from the other notions.
And that's precisely the misconception. God clearly stated "I am". If He just "is", He doesn't have intention in the sense of action. He flows like the Tao flows. Think about it. You are talking about an incomensurable being, which permeates everything, knows everything and "makes things happen". Tao is the same. The difficulty here lies of the definition of action, intention and wu wei. Tao "does" wu wei. So does God. That's just implicit in the Bible, while it is very explicit in Taosim. Both Tao and God signifies the natural course of nature. Both were conceived to explain life and natural occurances.

I have to agree.

Imagine a Taoist text where the Tao bans homosexuality, or comes up with a list of rules of behavior, or gets pissed off when 'he' is not listened or worshipped above other gods, or destroys certain groups of people to protect his chosen ones

and so on.
Do you really think Leviticus is a good account for a supposedly loving and wise "God"? Think about it. God asks Moses to come up the mountain. He gives Moses 10 commandments. 10 commandments. By the time you get to the NT, there are THOUSANDS of laws. Jesus once walked to the temples and started overturning everything and said to the pharissees that they are hypocrates, because God had given them 10 commandments and there were now thousands. I can't remember the scriptures, unfortunately. I found a few interesting ones though...



Matthew 23:23
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

Matthew 23:25
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.

Mark 11:18
The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.


Oh well... :shrug:

There's a deep connection between the Tao from the Tao Te Ching and the God from the Bible. Both are "the nameless". Here's the comparison...

The first two quotes are very similar in nature, and the last one gives the meaning of the Bible's God name...


Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1
"The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The name is the mother of the ten thousand things.

Send your desires away and you will see the mystery.
Be filled with desire and you will see only the manifestation.

As these two come forth they differ in name.
Yet at their source they are the same.
This source is called a mystery.

Darkness within darkness, the gateway to all mystery."

http://www.thebigview.com/tao-te-ching/chapter01.html


"John 1
The Eternal Word
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=50


As far as the last quote goes, I don't have it because the internet is filled with crap. But somewhere in Exodus, Moses asks God what His name is and He says "Yahweh" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_that_I_am). In other words, God tells Moses that He has no name. He's the nameless. (And, supposedly, people should even "be put to death" for calling Him Yahweh because His name is NOT Yahweh, Yahweh is rather a representation of His namelessness.)

Interesting, uh?

Intresting...but in error.
Yah weh or Jehovah, has a meaning just as all names from the Hebrews had litteral meaning.

Michael=one who is like God
Mo′ses= [Drawn Out [that is, saved out of water]].
Jesus=Jehovah is salvation
Josiah=May Jehovah Heal; Jehovah Has Healed].
John=[English equivalent of Jehohanan, meaning “Jehovah Has Shown Favor; Jehovah Has Been Gracious”].
Job[Object of Hostility].
Jer·e·mi′ah= [possibly, Jehovah Exalts; or, Jehovah Loosens [likely from the womb]].

You can see the trend. The prevelance names with the strong "JAH" sound indicate likely that Jehovah is likely the closess propper pronouciation of the divine name.

The devine name itself. The Tetra grammaton (meaning four letters) Yah weh in the best english figurings means, litteraly "He who causes to become"

translation here is "He becomes what ever is necessary to fulfill his purpose"

Scholars differ on the pronouciation of the divine name. Some say it is likely it is Jesus name that we are miss pronoucing graving due the sheer amount of names that are pronouced as "Jehovah" with a strong "Jah" as well as this being the short form of "Jehovah" as seen in the word hallelujah

Nameless the God of the bible is not. Not only does his name have a meaning but it also occurs more than 7,000 times in both Testaments.

I must admit I do not know the connection between Jehovah and Yahweh, which makes it much difficult for me to discuss this subject of differing names. However, from what I've read, the names "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" means the same. My gut feeling says that "Jehovah" is the Hebrew version (sounds very Hebrew to me) while "Yahweh" is the Aramaic version. This subject is particularly difficult because they were not allowed to pronouce the "name" of God. Since they relied on word of mouth for centuries, the actual real "name" of God is, obviously, nothing more then a mystery. Also, it is likely that they actually WROTE the name of God in stone at some point in order to communicate, however, if you know Hebrew, you will know that in Hebrew, the vowels are traditionally not written. In other words- there are no vowels. So the name of God was likely written with all its consonants, but devoid of vowels, in which case the actual name of God could not be properly communicated.

Did I lose you there? :D

The lack of vowels in the Hebrew langauge is one of the first things you learn about. Yes that's true.

Do you really think Leviticus is a good account for a supposedly loving and wise "God"?

So you are discounting an entire book of the Torah - perhaps the most significant book of The Law, the one which defines the entire Jewish way of life and set of rules - because it does not fit with the idea you have "a gut feeling" about?
That's convenient.

Perhaps it is your understanding of "I am that I am" that is flawed, rather than the Torah.

He gives Moses 10 commandments. 10 commandments. By the time you get to the NT, there are THOUSANDS of laws.
Try reading it in context.
The Tanakh was written as a history of a people.
The Laws (and history of those laws) are depicted in the Torah.
The Ten Commandments is part of that history.
The Ten Commandments, however, is not the whole of Mosaic Law.
Those "thousands" of laws were given to Moses by God within his lifetime (within the 40 years of wandering the desert, in fact) - LONG before the New Testament.

Jesus once walked to the temples and started overturning everything and said to the pharissees that they are hypocrates, because God had given them 10 commandments and there were now thousands. I can't remember the scriptures, unfortunately. I found a few interesting ones though...
Wrong.
It had nothing to do at all with the "thousands" of laws.
Read the passage...
NIV Matthew 21:12 Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"

You can't simply pick two words (two words whose meaning have been hotly debated for centuries), take them completely out of context to come up with your own meaning for them and use them to overturn the rest of the book they were written in.
The whole point of the Torah is that God is our leader, father and judge - God most certainly has intention in the Jewish view - and they get that view from the Tanakh - which they wrote themselves.

You couldn't be more wrong in your assessment.
You need to revisit your interpretation of "I am that I am" if if renders the entirety of the book it is written in completely false.
It makes no sense.

And the Tao didn't create nature?

No it didn't.
Your understanding of the Tao is about as lacking of your understanding of Judaism.

You tend to take little bits and pieces and run with them, thinking you have found truth - the same thing you accuse theists of - now THAT is interesting.
You can't fully understand the parts without understanding the whole.

From my understanding, Tao and "soul" are pretty much the same thing, not Tao and God.

According to many I have read, Tao, can pretty much be translated to "breath" (as can "soul" in the Bible).
It is the energy elemental.

I'm not sure that I agree with this assertion. From what I have read Tao is more often interpreted as meaning: "Path" or "Way".

I'm certain that Tao and Soul are not synonymous. It is not often that one can see the word soul used to describe physical actions. (i.e. The soul raises or lowers/takes or gives etc. [The distinction being that this could be used to describe the metaphysical but not the physical]).

Tao as I comprehend it is an acknowledgement of our very real, although insubstantial, link with creation as a whole. The nature of which, it is futile to even attempt to quantify. You have to accept it for what it is - good or bad - and "go with the flow"...

Tao 道 should be more correctly translated as "The Way", "The Principle" and refers to the nature or the underlying principles in which everything operates. Depending on your prospective of whether God is part of nature or out of it, Tao may go above, at the same level or under God.
You can say God creates all the laws and Tao.
You can also say God's existence is part of Tao.


From my understanding, Tao and "soul" are pretty much the same thing, not Tao and God.

Tao and soul may have something in common, but no, they are quite different. The words 精 (jing, essense) and 神 (shen, spirit) are closer to soul.
The character 神 is also the word for god (in general) or God.

This concept in Tao De Ching hardly fits in the common definition of God.

"天地不仁,以萬物為芻狗."
"Heaven and earth have no mercy, everything is regarded as prop dogs."

"芻狗" is a doll dog used in rituals and will be discarded at once afterwards.
Life comes and goes and is very insignificant. Simply, it does not care.
In my opinion, this is much closer to the truth, or at least what I preceive how the world operates.
So, don't ask why there are wars, famines, misery, etc. It just is.
In short, an omnibenevolent being does not exist.

Jesus once walked to the temples and started overturning everything and said to the pharissees that they are hypocrates, because God had given them 10 commandments and there were now thousands. I can't remember the scriptures, unfortunately. I found a few interesting ones though...



Matthew 23:23
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

Matthew 23:25
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.

Mark 11:18
The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.


Oh well... :shrug:

Jesus also says that he didn't come to change the laws of the prophets somewhere in Matthew I believe.

Tao 道 should be more correctly translated as "The Way", "The Principle" and refers to the nature or the underlying principles in which everything operates. Depending on your prospective of whether God is part of nature or out of it, Tao may go above, at the same level or under God.
You can say God creates all the laws and Tao.
You can also say God's existence is part of Tao.



Tao and soul may have something in common, but no, they are quite different. The words 精 (jing, essense) and 神 (shen, spirit) are closer to soul.
The character 神 is also the word for god (in general) or God.

very well said, and yes they are closer to the word soul. they are 2 of the 3 life energies, qi, shen and jing.

you could say that god is dao not just creates dao and laws.

peace.

I'm not sure that I agree with this assertion. From what I have read Tao is more often interpreted as meaning: "Path" or "Way".

I'm certain that Tao and Soul are not synonymous. It is not often that one can see the word soul used to describe physical actions. (i.e. The soul raises or lowers/takes or gives etc. [The distinction being that this could be used to describe the metaphysical but not the physical]).

You are right.
I stand corrected.
I was tired and not thinking quite clearly.

I was thinking about Chi (Qi) being translated to "breath" as well as the word "soul" as used in the bible being translated to breath.

Tao is The Way.
Thank you for the correction.

I stand by everything else I said.

There are a lot more similarities between the Tao and Krishna, the way Krishna describes himself is the same as the way the Tao is described...if you've ever read the Bhagavad Gita and the Tao Te Ching it's obvious....

"The Tao can't be perceived.
Smaller than an electron,
it contains uncountable galaxies" (Tao te ching, 32)

"One meditates on the omniscient, primordial, the controller, smaller than the atom, yet the maintainer of everything; whose form is inconceivable, resplendent like the sun and totally transcendental to material nature" (BG, 8.9)

"The great Tao flows everywhere.
All things are born from it,
yet it doesn't create them.
It pours itself into its work,
yet it makes no claim" (Tao te ching, 34)

"According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable" (BG 4.13)

"The Tao never does anything,
yet through it all things are done" (Tao te ching, 37)

"There is no work that affects Me; nor do I aspire for the fruits of action. One who understands this truth about Me also does not become entangled in the fruitive reactions of work" (BG 4.14)

the way Krishna describes himself is the same as the way the Tao is described...if you've ever read the Bhagavad Gita and the Tao Te Ching it's obvious....


I don't see it at all.

The examples you quoted are superficial similarities at best.

I don't see it at all.

The examples you quoted are superficial similarities at best.

How is it superficial?

They both described as smaller than the smallest particle (how could that be superficial?)
Both described as un-percievable (how could that be superficial?)
Both described as non-doers (how could that be superficial?)
etc....

Nothing about it is superficial at all, not even to the slightest, smallest, most infinitesmal extent, rather the similarities are not vague nor appearing to be similar on the surface, but actual similarities, just think about it, regardless it's still WAAAY more similar than Yahweh...

regardless it's still WAAAY more similar than Yahweh...

That I agree with!

So you are discounting an entire book of the Torah - perhaps the most significant book of The Law, the one which defines the entire Jewish way of life and set of rules - because it does not fit with the idea you have "a gut feeling" about?
That's convenient.
First of all, I'm not talking about the Torah- I'm talking about the OT (yes, it is the same thing, but the latter is in a broader conext). Second, Leviticus is filled with crap written by humans - which is why I don't acceot it as truth. In the broader context of the Bible, one can see the contrast between the "loving God" from the NT and the "wrath of God" from the OT. That's because the OT is filled with human crap.

I hope you are not jewish. I don't mean to offend you...

Perhaps it is your understanding of "I am that I am" that is flawed, rather than the Torah.
My understanding of "I am" is exactly that - "I am". Do you really think God can be defined in one word, such as a name. Nope. If you do that, His very nature is lost. The same with Tao- once you name it, it is not "it" anymore.

Try reading it in context.
The Tanakh was written as a history of a people.
The Laws (and history of those laws) are depicted in the Torah.
The Ten Commandments is part of that history.
The Ten Commandments, however, is not the whole of Mosaic Law.
Those "thousands" of laws were given to Moses by God within his lifetime (within the 40 years of wandering the desert, in fact) - LONG before the New Testament.
And Jesus came and said all those laws were not God's. Why do you think the elite was upset!?

Wrong.
It had nothing to do at all with the "thousands" of laws.
Read the passage...
NIV Matthew 21:12 Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"

You can't simply pick two words (two words whose meaning have been hotly debated for centuries), take them completely out of context to come up with your own meaning for them and use them to overturn the rest of the book they were written in.
That's not the passage.

The whole point of the Torah is that God is our leader, father and judge - God most certainly has intention in the Jewish view - and they get that view from the Tanakh - which they wrote themselves.
Oh, so you agree they wrote something?

Ok....
Let's examine intention for a while. Here is two ways of seeing:

1) God came and caused the rain to fall.
2) God came and the rain fell.

In 1, we see an explicit "intention". In 2, the "intention" is explicit. But there is really no difference between them. Just replace the word "God" with "naure", and you will see the two sentences are the same. 1 is often seen in the Bible, while 2 is the Taoist "version". The point is simple- nature "causes" the rain to fall. Does that mean nature has intention?

No it didn't.
Your understanding of the Tao is about as lacking of your understanding of Judaism.
On the contrary. Your understanding of Judaism is just as lacking as your understanding of Tao. Tao is not "soul".

You tend to take little bits and pieces and run with them, thinking you have found truth - the same thing you accuse theists of - now THAT is interesting.
You can't fully understand the parts without understanding the whole.
I read nearly the whole Bible, plus the whole Tao Te Ching, plus other religions. Nope. I don't take little bits and pieces. I find the bits and pieces that are similar in several religions/philosophies and compare them. Then I attempt to reconcie them. The idea is that if there is indeed a God, it wouldn't saying different things to different people- different people would understand it in different ways. So, basically, it is useless to see a religion on its own, because it cannot prove a real wise "God". On;y when you see all perspectives together can you find the real wise God. Again, clearly you lack on understanding while I don't at all.

I'm not sure that I agree with this assertion. From what I have read Tao is more often interpreted as meaning: "Path" or "Way".

I'm certain that Tao and Soul are not synonymous. It is not often that one can see the word soul used to describe physical actions. (i.e. The soul raises or lowers/takes or gives etc. [The distinction being that this could be used to describe the metaphysical but not the physical]).

Tao as I comprehend it is an acknowledgement of our very real, although insubstantial, link with creation as a whole. The nature of which, it is futile to even attempt to quantify. You have to accept it for what it is - good or bad - and "go with the flow"...
Thank you! :)
You certainly know the Tao way better then one_raven. :)

Tao 道 should be more correctly translated as "The Way", "The Principle" and refers to the nature or the underlying principles in which everything operates. Depending on your prospective of whether God is part of nature or out of it, Tao may go above, at the same level or under God.
You can say God creates all the laws and Tao.
You can also say God's existence is part of Tao.

Tao and soul may have something in common, but no, they are quite different. The words 精 (jing, essense) and 神 (shen, spirit) are closer to soul.
The character 神 is also the word for god (in general) or God.
Again, excellent post. :)

First of all, I'm not talking about the Torah- I'm talking about the OT (yes, it is the same thing, but the latter is in a broader conext).
You mentioned the Ten Commandments and Leviticus - both of which are from the Torah.
No, the Torah and the Old Testament are NOT the same thing at all.
The Torah is the first five books of the Tanakh.
The Old Testament is essentially the Tanakh (with some stuff added, some stuff removed and some stuff changed - of course).
If you want to discuss what the Jews believed about the nature and role of God, then you SHOULD be discussing the Torah.

Second, Leviticus is filled with crap written by humans - which is why I don't acceot it as truth.
But Moses' decent from the mountain with the Ten Commandments is not written by humans and IS truth?
What makes that so?
The Torah claims the Ten Commandments were divine inspiration.
The Torah claims that the Kosher laws set forth in Leviticus were divine inspiration.
Tell me, what makes one bullshit and the other gospel?
You wanting it to fit into your little idea?
It doesn't work that way.

In the broader context of the Bible, one can see the contrast between the "loving God" from the NT and the "wrath of God" from the OT. That's because the OT is filled with human crap.
And the New testament isn't?
I don't get your point.

I hope you are not jewish. I don't mean to offend you...
I'm not Jewish.
If I were, I hope you would not change what you honestly have to say.

My understanding of "I am" is exactly that - "I am". Do you really think God can be defined in one word, such as a name. Nope.
Oh, so it takes TWO words?:bugeye:

Do you really think ANYONE can be defined in one word, such as a name?
Nope.
Again, what's your point?

If you do that, His very nature is lost. The same with Tao- once you name it, it is not "it" anymore.
You are referring to it as Tao, does that mean it does not exist anymore?
Of course not.


Regardless of ALL this...
Let's say, just for sake of this argument, that the ONLY thing the Jews got right about God was the Ten Commandments.
Even if that were true, my argument would still stand.
God, is telling the people what to do.
He is passing judgement.
He has intention.
He has will.
He is an purposeful, cognizant entity.
Tha Tao is NONE of this.

If you said that what Jesus taught was equivalent to the Tao, then you might have a valid argument to make (though, I have to say that it would be a hard sell).
God, on the other hand, is NOTHING like the Tao, as far as I can see.

If you disagree, please explain why, because as it stands, you have not done so.

This concept in Tao De Ching hardly fits in the common definition of God.

"天地不仁,以萬物為芻狗."
"Heaven and earth have no mercy, everything is regarded as prop dogs."

"芻狗" is a doll dog used in rituals and will be discarded at once afterwards.
Life comes and goes and is very insignificant. Simply, it does not care.
In my opinion, this is much closer to the truth, or at least what I preceive how the world operates.
So, don't ask why there are wars, famines, misery, etc. It just is.
In short, an omnibenevolent being does not exist.
Well, the Tao is harmonious. So while in literal terms Tao is not omnibenevolent, in metaphoric terms, the Tao can be considered omnibenevolent.

You see, there cannot be unity and harmony without "love". So love is certainly a way of the Tao.

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with you. The Tao is not an omnibenevolent being. Heck, the Tao isn't even a being! LOL! :D But the Tao is harmonious, and that is in direct sintony with what Jesus said "love thy neighbour".

Jesus also says that he didn't come to change the laws of the prophets somewhere in Matthew I believe.
Of course he didn't. The laws of the prophets were not the laws of the pharisees!!

How is it superficial?

They both described as smaller than the smallest particle (how could that be superficial?)
Both described as un-percievable (how could that be superficial?)
Both described as non-doers (how could that be superficial?)
etc....

Nothing about it is superficial at all, not even to the slightest, smallest, most infinitesmal extent, rather the similarities are not vague nor appearing to be similar on the surface, but actual similarities, just think about it, regardless it's still WAAAY more similar than Yahweh...
On the contrary. Yahweh is very much like that as well. And you are right, Krishna is the same.

On the contrary. Your understanding of Judaism is just as lacking as your understanding of Tao. Tao is not "soul".
Read back.
I corrected myself.

Nope. I don't take little bits and pieces. I find the bits and pieces that are similar in several religions/philosophies and compare them. Then I attempt to reconcie them.
But the bits and pieces are meaningless without the whole.
Not to mention that electing to simply disgard everything else that disagrees with your assertion, without any syupporting evidence for discounting it (other than the fact that it disagrees with your assertion) is dishonest.
I can do that with anything I want to say.
I could say that God wants us to all kill each other, and find lots of quotes to support that, and simply disregard everything else that contradicts it.
My results would be as meaningless as yours.

You are approaching the Bible with a pre-concieved notion, then cherry-picking passages that support that notion... I have seen you fault theists for doing the same exact thing.

The idea is that if there is indeed a God, it wouldn't saying different things to different people- different people would understand it in different ways.
I agree.

So, basically, it is useless to see a religion on its own, because it cannot prove a real wise "God". On;y when you see all perspectives together can you find the real wise God.
I don't necessarily agree, but I can appreciate what you are trying to say.

How does any of this support your unfounded assertion that God is the Tao?
I think perhaps you are expressing your thoughts very poorly (which is completely understandable, given the subject) which is why you seem to be contradicting yourself.

You say that if there is a God, he would teach in different ways to different people correct?
So, are you saying that The Tao, is what God was trying to teach in the Torah?
Are you trying to say that the Ten Commandments alighns with The Tao because God taught them both, and they are both divine truths?

That is a far cry from God is The Tao.
Plato was a man.
The Republic was part of his teaching.
Plato is not The Republic, Plato WROTE The Republic.

Again, clearly you lack on understanding while I don't at all.
Don't get all huffy and defensive with me, you little bitch.

Heck, the Tao isn't even a being!

Exactly! But God IS and you said God is the same as The Tao.

You mentioned the Ten Commandments and Leviticus - both of which are from the Torah.
No, the Torah and the Old Testament are NOT the same thing at all.
The Torah is the first five books of the Tanakh.
YHumm, yes, I see that. The books that Moses wrote...

The Old Testament is essentially the Tanakh (with some stuff added, some stuff removed and some stuff changed - of course).
Why? Why is people meddling with what God said? Do you see the problem with that? This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say men changes what God says.

If you want to discuss what the Jews believed about the nature and role of God, then you SHOULD be discussing the Torah.
I agree with you. So, please, tell me what is the added part, because that's most of what I'm probably missing. ;)

But Moses' decent from the mountain with the Ten Commandments is not written by humans and IS truth?
What makes that so?
The Torah claims the Ten Commandments were divine inspiration.
The Torah claims that the Kosher laws set forth in Leviticus were divine inspiration.
Tell me, what makes one bullshit and the other gospel?
You wanting it to fit into your little idea?
It doesn't work that way.
God is clear on this. He said "I will give you 10 commandments". Only 10. Everything else is basically added rituals. God also clearly says not to worship idols, and yet people did it all the time. He says not to worship idols and then gives people all those extreme details of sanctuaries and tabernacles? Do you seriously think that is a logical for God to do that?

And the New testament isn't?
I don't get your point.
Yes, there's some in NT too.

I'm not Jewish.
I feel better now. :D

If I were, I hope you would not change what you honestly have to say.
I'm glad.

Oh, so it takes TWO words?

Do you really think ANYONE can be defined in one word, such as a name?
Nope.
Again, what's your point?
Of course. People refer to me by name. You can't do that with God, though.

You are referring to it as Tao, does that mean it does not exist anymore?
Of course not.
Nope. It just means that my words are pointless. :D


Regardless of ALL this...
Let's say, just for sake of this argument, that the ONLY thing the Jews got right about God was the Ten Commandments.
Even if that were true, my argument would still stand.
God, is telling the people what to do.
He is passing judgement.
He has intention.
He has will.
He is an purposeful, cognizant entity.
Tha Tao is NONE of this.
You are looking from an active perspective.

The West is much more active on perspective. The East, more passive. Have you noticed that. That's the two sides of the same coin.


If you disagree, please explain why, because as it stands, you have not done so.
I will. When I have a little bit more time. This discussion has taken me over half an hour already... LOL!

Exactly! But God IS and you said God is the same as The Tao.
That's one perspective of God- not the whole. Remember God has created the universe. There's no simple answer to who God is. You have to look at him in many different perspectives before you start grasping who he is.

Ever heard of a figure of speech called "personification"? ;)

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
The idea is that if there is indeed a God, it wouldn't saying different things to different people- different people would understand it in different ways. ”

I agree.


“ Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
So, basically, it is useless to see a religion on its own, because it cannot prove a real wise "God". Only when you see all perspectives together can you find the real wise God. ”

I don't necessarily agree, but I can appreciate what you are trying to say.
Ok. I will try to explain it more clearly. God is not a straigthforward subject. Ok, so He is supposed to be very very wise. So, if He is so wise, why there is so much confusions with his message? If he is trying to communicate with everyone on the planet, why everyone says something different? Well, the only logical answer is that it is not God's fault (after all, He is wise), but it is our differing cultures that causes us to communicate the idea of God in different ways (which is in essence the whole point of the Comparative Religion forums). What is the point of comparing different religions if we are not trying to find some underlying similarity? On the contrary, if we find similarities, we can then use those similarities to ultimately unite people from different cultures! But basically, the idea is that our differeing cultures causes us to communicate about God in different ways. The East sees God is more passive. The West, as more active. That's one example.

How does any of this support your unfounded assertion that God is the Tao?I think perhaps you are expressing your thoughts very poorly (which is completely understandable, given the subject) which is why you seem to be contradicting yourself.
God is paradoxical, so we will find contradictions, which are resolvable if we think about it carefully. But you are right. I just came from several hours of work and I'm tired. :D

I'm still capable of sort of carry out this discussion.... :eek:

You say that if there is a God, he would teach in different ways to different people correct?
No- not what I said. But that could be right as well.
What I said is that different people will see Him through different perspectives.

When I try to talk about this I usually use the allegory of the moutain. Think about a mountain. 4 people are looking at a mountain from different places. One thinks that the mountain is easy to climb, because it is not too steep. Another thinks it's very hard, because he is looking at a giant cliff. Another thinks it is safe. The last can see dangers that all the others missed. You seem, our minds are like that. We cannot see the universe as a whole. We only see one part of it at a time. And we act according to our limited perspective. ANd our beliefs are also tied to our limited perspective. God is like the mountaint. He's not steep. He's not easy to climb. Nor dangerous. He's all of that. That's why it seems contradictory at first- but it is not once you see from other perspectives. I've been looking at the mountain from different perspectives for over 10 years...

So, are you saying that The Tao, is what God was trying to teach in the Torah?
Are you trying to say that the Ten Commandments alighns with The Tao because God taught them both, and they are both divine truths?
Yes.

That is a far cry from God is The Tao.
Plato was a man.
The Republic was part of his teaching.
Plato is not The Republic, Plato WROTE The Republic.
You are looking at a single perspective. LOL!!

Don't get all huffy and defensive with me, you little bitch.
:poke:
LOL!

Wow!
Where do I even start?

So, if He is so wise, why there is so much confusions with his message? If he is trying to communicate with everyone on the planet, why everyone says something different? Well, the only logical answer is that it is not God's fault
The ONLY logical answer?
Are you kidding me?

First of all, there are two glaring options you seem to have missed.
What about, "God does not exist, and the concept was invented by humans"?
What about, "There are many different Gods"?

Secondly, if God (the wise and ideal and creator of all, including us) is misunderstood it is MOST CERTAINLY his fault.
If people can no clearly express what/who/where/why he is to each other, it is most certainly his fault.
He coudl simply imbue us with an innate knowledge of him, his rules and mandates if he wanted to, and it would be instinctual, and there would be no need to express it to anyone else - everyone would know.

(after all, He is wise), but it is our differing cultures that causes us to communicate the idea of God in different ways
1.) How do you know he is wise?
Because some people have said so?

2.) If he is so wise, couldn't he give his teachings in a way that everyone very plainly and simply undertsands them?

(which is in essence the whole point of the Comparative Religion forums). What is the point of comparing different religions if we are not trying to find some underlying similarity?
No it's not.
Not at all.
Comparitive Religion, like Anthropology, is simply the study of people and their beliefs - it does not claim to be looking for truth in the similarities.
What's the point?? To learn about people, their beliefs and the roots of and influences upon those beliefs.

On the contrary, if we find similarities, we can then use those similarities to ultimately unite people from different cultures!
Recognizing, accepting and understanding differences is as important to communication and understanding as finding similarities - perhaps more so.

But basically, the idea is that our differeing cultures causes us to communicate about God in different ways. The East sees God is more passive. The West, as more active. That's one example.
No, the idea is that our differing cultures and influences cause us to view our Deities in different ways and lead us to different beliefs and philosophical systems.
Cultural Philosophies are influenced by so many different things from weather to food, and understanding these influences helps us to understand people.
Religion is the study of God through man's eyes. Comparative Religion is the study of man through Gods eyes.

God is paradoxical
Bullshit cop-out.
I don't buy it.

so we will find contradictions, which are resolvable if we think about it carefully.
Is God paradoxical or is he not.
You are contradicting yourself here.
Are you going to blame it on God?

No- not what I said. But that could be right as well.
What I said is that different people will see Him through different perspectives.
And why would he not tailor his message to the listener?
It's quite a simple thing to recognize that communication is a two-way street, and both parties are equally responsible for both sides od the communication.
The most basic course in communication will teach you taht you have to take the listener's culture, language, background and understanding of the subject into account to be an effective communicator - God wouldn't realize this?

I've been looking at the mountain from different perspectives for over 10 years...
And I have been studying it for more than 25.
Even the simplest mind can look at a mountain and know they are looking at only one face.
And yes, someone who studies the mountain for long enough and carefully enough will know every face.
One can see the mountain as a whole.
The mountain can not both exists and not exist at the same time, however.
Paradoxes do not exist.

You are looking at a single perspective. LOL!!
You think so?
I doubt it.
Show me how.

Do you really think Leviticus is a good account for a supposedly loving and wise "God"?

Oh, you mean YOUR YAHWEH is like the Tao.

(and yes, I have problems with much of both testements. But now you are arguing that THE REAL YAHWEH can be found here, b ut not here. Why use that name for Yahweh? That name implies heavily the biblical God, especially the OT one. Can I take out portions of the Tao te ching that don´t fit my version of the tao and make it the same as an
Allah I contruct out of certain passages in the Koran?)

Of course he didn't. The laws of the prophets were not the laws of the pharisees!!

....but were in the OT, correct? In those parts(everything but the 10 commandments) that you suggest are fabrications(while others aren't), which were written by the prophets?

The ONLY logical answer?
Are you kidding me?

First of all, there are two glaring options you seem to have missed.
What about, "God does not exist, and the concept was invented by humans"?
What about, "There are many different Gods"?
Are we discussing this here? My point was obvious. IF God exist, this would be the most logical answer.

Secondly, if God (the wise and ideal and creator of all, including us) is misunderstood it is MOST CERTAINLY his fault.
I don't think He wants to make it easy for us. If He did, we wouldn't learn anything.

If people can no clearly express what/who/where/why he is to each other, it is most certainly his fault.
Again, He makes himself mysterious to teach us something.

He coudl simply imbue us with an innate knowledge of him, his rules and mandates if he wanted to, and it would be instinctual, and there would be no need to express it to anyone else - everyone would know.
Then we would be His slaves. Doesn't seem He wants that.

1.) How do you know he is wise?
Because some people have said so?
His very nature would necessarily imply that He is wise. If He created this complex universe, how can He NOT be wise? Do you seriously doubt it!?

2.) If he is so wise, couldn't he give his teachings in a way that everyone very plainly and simply undertsands them?
Would that be beneficial to us? Would we learn anything if He did that? Would life have a meaning? Would we be free? Think about those things.

No it's not.
Not at all.
Comparitive Religion, like Anthropology, is simply the study of people and their beliefs - it does not claim to be looking for truth in the similarities.
Looking for truth in the similarities is the natural consequence of studying people and their beliefs.

What's the point?? To learn about people, their beliefs and the roots of and influences upon those beliefs.
Yes. So WHY do you want to learn that? For no reason!? Or maybe to learn how people can live in harmony? Which reason do you prefer more:
a) for no reason
b) to learn how different people can live in harmony

Recognizing, accepting and understanding differences is as important to communication and understanding as finding similarities - perhaps more so.
Yes. So?

No, the idea is that our differing cultures and influences cause us to view our Deities in different ways and lead us to different beliefs and philosophical systems.
And what did I say?

Bullshit cop-out.
I don't buy it.
HA! On the contrary. Paradox is the beginning of wisdom.

Is God paradoxical or is he not.
You are contradicting yourself here.
Are you going to blame it on God?
God is paradoxical. How hard is it for you to undestand this? I don't see how I'm contradicting myself here.

And why would he not tailor his message to the listener?
Maybe He is doing that, which is why he look different to different people. Or maybe it is both- different people will also see him in a different way.

The most basic course in communication will teach you taht you have to take the listener's culture, language, background and understanding of the subject into account to be an effective communicator - God wouldn't realize this?
Of course He would, but as I said before, He doesn't WANT to make it easy. He obviously wants us to learn something from all this.

Even the simplest mind can look at a mountain and know they are looking at only one face.
And yes, someone who studies the mountain for long enough and carefully enough will know every face.
One can see the mountain as a whole.
You completely missed the point. I'm not talking about what one CAN do. I already said MYSELF I'm looking at the mountain from many different perspectives. That's NOT my point, most obviously. My point is that we can only look at one face at a time.

The mountain can not both exists and not exist at the same time, however.
I could probably disprove that somehow, but that is pointless for this discussion, so I will refrain from that for the moment. Maybe in another thread... :D

Paradoxes do not exist.
They most certainly do. It has a name to begin with! LOL! :D
Search for paradox in wikipedia and see for yourself...

You think so?
I doubt it.
Show me how.
What do you think I'm doing? ;)

Oh, you mean YOUR YAHWEH is like the Tao.

(and yes, I have problems with much of both testements. But now you are arguing that THE REAL YAHWEH can be found here, b ut not here. Why use that name for Yahweh? That name implies heavily the biblical God, especially the OT one. Can I take out portions of the Tao te ching that don´t fit my version of the tao and make it the same as an
Allah I contruct out of certain passages in the Koran?)
I'm not taking parts. I'm taking the whole. Of course you don't see that, because you are considering the passages that Jesus disproved to be true as part of the truth. You are clearly not seeing the whole.

....but were in the OT, correct? In those parts(everything but the 10 commandments) that you suggest are fabrications(while others aren't), which were written by the prophets?
Look, what I'm saying is that the pharissees were following certain laws that were invented by humans. Then, Jesus came and told the pharisees that the laws they were following were not God's laws- they were invented by humans. Things like homophobia, for instance- invented by humans. Passage such as God instructing armies to kill children- written by humans, to justify their actions.

Seriously, take a look at the crusades for example, or any religion in the world that caused wars and suffering. Those were people in power using religion to justify their actions. Don't you think they would change scriptures to suit their need of power? Please, I hope you are not that naive....

Of course scriptures are corrupted. They are several thousands of years old! How can they not be corrupted! It's logical to consider that as a very likely possibility!

Depending on your prospective[sic] of whether God is part of nature or out of it, Tao may go above, at the same level or under God.

With the way that Tao is repeatedly referred to as "the Source" or "Source", I would have to go with the former. My interpretation is that God is brought into existence from the Tao by the power of his/her own thought/will alone.

It is interesting that Tao also has a triune division:

Tian Tao (Sky/Natural/Heavens Tao) - From which Yin and Yang are derived.
Da Tao (Great Tao) - The Course of History[Past, Present and Future].
Ren Tao (Human Tao) - Human Social Interaction.

I equate these respectively with:

Holy Spirit.
Father.
Son.

The connection between Tao and Yahweh, (I'm sorry, I have no intentions of causing any hurt/offense/upset to anybody of Jewish extraction or religious thinking. However, whenever I see that written down it always reminds me of the noises made by the Ewoks from Star Wars!:) ) is uncertain and not immediately as obvious to me, as it appears to be to Truthseeker.

I am, however, more acutely aware of the connection between Taoist thought and Jesus. So much so, that I started my own thread in the Religion forum:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69242
(Sorry for Hijacking the thread slightly Truth! :o )

I think that this is a far less tentative link! (I'd be interested to know your thoughts one_raven if you haven't already seen this thread.)

With the way that Tao is repeatedly referred to as "the Source" or "Source", I would have to go with the former. My interpretation is that God is brought into existence from the Tao by the power of his/her own thought/will alone.
Christians also think of God as the "Source". They use the word "Creator".

It is interesting that Tao also has a triune division:

Tian Tao (Sky/Natural/Heavens Tao) - From which Yin and Yang are derived.
Da Tao (Great Tao) - The Course of History[Past, Present and Future].
Ren Tao (Human Tao) - Human Social Interaction.
Where in the Tao Te Ching do you see that division?

I equate these respectively with:

Holy Spirit.
Father.
Son.
That's interesting, but they don't seem to match very well..

The connection between Tao and Yahweh, (I'm sorry, I have no intentions of causing any hurt/offense/upset to anybody of Jewish extraction or religious thinking. However, whenever I see that written down it always reminds me of the noises made by the Ewoks from Star Wars!:) ) is uncertain and not immediately as obvious to me, as it appears to be to Truthseeker.
You have to know both of them well to see that.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69242
(Sorry for Hijacking the thread slightly Truth! :o )
I don't mind as long as your thread is interesting... :)

On the contrary. Yahweh is very much like that as well. And you are right, Krishna is the same.

Can you quote a few passages?

Benauld,
I will try and get there tonight.

TruthSeeker,
I could never tell if you actually think in circles, non sequiturs and blatant contradicions, or if you are just a poor communicator.
You really should step back and re-read this thread from beginning to end, and see if you can catch it all with a fresh mind seeing it all at once.
Your apparent lack of reason astounds me at times.

Regardless, I've had about as much frustration as this topic is worth to me - I'm done.

I'm not taking parts. I'm taking the whole. Of course you don't see that, because you are considering the passages that Jesus disproved to be true as part of the truth. You are clearly not seeing the whole.

What you mean is: you disagree with me.

The OT has a God that gets pissed off, kills people angrily, allows the devil to torture someone, gets angry when people disagree, dislikes homosexuality, suggests stoning to death women who remarry, has finicky dietary requirements (which are not followed as far as I know in regions where the tao is popular) kills most of the animals on earth because he is mad at us (Noah's flood), and chooses on people to be more his than others.

That just ain't the Tao.

And Jesus by the way said he was not contradicting the OT. I have to agree, he seems to. But he claimed he was not. I think he was unsure how to relate to a tradition he both loved and had problems with.

The NT could be a bit closer, but given all of Jesus' moral focus, somethign the Tao Te Ching takes a metaposition in relation to, I just don't see the fit either.

The mind can manage to make any two things match with enough 'explanation' abstraction denial etc., but I just don't see it. certainly similarities can be found, but an assertion that the Tao = yahweh opens the door for any two things to be the same. Like Hilter = Tao.

The whole crucifixion would also be out of place in the Tao Te Ching.

What you mean is: you disagree with me.

The OT has a God that gets pissed off, kills people angrily, allows the devil to torture someone, gets angry when people disagree, dislikes homosexuality, suggests stoning to death women who remarry, has finicky dietary requirements (which are not followed as far as I know in regions where the tao is popular) kills most of the animals on earth because he is mad at us (Noah's flood), and chooses on people to be more his than others.

That just ain't the Tao.
And as I said, that was all written by humans. Even Taosim has been spoiled! Ever heard of Taoist religion? It has been happening for thousands of years. A wise person comes with a philosophy, which people then turn into religion by adding random beliefs and rituals. Even the new age philosophy of the 60s has been turned into religion!!!

And Jesus by the way said he was not contradicting the OT. I have to agree, he seems to. But he claimed he was not. I think he was unsure how to relate to a tradition he both loved and had problems with.
As I said, he claimed that the thousands of laws were invented by the pharisees (or whoever else before them). He said those laws were not God's laws.

The NT could be a bit closer, but given all of Jesus' moral focus, somethign the Tao Te Ching takes a metaposition in relation to, I just don't see the fit either.
Yes, I see that, and I agree with you, hence I consider myself both "Chirstian" and "Taoist", in terms of philosophy. But as I said before, western religions tend to focus more on action, while eastern ones tend to be more passive. Have you noticed that? Those are two different perspectives about the universe.

The whole crucifixion would also be out of place in the Tao Te Ching.
See? That's the problem with your thinking. You are not considering the cultural and historical variables, here. Crucifixions were supposed to be common in the Roman empire. Hence the crucifixion. You have to filter out the cultures in order to see the message behind it.

Think about this as if you are trying to read the same thing on two different languages. You have to translate both of them into a different language. Religions are different "languages". They talk about the same thing, they look and sound different - but that doesn't make their meaning any different.

Christians also think of God as the "Source". They use the word "Creator".
Actually, we'll have to agree to differ on this point. Source relates to the origin of something, Creation to the act of producing or causing to exist. As such one is passive, the other possesses active purpose. In addition, the creator is viewed as being benevolent and, (for want of a better word), "good". On the other hand Tao incorporates both "good" and "bad" and has no purpose, it simply is...

Where in the Tao Te Ching do you see that division?
The answer is you don't. But then the Tao Te Ching is not the be all and end all of Tao. TBH I used the oft derided wikipedia as the source for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

However, I'm sure that if you cared to follow up the references, something like Anatole, Alex. The Truth of Tao (Center of Traditional Taoist Studies, 2005). ISBN 0-9742529-0-5, or Chang, Stephen T. The Great Tao (Tao Longevity LLC, 1985). ISBN 0-942196-01-5 would provide an answer.

That's interesting, but they don't seem to match very well..
This was simply my personal interpretation. As I have stated previously elsewhere though, I'm not maintaining that they should match "well". I'm merely noting the similarities. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are NT. There would be a necessary disparity in the ideas of Tao, if they had needed to have been adapted into an already exisitng belief structure.

You have to know both of them well to see that.
I'll take your word for that. I don't think I'll ever see it...

I don't mind as long as your thread is interesting... :)
I hope it is!:D

Actually, we'll have to agree to differ on this point. Source relates to the origin of something, Creation to the act of producing or causing to exist. As such one is passive, the other possesses active purpose.
As I said, the West tend to be more active while the East more passive. Two different perspectives of the universe. Did you read all that I wrote?

In addition, the creator is viewed as being benevolent and, (for want of a better word), "good". On the other hand Tao incorporates both "good" and "bad" and has no purpose, it simply is...
Read your own links, will ya? ;)

"While the Tao Te Ching is most famous, there are other important texts in traditional Taoism. Taishang Ganying Pian ("Treatise of the Exalted One on Response and Retribution") discusses sin and ethics, and has become a popular morality tract in the last few centuries.[43] It asserts that those in harmony with Tao will live long and fruitful lives. The wicked, and their descendents, will suffer and have shortened lives.[44] Both the Taipingjing ("Scripture on Great Peace") and the Baopuzi ("Book of the Master Who Keeps to simplicity") contain early alchemical formulas that early Taoists believed could lead to immortality.[45][46]"

The answer is you don't. But then the Tao Te Ching is not the be all and end all of Tao. TBH I used the oft derided wikipedia as the source for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

However, I'm sure that if you cared to follow up the references, something like Anatole, Alex. The Truth of Tao (Center of Traditional Taoist Studies, 2005). ISBN 0-9742529-0-5, or Chang, Stephen T. The Great Tao (Tao Longevity LLC, 1985). ISBN 0-942196-01-5 would provide an answer.
Please, tell me exactly where you see it...

As I said, the West tend to be more active while the East more passive. Two different perspectives of the universe. Did you read all that I wrote?
Yup. However, the difference is more fundemental than "perspectives" allow. Perhaps neither of us convey our meaning very well?

Please, tell me exactly where you see it...
To my undying shame I have actually posted the wrong link! :o (I may very well have to hurl myself from a cliff, or failing that a rooftop!) I have been reading this one, and am consequently more familiar with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

Read your own links, will ya? ;)

"While the Tao Te Ching is most famous, there are other important texts in traditional Taoism. Taishang Ganying Pian ("Treatise of the Exalted One on Response and Retribution") discusses sin and ethics, and has become a popular morality tract in the last few centuries.[43] It asserts that those in harmony with Tao will live long and fruitful lives. The wicked, and their descendents, will suffer and have shortened lives.[44] Both the Taipingjing ("Scripture on Great Peace") and the Baopuzi ("Book of the Master Who Keeps to simplicity") contain early alchemical formulas that early Taoists believed could lead to immortality.[45][46]"
As I have said above I'm not entirely familiar with this page. However, having said that, the text that you have highlighted doesn't prove much. Yes one would live a longer life in harmony with Tao, but that is merely a consequence of the existence of Tao itself. It does not imply that one should or should not live in either way. (In other words, it doesn't say be good or else...)

There's a deep connection between the Tao from the Tao Te Ching and the God from the Bible. Both are "the nameless". Here's the comparison...

The first two quotes are very similar in nature, and the last one gives the meaning of the Bible's God name...


Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1
"The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The name is the mother of the ten thousand things.

Send your desires away and you will see the mystery.
Be filled with desire and you will see only the manifestation.

As these two come forth they differ in name.
Yet at their source they are the same.
This source is called a mystery.

Darkness within darkness, the gateway to all mystery."

http://www.thebigview.com/tao-te-ching/chapter01.html


"John 1
The Eternal Word
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=50


As far as the last quote goes, I don't have it because the internet is filled with crap. But somewhere in Exodus, Moses asks God what His name is and He says "Yahweh" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_that_I_am). In other words, God tells Moses that He has no name. He's the nameless. (And, supposedly, people should even "be put to death" for calling Him Yahweh because His name is NOT Yahweh, Yahweh is rather a representation of His namelessness.)

Interesting, uh?

I agree with this post.
All other arguments are worthless, since you cannot put God into a concept. You may say it´s the simplest concept: "God is love". But also, if you try to define God, then you would need a book as big as God to write that concept. Lao-Tzu makes an excellent definition in the Tao-Te-Ching, but he described God as the "Dao/Tao" to avoid this arguments.

Yup. However, the difference is more fundemental than "perspectives" allow. Perhaps neither of us convey our meaning very well?
How is more fundamental than perspectives? What's on your mind?

To my undying shame I have actually posted the wrong link! :o (I may very well have to hurl myself from a cliff, or failing that a rooftop!) I have been reading this one, and am consequently more familiar with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao
Yeah... and gave me ammunition against your argument... :D

As I have said above I'm not entirely familiar with this page. However, having said that, the text that you have highlighted doesn't prove much. Yes one would live a longer life in harmony with Tao, but that is merely a consequence of the existence of Tao itself. It does not imply that one should or should not live in either way. (In other words, it doesn't say be good or else...)
I don't see how it is any deifferent. The main difference is that one is active and the other is passive.

I agree with this post.
All other arguments are worthless, since you cannot put God into a concept. You may say it´s the simplest concept: "God is love". But also, if you try to define God, then you would need a book as big as God to write that concept. Lao-Tzu makes an excellent definition in the Tao-Te-Ching, but he described God as the "Dao/Tao" to avoid this arguments.
Exactly! You know precisely what I am talking about!!! :)

Think about this as if you are trying to read the same thing on two different languages. You have to translate both of them into a different language. Religions are different "languages". They talk about the same thing, they look and sound different - but that doesn't make their meaning any different.

I could make the same argument then for Hitler's Mein Kamph or the telephone book.

Don't get hooked up on the words in it or any of the cultural forms or patterns. They are the same as the Tao.

OK, fine. But why bother using the word yahweh. That word carries the very baggage you said it 'really' does not have.

I think I would have accepted your position if you had said from the start. Look there's a lot of junk in the Bible (and even in the Tao) that distracts from the core essence. I have intuited my way through the junk and I see the real yahweh behind it. I use the word in a different way than nearly everyone else on the planet.

I think you have to feel what I mean about the crucifixion. I am well aware of the reasons why that was the likely way he got killed. The crucifixion does not fit in the Tao and you need to feel that to know it. It may fit in YOUR IDEA OF WHAT THE TAO really is or what you think the crucifixion really is but that is another story.

I could say cat = dog and after ten minutes you find out that I mean these two animals that have been genetically modified to be the same. Woopie.

That you personally have found a way to reconcile certain truths between two religious approaches is what, I think, you really meant. And that is something different from the absolute terms you want us to accept the mathematical forumula you started with.

I agree with this post.
All other arguments are worthless, since you cannot put God into a concept. You may say it´s the simplest concept: "God is love". But also, if you try to define God, then you would need a book as big as God to write that concept. Lao-Tzu makes an excellent definition in the Tao-Te-Ching, but he described God as the "Dao/Tao" to avoid this arguments.


So you and Truthseeker are basically saying that we can ignore most of these texts and focus on the parts of them where 'something' is not defined and this shared lack of definition of 'something' is the same. They are referring to the same not defined 'something' that isn't a something.

let's say you are right.

So what?

How is this a step up from:

ölakjsdf = aldkkkkk and neither of these can be defined or limited.

What is the purpose of this?

How is more fundamental than perspectives? What's on your mind?
The difficulty is that we are talking at crossed purposes. You are under the impression that we are discussing one phenomenon, and I am under the impression that we are discussing two.

What I am saying is this: Just suppose for a second that an advanced race of aliens existed. They have no seperate cultures (no east and west), they only interpret evidence objectively in one way, (they are the "perfect" scientists!:D ). Now, they have access to evidence that is currently unavailable to us, that Tao and Yahweh are two seperate phenomenon. They make this differentiation based solely upon the fact that one has the characterisitc of intent, and the other simply lacks this. This is not two aspects of the same thing, but two seperate physical phenomenon. That's as simple as I can convey what I'm describing.

Yeah... and gave me ammunition against your argument... :D
Hardly what I'd call "Ammunition", more like a tiny grain of sand between the cogs, in the workings of a well oiled machine...;)

I don't see how it is any deifferent. The main difference is that one is active and the other is passive.
The point I am making here is that one doesn't condemn you for not choosing to live virtuously, the other does...

The point I am making here is that one doesn't condemn you for not choosing to live virtuously, the other does...

I think this is one very short demolition of their position. Good show.

In the books about yahweh we find thousands of rules OT or a vastly more strict interpretation of those rules NT. By this latter I meant that Christ was saying not only are you sinning if you sleep with women, you are sinning if you look at them and think about sinning or feel some lust.

OT and NT share strict moral and or behavioral codes.

The Tao is not about that.

And even if we allow that Yahweh religion is active and Tao religion is passive, well gee THAT'S A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE.

So you and Truthseeker are basically saying that we can ignore most of these texts and focus on the parts of them where 'something' is not defined and this shared lack of definition of 'something' is the same. They are referring to the same not defined 'something' that isn't a something.

let's say you are right.

So what?

How is this a step up from:

ölakjsdf = aldkkkkk and neither of these can be defined or limited.

What is the purpose of this?

The purpose is simple, you would be an arrogant if you think you have God all figured out. And even if you had God all figured out, you could not put it into words, you would need to create a new language with infinite number of words, such as nature has. Zarathustra, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Lao-Tzu have done this, but they were only poets of the divine, they could never explain God to the fullest with the limitation of language.

You argument is that the Bible "Yahweh" is active and the "Dao" is pasive; put those 2 together and you can get a glimpse of what God is. God is unification, not division.

The purpose is simple, you would be an arrogant if you think you have God all figured out.

It seems like you are making a much stronger shot at doing this than I am. I am arguing that certain human made texts (the Bible and The Tao Te Ching) do not fit together well. In fact they contradict each other.

And even if you had God all figured out, you could not put it into words, you would need to create a new language with infinite number of words, such as nature has. Zarathustra, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Lao-Tzu have done this, but they were only poets of the divine, they could never explain God to the fullest with the limitation of language.

How can we then be sure they would have agree on God. Their texts do not.

You argument is that the Bible "Yahweh" is active and the "Dao" is pasive; put those 2 together and you can get a glimpse of what God is. God is unification, not division.

1) I might get a thought about God, but I think you are confusing thinking about God and experiencing God.

2) Jesus made some very telling statements about division. Remember his sword speech. He also talked about people who are very unlikely to get into heaven, also setting up divisions. He judged specific individuals and specific activities. He encouraged us to divide ourselves from certain desires. Shall we toss Mohammed into the pot? Some heft divisions going in the Koran.

To me it sounds like you like the idea that these religions or these poetic visionaries really had the same ideas. But they don't. They say different things, they teach us different ways to come to heaven, they teach us different ways to relate to each other - just ideas on killing split that group up, they have rather different ideas about women, who to hang out with and even whether division is a good thing or not.

You state 'God is unification, not division'

1) isn't this you being arrogant.
2) some of these visionaries would disagree with you.

The beautiful attractive idea you have is not grounded in reality.
Your ideas about God may be just peachy, but your ideas about other people's ideas are distorted by this beautiful idea you have. This need for these religions to be one because, I can conclude, you see division and against God.

I´m only saying that we cannot define God, and we cannot understand it. Many religions contradicts each other, guess what? God contradicts itself. You are right, God is division, but the unification of everything is God.