Yahweh = Tao

[TruthSeeker]

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!!!

 

[Grantywanty]

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.

 

[Grantywanty]

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?

 

[Benauld]

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! ). 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...

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...

 

[Grantywanty]

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.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

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.

 

[Grantywanty]

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.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

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.