Yahweh = 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?)
 
Last edited:
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! :eek: )

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! :eek: )
I don't mind as long as your thread is interesting... :)
 
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! :eek: (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 1&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". 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! :eek: (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.
 
Back
Top