Yahweh = Tao

[melodicbard]

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.

 

[melodicbard]

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.

 

[Oniw17]

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.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

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.

 

[one_raven]

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.

 

[VitalOne]

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)

 

[one_raven]

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.

 

[VitalOne]

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...

 

[one_raven]

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

That I agree with!

 

[TruthSeeker]

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.

 

[TruthSeeker]

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?

 

[TruthSeeker]

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.

 

[TruthSeeker]

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.

 

[TruthSeeker]

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.

 

[one_raven]

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.

 

[TruthSeeker]

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! But the Tao is harmonious, and that is in direct sintony with what Jesus said "love thy neighbour".

 

[TruthSeeker]

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!!

 

[TruthSeeker]

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.

 

[one_raven]

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.

 

[one_raven]

Heck, the Tao isn't even a being!

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