Is God Taoist?

[Losvedir]

Recently I've come across a very interesting fellow named Raymond Smullyan. Has anyone heard of him? According to Wikipedia he's a mathematician, logician, philosopher, and magician :wink: . Anyway he seems very smart, having gotten his Ph.D. at Princeton and studied under Alonzo Church. Apparently he majorly expanded Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, and our current understanding of it comes from a paper of his.

Anyway, enough introduction. I didn't think to look up who the author was until after I read two of his little short stories and was just fascinated by them. So, I think the following are pretty thought-provoking. What do you all think?

Is God a Taoist? (http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/IsGodTaoist.html)
Planet Without Laughter (http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/smullyan.html)

[Philosophickle]

*Ahem*

There is no taoist.

[NeilUnreal]

Smullyan's puzzle books are amazing. I think a lot of them may be out of print, but I've been able to find them in used book stores. I also have The Tao is Silent, though I haven't finised reading it.

-Neil

[$cirisme]

taoist is going to get a big head over this

[barnasha]

if the tao is the way to god, how could the way be the god?

[Losvedir]

if the tao is the way to god, how could the way be the god?
Did you read the links?

[Losvedir]

taoist is going to get a big head over this

:lol:

[shunyadragon]

Recently I've come across a very interesting fellow named Raymond Smullyan. Has anyone heard of him? According to Wikipedia he's a mathematician, logician, philosopher, and magician :wink: . Anyway he seems very smart, having gotten his Ph.D. at Princeton and studied under Alonzo Church. Apparently he majorly expanded Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, and our current understanding of it comes from a paper of his.

Anyway, enough introduction. I didn't think to look up who the author was until after I read two of his little short stories and was just fascinated by them. So, I think the following are pretty thought-provoking. What do you all think?

Is God a Taoist? (http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/IsGodTaoist.html)
Planet Without Laughter (http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/smullyan.html)

From my perspective all the cultures and peoples of the world have recieved their gift and revelation from the 'Source', some call God, others Allah, Some call the Tao, others cal Yahwah, and so on. All these views represent the fallible human view of the 'Source'. This would not be a popular view of the individual beliefs, which each consider their own view of the 'Source' as the only truth, and the others false.

[Soyeong]

Smullyan's puzzle books are amazing. I think a lot of them may be out of print, but I've been able to find them in used book stores. I also have The Tao is Silent, though I haven't finised reading it.

-Neil
I'm a huge fan of his puzzle books too! In fact, I have one of his books, Alice in Puzzle-Land sitting right on my desk. I know it's sad, but it's probably the book I've read the most times. My family owns four or five of his books. Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes was another book I found interesting that uses retrograde analysis to figure out in the past of a game of chess instead of mate in so many moves. Considering that the rules of chess are pretty straight forward, anything about that makes you ask yourself, "can they really do that?" is worth reading in my opinion.

Anyway, on to the topic at hand, it's been a while since I read Is God a Taoist? but I found it interesting when I read it too, but there were several misrepresentations of the Christian perspective in it. I might reread it to point them out if others don't find them first, but I'll see how things turn out.

[Losvedir]

I'm a huge fan of his puzzle books too! In fact, I have one of his books, Alice in Puzzle-Land sitting right on my desk. I know it's sad, but it's probably the book I've read the most times. My family owns four or five of his books. Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes was another book I found interesting that uses retrograde analysis to figure out in the past of a game of chess instead of mate in so many moves. Considering that the rules of chess are pretty straight forward, anything about that makes you ask yourself, "can they really do that?" is worth reading in my opinion.

Anyway, on to the topic at hand, it's been a while since I read Is God a Taoist? but I found it interesting when I read it too, but there were several misrepresentations of the Christian perspective in it. I might reread it to point them out if others don't find them first, but I'll see how things turn out.
Hm, based on yours and Neil's recommendations I just may have to pick up one of his puzzle books. I'm generally a fan of puzzles, I wonder if I can find a cheap copy somewhere around here.

[Soyeong]

We chcecked Alice in Puzzle-Land out of the library so many times, we finally decided to purchase it, but it was out of print. However, my mom did find a copy of it at amazon.com and brought it for us.

You can buy one there for about $8 + shipping if you'd like:
http://www.amazon.com/Alice-Puzzle-Land-Raymond-Smullyan/dp/0140070567

[barnasha]

From my perspective all the cultures and peoples of the world have recieved their gift and revelation from the 'Source', some call God, others Allah, Some call the Tao, others cal Yahwah, and so on. All these views represent the fallible human view of the 'Source'. This would not be a popular view of the individual beliefs, which each consider their own view of the 'Source' as the only truth, and the others false.

I think this is a bit too reductionary... Allah (God) is both master over creation as well as a source for all creation. the Tao is not a creation nor its source, but rather a way to be followed. Whether or not that way leads back to God, or how it relates to God, etc, is another topic.

like Lao Zi said, "the way that can be communicated (or reasoned) is not the true way"

like Jesus said, "When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side."

[barnasha]

Did you read the links?

does not change the question

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Christianity is attracting a lot of converts in China these days, which is the land of the Tao, and the basis that has been showing it forth a lot is the understanding of Christ as the Eternal Tao, in much the same way that He was understood in the Greek philosophical term, Logos [Word], for philosophically, there is very little difference between the Logos of Heraclitus, and the Tao of Lao Tzu...

Christ said "I AM the WAY..." And this is certainly an appropriate term for the Tao...

An Orthodox monk wrote a book on it, which has been translated into many Chinese dialects...

http://www.sainthermanpress.com/catalog/chapter_three/Tao_book.htm

Arsenios

[barnasha]

Christianity is attracting a lot of converts in China these days, which is the land of the Tao, and the basis that has been showing it forth a lot is the understanding of Christ as the Eternal Tao, in much the same way that He was understood in the Greek philosophical term, Logos [Word], for philosophically, there is very little difference between the Logos of Heraclitus, and the Tao of Lao Tzu...

Christ said "I AM the WAY..." And this is certainly an appropriate term for the Tao...

An Orthodox monk wrote a book on it, which has been translated into many Chinese dialects...

http://www.sainthermanpress.com/catalog/chapter_three/Tao_book.htm

Arsenios

Christianity and Chinese philosophy actually mix really well. The Chinese, being more Eastern in mind, do not seem to find any problems at all in reconciling daoist and confucian philosophy with those of Jesus.

However, in the Chinese language, Daoist philosophy and Jesus's saying are slightly different, Jesus having said "I am the dao lu (way/path)", whereas 'dao' is something a bit more broad (since dao means a bit more than just 'way').

Interestingly enough, Jesus's following was known as "the way".

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Christianity and Chinese philosophy actually mix really well. The Chinese, being more Eastern in mind, do not seem to find any problems at all in reconciling daoist and confucian philosophy with those of Jesus.

However, in the Chinese language, Daoist philosophy and Jesus's saying are slightly different, Jesus having said "I am the dao lu (way/path)", whereas 'dao' is something a bit more broad (since dao means a bit more than just 'way').

Interestingly enough, Jesus's following was known as "the way".

A great deal has to do with presentation... Christianity did not take root very well in China in ancient times, although the Chinese did have an affection for its followers... And it is only in modern times that it occurred to anyone to present the Tao as the pre-incarnate Christ, and once that happened, it has been a very rapid acceptance...

I have not heard so much about the Confucian connection - None at all so far in fact... But the connection, when you look at the Heraclitean Logos, the impersonal principle of all change in the universe [and intelligible, being logical], and the Tao that is the Way of the world, also impersonal, yet energetic for those who become 'one' with it - eg the Taoist masters, and the virtual invincibility of the martial arts masters in that tradition - Then to place a person in the place of the impersonal Force, so to speak, of each of these two understandings, is a fairly easy transition... And indeed, living in a universe where the creator and ruler of it is a loving God Who cares about and loves each and every one of us is a far more livable understanding than that of impersonal forces that are neither for nor against man...

Arsenios

[shunyadragon]

Christianity is attracting a lot of converts in China these days, which is the land of the Tao, and the basis that has been showing it forth a lot is the understanding of Christ as the Eternal Tao, in much the same way that He was understood in the Greek philosophical term, Logos [Word], for philosophically, there is very little difference between the Logos of Heraclitus, and the Tao of Lao Tzu...

Christ said "I AM the WAY..." And this is certainly an appropriate term for the Tao...

An Orthodox monk wrote a book on it, which has been translated into many Chinese dialects...

http://www.sainthermanpress.com/catalog/chapter_three/Tao_book.htm

Arsenios

After living and traveling in China for nine years, I found, yes there are converts, but the numbers are exaggerated. A common trend in recent years is what I call VISA converts and LDS uses its money to give priority employment to Chinese who will convert.

[shunyadragon]

I think this is a bit too reductionary... Allah (God) is both master over creation as well as a source for all creation. the Tao is not a creation nor its source, but rather a way to be followed. Whether or not that way leads back to God, or how it relates to God, etc, is another topic.

like Lao Zi said, "the way that can be communicated (or reasoned) is not the true way"

like Jesus said, "When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side."

The limitations of the ancient Islamic, Christian and Judiac worldview would by their nature reject the inherent unity of revelation and God's relationship to humanity, and call it 'too reductionist, because they consider their own revelation as in some way the one and only true revelation.

[barnasha]

what makes God any more 'personal' than the way?

[barnasha]

The limitations of the ancient Islamic, Christian and Judiac worldview would by their nature reject the inherent unity of revelation and God's relationship to humanity, and call it 'too reductionist, because they consider their own revelation as in some way the one and only true revelation.

not true, Jesus accepted the revelations of Moses and Muhammad accepted the revelations of them both

gospels explicitly mention this

quran more than explicitly states this

[lao tzu]

A great deal has to do with presentation... Christianity did not take root very well in China in ancient times, although the Chinese did have an affection for its followers... And it is only in modern times that it occurred to anyone to present the Tao as the pre-incarnate Christ, and once that happened, it has been a very rapid acceptance... Greetings, George,

I agree with Shunya here. This "rapid acceptance" does not stand up well to observation. It is one of those "truths" easily and uncritically accepted for no better reason than because christians would like it to be true. What is true is that Taoist tradition was ruthlessly suppressed under the Maoists and is presently making its own comeback. The relatively greater acceptance of christianity today is not due to any intimate connection between traditions, but exactly because of the suppression of Taoism in recent Chinese history.

In fact, this idea of a pre-incarnate christ is fundamentally contradictory to the "unnameable" way.
The Way that can be named is not the eternal Way.
Naming the Way — as Christ or Guatama or Muhammad or Sun Myung Moon — is sufficient to suggest that it is not eternal. It is fundamentally at odds with the tradition of anonymity. I don't believe you've considered this properly.


I have not heard so much about the Confucian connection - None at all so far in fact... But the connection, when you look at the Heraclitean Logos, the impersonal principle of all change in the universe [and intelligible, being logical], and the Tao that is the Way of the world, also impersonal, yet energetic for those who become 'one' with it - eg the Taoist masters, and the virtual invincibility of the martial arts masters in that tradition - What is amazing to me is that you seem at the one hand to accept the importance of this "impersonal" nature of the Tao while at the same time ...


Then to place a person in the place of the impersonal Force, so to speak, of each of these two understandings, is a fairly easy transition... And indeed, living in a universe where the creator and ruler of it is a loving God Who cares about and loves each and every one of us is a far more livable understanding than that of impersonal forces that are neither for nor against man...

Arsenios... seeing its replacement with a personal manifestation as a "fairly easy transition." Nothing could be further from the case. Do you really think the idea of personalizing the tradition never occurred to these philosophers spanning a tradition of over a thousand years prior to the final edition of the Ching? Of course it did! And it was deliberately rejected, for cause.

The anonymity at the heart of the Tao is antithetical to all theistic traditions. To claim otherwise is to fool yourself. The idea of a personal, loving, caring deity does not resonate in this tradition. It is specifically excepted.

Nameless indeed is the source of creation.
As ever, Jesse

[shunyadragon]

not true, Jesus accepted the revelations of Moses and Muhammad accepted the revelations of them both

gospels explicitly mention this

quran more than explicitly states this

True within the limited Judeo/Christian/Islamic world, which altogether represented only about half the world.

[JackC]

What is amazing to me is that you seem at the one hand to accept the importance of this "impersonal" nature of the Tao while at the same time ...

... seeing its replacement with a personal manifestation as a "fairly easy transition." Nothing could be further from the case. Do you really think the idea of personalizing the tradition never occurred to these philosophers spanning a tradition of over a thousand years prior to the final edition of the Ching? Of course it did! And it was deliberately rejected, for cause.

Hi Jesse,

What George has offered is actually the opposite transition that we go through in our spiritual development. Seeing God and Christ as 'personal' Beings is akin to the purpose and reason for a security blanket (although, of course those still being comforted by the security blanket will find offense in these words). It allows us through personalization, to come to a beginning level and love for God and His Creation.

If one continues in following as Christ instructed, they will eventually move beyond this, when their faith and trust and knowledge are strong enough, becoming as God is - not a respector of persons, even God as a person.

Still though, the intimacy enjoyed with God is very personal in nature, and until we are indeed One with the Father, we will continue to adore and love God as something separate from ourselves.

Thus far I have found that God is experienced as both personal and impersonal, depending on my level of unity and consciousness.


The anonymity at the heart of the Tao is antithetical to all theistic traditions. To claim otherwise is to fool yourself. The idea of a personal, loving, caring deity does not resonate in this tradition. It is specifically excepted.

Nameless indeed is the source of creation.
As ever, Jesse

Lao Tse's Tao is advance spiritual understanding, the same the Jesus taught His disciples privately. This level of understanding being what Paul referred to as the Mysteries.



Jack

[barnasha]

True within the limited Judeo/Christian/Islamic world, which altogether represented only about half the world.

this supposed world does not have any legitimate existence except within your realm of conception or supposition, same as the so called "Islamic (world)view", when referring to anything other than what the "Islamic community" views things as, as a whole. But even then it is merely a generalization

[shunyadragon]

this supposed world does not have any legitimate existence except within your realm of conception or supposition, same as the so called "Islamic (world)view", when referring to anything other than what the "Islamic community" views things as, as a whole. But even then it is merely a generalization

Historically the the different ancient civilizations were distinctly seperate with little or limited communication until qite late in history. It is not a mere generalization or my 'realm of conception or supposition. It is a fact of history that the Judeo/Chriatian/Islamic world is only about half the world in early history. Their ancient limited worldview still hobbles their relationship with the rest of the world and they remain locked in the perpetual blody conflict of 'Holy War between warring cousins.

[barnasha]

Historically the the different ancient civilizations were distinctly seperate with little or limited communication until qite late in history. It is not a mere generalization or my 'realm of conception or supposition. It is a fact of history that the Judeo/Chriatian/Islamic world is only about half the world in early history. Their ancient limited worldview still hobbles their relationship with the rest of the world and they remain locked in the perpetual blody conflict of 'Holy War between warring cousins.

you have as much say about someone else's world view and its relevance to what is true and real as I do about your worldview and its relevance to what is true and real

[lao tzu]

Hi Jesse,

What George has offered is actually the opposite transition that we go through in our spiritual development. Seeing God and Christ as 'personal' Beings is akin to the purpose and reason for a security blanket (although, of course those still being comforted by the security blanket will find offense in these words). It allows us through personalization, to come to a beginning level and love for God and His Creation.

If one continues in following as Christ instructed, they will eventually move beyond this, when their faith and trust and knowledge are strong enough, becoming as God is - not a respector of persons, even God as a person.

Still though, the intimacy enjoyed with God is very personal in nature, and until we are indeed One with the Father, we will continue to adore and love God as something separate from ourselves.

Thus far I have found that God is experienced as both personal and impersonal, depending on my level of unity and consciousness.

Lao Tse's Tao is advance spiritual understanding, the same the Jesus taught His disciples privately. This level of understanding being what Paul referred to as the Mysteries.

Jack

Hiya, Jack,

I'm afraid with nothing more than a "yes on faith" to go by, I really can't tell who the "we" are you're referencing here. That's an important piece of information if you're going to be making ambiguous statements that include your own viewpoint.

"... that we go through in our spiritual development ..."

You've tossed out some provocative ideas here that suffer from this lack of context.

In a very broad sense, we are "wired up" to move from the physically realized to the abstract. Every child goes through a stage of development called "object permanence" if I can remember my Psych 101 correctly through the haze of decades. At some point, they recognize that objects moved out of sight continue to exist.

We move from picturing a row of apples to the abstraction of number, and in doing so, gain a vastly more powerful tool for investigating reality.

The primary difference between theistic traditions that embrace a God concept and atheistic traditions such as Buddhism or Taoism — specifically northern and western, respectively — is in the focus of perception. We look in different directions. To finish the earlier quote ...

Nameless indeed is the source of creation,
But things have a mother and she has a name.

We see, touch, taste, and sense that which is around us. We can name it. It defines our paths. It's fair to say I have a god concept, but it's not as if I spend any time at all thinking about it as part of my religious tradition. It is irrelevant. Theistic traditions look for a destination, a way to god, where atheistic traditions look to a way that is inherently virtuous, even without a destination. In this they abstract the more powerful concept.

As ever, Jesse

[barnasha]

Hiya, Jack,

I'm afraid with nothing more than a "yes on faith" to go by, I really can't tell who the "we" are you're referencing here. That's an important piece of information if you're going to be making ambiguous statements that include your own viewpoint.

"... that we go through in our spiritual development ..."

You've tossed out some provocative ideas here that suffer from this lack of context.

In a very broad sense, we are "wired up" to move from the physically realized to the abstract. Every child goes through a stage of development called "object permanence" if I can remember my Psych 101 correctly through the haze of decades. At some point, they recognize that objects moved out of sight continue to exist.

We move from picturing a row of apples to the abstraction of number, and in doing so, gain a vastly more powerful tool for investigating reality.

The primary difference between theistic traditions that embrace a God concept and atheistic traditions such as Buddhism or Taoism — specifically northern and western, respectively — is in the focus of perception. We look in different directions. To finish the earlier quote ...

Nameless indeed is the source of creation,
But things have a mother and she has a name.

We see, touch, taste, and sense that which is around us. We can name it. It defines our paths. It's fair to say I have a god concept, but it's not as if I spend any time at all thinking about it as part of my religious tradition. It is irrelevant. Theistic traditions look for a destination, a way to god, where atheistic traditions look to a way that is inherently virtuous, even without a destination. In this they abstract the more powerful concept.

As ever, Jesse

to associate 'atheism' with philosophical or religious taoism, or buddhism, is perhaps oxymoronic as it introduces a false dichotomy

moreover, one could look at Abrahamic theology as being the rejection of having "god concepts", seeing as Abraham rejected the worship of man-made (concepts of) gods

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Greetings, George,


Hey, Jesse...

I agree with Shunya here. This "rapid acceptance" does not stand up well to observation. It is one of those "truths" easily and uncritically accepted for no better reason than because christians would like it to be true.

Well, they ARE getting more persecuted I understand - So that there must be enough to be seen as a problem...


What is true is that Taoist tradition was ruthlessly suppressed under the Maoists and is presently making its own comeback. The relatively greater acceptance of christianity today is not due to any intimate connection between traditions, but exactly because of the suppression of Taoism in recent Chinese history.

Was Taoism too individualistic for the Maoists?? Communism persecuted the Church in Russia, as well...


In fact, this idea of a pre-incarnate christ is fundamentally contradictory to the "unnameable" way.
The Way that can be named is not the eternal Way.
Naming the Way — as Christ or Guatama or Muhammad or Sun Myung Moon — is sufficient to suggest that it is not eternal. It is fundamentally at odds with the tradition of anonymity. I don't believe you've considered this properly.

In the same way, it is utterly at odds with the Heraclitean Logos, understood as the first principle of all things, invisible yet controlling changes... Yet the step of personalizing it is what gave the transformation of the understanding of the impersonal as actually existing personally that allowed Greek Philosophy to become Greek Orthodox Christianity... And this is the same thing that is going on in China as Taoist understandings become personalized, IF I am understanding these matters aright.


What is amazing to me is that you seem at the one hand to accept the importance of this "impersonal" nature of the Tao while at the same time ...

... seeing its replacement with a personal manifestation as a "fairly easy transition." Nothing could be further from the case. Do you really think the idea of personalizing the tradition never occurred to these philosophers spanning a tradition of over a thousand years prior to the final edition of the Ching? Of course it did! And it was deliberately rejected, for cause.

Well, it doubtlessly did occur to them, yet was rejected, and this because they made no personal contact with God, for the whole thing was, like the Greeks, an intellective and ontologic [eg philosophic] enterprise... Yet when one 'meets' God in revelation, the very first thing that one 'gets' is that God is, first of all, a Person... And you come to know right away that it is a Person such as you have never known who created and controls and runs the whole of creation...

Pretty amazing, actually! One AWESOME God!


The anonymity at the heart of the Tao is antithetical to all theistic traditions.

No argument here on that... Which is its weakness... And when God reveals Himself, the transition to the personalization of the Tao is unavoidable...


To claim otherwise is to fool yourself. The idea of a personal, loving, caring deity does not resonate in this tradition. It is specifically excepted.

I agree, and this is the source of the efficacy of the conversions...



Nameless indeed is the source of creation.


Agreed - The DEITY of the Tao is nameless... As the incarnate revelation of God, His human name is Jesus the Christ... He is the God-man by and through Whom all creation came into being and changes... Ya don't have to toss those joss sticks any more for the readings, you see... You can actually TALK [in prayer] with the Creator and All-Powerful Director of all things...

Arsenios - Who used to toss the sticks...

[barnasha]

No argument here on that... Which is its weakness... And when God reveals Himself, the transition to the personalization of the Tao is unavoidable...


the tao is not the god, it is the way



Agreed - The DEITY of the Tao is nameless...

remember that God is nameless too, hence the name "the name", HaShem,

who should i tell my people who you are, Moses asked, "I AM THAT WHICH I AM", said hashem

worshpping the way is to step off it and bow towards it, yet stop following it

similar to the mistake with the golden calf or worshiping the son of Mary

[shunyadragon]

Well, they ARE getting more persecuted I understand - So that there must be enough to be seen as a problem. . .

Your understanding is very second and third hand, but yes, the government does indeed persect religion, and it is not good. Persecution has actually greatly decreased, but it has become very selective and targeted toward specific groups like the Falon Gong(sp?), and those that operate underground churches. You can actually buy Bibles in the bookstores in Chinese and English.


Was Taoism too individualistic for the Maoists?? Communism persecuted the Church in Russia, as well. . .

Again a better background in Chinese and Russian history, current affairs, and culture would help you better present a coherent argument.

In reality, Mao was truely the last emperor and ruled China like an emperor and not Communist at all. China became a Republic after the cultural revolution with a classic economic hierarchy, with State Mercantilism with some joint ventures with foreign corporations on the top levels, and Capitalism and private enterprize on lower levels of small business.

Bring Russia in is problematic, and the history of persecution is rather muddy. Yes, communism persecuted the church and Christians, but people were quite adaptive as chamilian like, they took off their crosses and joined the persecution, only to put on the cross again after the fall of the USSR and continued to persecute other minorities as the did under the Czars.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

the tao is not the god, it is the way

It is virtually indistinguishable from the Heraclitean Logos of ancient Greek Philosophy... And it is this Logos that became the Word of God in the New Testament, and it is this Tao that is now being understood as the philosophical form of apprehension of what is actually the incarnate God that is bringing many Chinese into the Christian Faith, because they now have a bridge...


remember that God is nameless too, hence the name "the name", HaShem,

Yes, that was my point - The Tao is nameless, as is the Logos, as is God...


who should i tell my people who you are, Moses asked, "I AM THAT WHICH I AM", said hashem

I am really not up to speed on the term "Ha Shem", Son of Nasha... It is a term that is foreign to me... Does it just mean "No Name"??


worshiping the way is to step off it and bow towards it, yet stop following it

That is what can happen when one graduates from the vanity of one's own mind in philosophy to the revelation of God... Christ said "I AM the Way..." Such that to follow Christ is to follow the Way, and this can only be done by entering the Way...


similar to the mistake with the golden calf or worshiping the son of Mary

In your very human and worldly mind, yes...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Your understanding is very second and third hand, but yes, the government does indeed persect religion, and it is not good. Persecution has actually greatly decreased, but it has become very selective and targeted toward specific groups like the Falon Gong(sp?), and those that operate underground churches. You can actually buy Bibles in the bookstores in Chinese and English.

You are right - I have no first hand understanding - It is all hand-me-downs...


Again a better background in Chinese and Russian history, current affairs, and culture would help you better present a coherent argument.

I was just having a conversation, not an argument... Yet the author of the book Christ, the Eternal Tao, learned from a Taoist master at Berkeley in the 60s...


In reality, Mao was truely the last emperor and ruled China like an emperor and not Communist at all. China became a Republic after the cultural revolution with a classic economic hierarchy, with State Mercantilism with some joint ventures with foreign corporations on the top levels, and Capitalism and private enterprize on lower levels of small business.

No kidding? I have no understanding of Mao outside the rubrics of western news, and that is a very flimsy basis for anything...


Bringing Russia in is problematic, and the history of persecution is rather muddy. Yes, communism persecuted the church and Christians, but people were quite adaptive as chamilian like, they took off their crosses and joined the persecution, only to put on the cross again after the fall of the USSR and continued to persecute other minorities as they did under the Czars.

Russia came to China - John Maximovich to Shanghai, set up a Church, took in orphans, and took a lot of them with him to San Francisco when he was transferred... And Russia was driven out of China - Along with their Orthodoxy... And there are always those who bend with the winds so as to get their own way... Who have no sand in the craw of their souls... And I agree, they are often found in political venues... Russian leadership is now professing Christianity and Orthodoxy, yet it is still the old Communist bosses re-inventing themselves... [Can't get rid of the smell, though!]

Arsenios

[shunyadragon]

You are right - I have no first hand understanding - It is all hand-me-downs...

I would like to emphasis, the Chinese government can be brutal and unforgiving in their persecution, and treatment of selective groups, as in farmer land ownership issues during urban expansion.

China is trying to put up a more modern 'face' to become a part of the developed world, as with the upcoming Olympic Games in 2008. It will probably be the best run Olympics in recent history. This 'saving face' issue of modernization does have its advantages for minority groups and religions like Christianity. But nontheless, China greatly fears 'chaos and disorder' and does not particularly care for the diversity of freedoms of western society. At present China looks to Singapore as a model of the future of Chinese government and society in Chinese cities, which is not good! Singapore is a highly regulated, structured hierarchial government and society with little room for tolerance outside the norm.

Growing corruption and environmental issues are becoming China's growing problems.

[yoki]

From my perspective all the cultures and peoples of the world have recieved their gift and revelation from the 'Source', some call God, others Allah, Some call the Tao, others cal Yahwah, and so on. All these views represent the fallible human view of the 'Source'. This would not be a popular view of the individual beliefs, which each consider their own view of the 'Source' as the only truth, and the others false.

Apparently though, if you talk with the fundamentally minded amongst the various religions, the Source seems pretty fussy about what he is called. But along with his fussiness, it seems that he likes to play tricks too and gives the different religious people different names. I bet the Source just sits backs and laughs when he sees them killing oneanother over the different names. Yep, the Source has quite the sense of humour, eh?

[Conductor42]

Yet when one 'meets' God in revelation, the very first thing that one 'gets' is that God is, first of all, a Person... And you come to know right away that it is a Person such as you have never known who created and controls and runs the whole of creation...

Pretty amazing, actually! One AWESOME God!

:thumb: :yes: :thumb:


Agreed - The DEITY of the Tao is nameless... As the incarnate revelation of God, His human name is Jesus the Christ... He is the God-man by and through Whom all creation came into being and changes... Ya don't have to toss those joss sticks any more for the readings, you see... You can actually TALK [in prayer] with the Creator and All-Powerful Director of all things...

George, did I misunderstand something you wrote, or did you forget about the name Yud Heh Vav Heh?

[shunyadragon]

Apparently though, if you talk with the fundamentally minded amongst the various religions, the Source seems pretty fussy about what he is called. But along with his fussiness, it seems that he likes to play tricks too and gives the different religious people different names. I bet the Source just sits backs and laughs when he sees them killing oneanother over the different names. Yep, the Source has quite the sense of humour, eh?

What we may learn from the Tao, and the unnamed 'Source' of Buddhism is humanity is like a river and the sea. Regardless of what we do (war or peace) or what we think we flow with the river and return to the sea, and then pass through many worlds to return to the river. The journey of the soul is that the journey of the soul through many worlds is indifferent to the wars and conflicts of the vanity of human desires. In this aspect of the 'Source' God neither has a sense of humor nor the hands-on interference of the expectations of the Judeo-Christian God.

The concept of God from the perspective of the fundimentalist of ancient religions is not fuzzy at all, but far too specific, egocentric and exclusive from a cultural perspective to be real. The best first view of the 'Source' is the nature of existence around us. The 'Source' as creator would reflect that that nature. The nature of existence is united, cyclic, evolving, changing and dynamic. IF the 'Source' exists it reflects these attributes, which is how the Baha'i Faith views the 'Source' and its relationship to existence and humanity. The other important conclusion is that we as humans are rather insignificant physically, and apparently part of a far greater journey than portrayed by the vanities of ancient religions. The reality of the nature of existence and our journey is best portrayed as a collective diverse journey, than any single cultural worldview.

A comment on your sig. Religion is just a word the reflects what people believe. It may be organized, disorganized, unorganized, sanforized or whateverized, but it makes a poor scapegoat for the nature of the fallible human journey.

[yoki]

It's an honour to be put "in one's place" by someone so eloquent.

[barnasha]

What we may learn from the Tao, and the unnamed 'Source' of Buddhism is humanity is like a river and the sea. Regardless of what we do (war or peace) or what we think we flow with the river and return to the sea, and then pass through many worlds to return to the river. The journey of the soul is that the journey of the soul through many worlds is indifferent to the wars and conflicts of the vanity of human desires. In this aspect of the 'Source' God neither has a sense of humor nor the hands-on interference of the expectations of the Judeo-Christian God.

The concept of God from the perspective of the fundimentalist of ancient religions is not fuzzy at all, but far too specific, egocentric and exclusive from a cultural perspective to be real. The best first view of the 'Source' is the nature of existence around us. The 'Source' as creator would reflect that that nature. The nature of existence is united, cyclic, evolving, changing and dynamic. IF the 'Source' exists it reflects these attributes, which is how the Baha'i Faith views the 'Source' and its relationship to existence and humanity. The other important conclusion is that we as humans are rather insignificant physically, and apparently part of a far greater journey than portrayed by the vanities of ancient religions. The reality of the nature of existence and our journey is best portrayed as a collective diverse journey, than any single cultural worldview.

A comment on your sig. Religion is just a word the reflects what people believe. It may be organized, disorganized, unorganized, sanforized or whateverized, but it makes a poor scapegoat for the nature of the fallible human journey.

regardless of the confusion of men, it was Abraham's worship which crystallized this understanding of the nature of creation - even if the children of Abraham are the ones to least understand it

Remember that Abraham did not come up with a concept of what God is, he crystallized his understanding of the nature of the cosmos; his "lord" become our "God"

[shunyadragon]

regardless of the confusion of men, it was Abraham's worship which crystallized this understanding of the nature of creation - even if the children of Abraham are the ones to least understand it

Remember that Abraham did not come up with a concept of what God is, he crystallized his understanding of the nature of the cosmos; his "lord" become our "God"

The confusion of men is rather universal, even when considering the Abrahamic succession of prophet's and messiahs as the children of Abraham, this is only a part of the story. The Jews feel the story and succession ends with them, the Christian's with them, and the Moslems with the Koran, but nonetheless the world continues to change and evolve spiritually and physically leaving those clinging to ancient worldviews in the dust. Than this lineage itself only represents a part of the human journey of less than half the world. I believe God's promise to Abraham was never to leave humanity alone, ALL humanity, in all of human history, of which from Abraham to Mohammod was only part of the journey. There are literally hundreds of millions if not billions of humans who never heard the message. It is rather vain and egocentric to think God only cares for on lineage of people covering only a certain time. It is more than obvious today the the history of humanity spans a far greater span of time and place than one worldview.

Abraham did not come up with the concept of God, it was revealed to him as part of a greater plan for the nature of existence for ALL humanity in ALL history and not the vain claim that his 'lord' is 'our' God. This vain claim has generated too many wars and much bloodshed to considered God's plan. It is best that humans take responsibility for this mess and realize the greater unity of the spiritual nature of existence.

[JackC]

The confusion of men is rather universal, even when considering the Abrahamic succession of prophet's and messiahs as the children of Abraham, this is only a part of the story. The Jews feel the story and succession ends with them, the Christian's with them, and the Moslems with the Koran, but nonetheless the world continues to change and evolve spiritually and physically leaving those clinging to ancient worldviews in the dust. Than this lineage itself only represents a part of the human journey of less than half the world. I believe God's promise to Abraham was never to leave humanity alone, ALL humanity, in all of human history, of which from Abraham to Mohammod was only part of the journey. There are literally hundreds of millions if not billions of humans who never heard the message. It is rather vain and egocentric to think God only cares for on lineage of people covering only a certain time. It is more than obvious today the the history of humanity spans a far greater span of time and place than one worldview.

Abraham did not come up with the concept of God, it was revealed to him as part of a greater plan for the nature of existence for ALL humanity in ALL history and not the vain claim that his 'lord' is 'our' God. This vain claim has generated too many wars and much bloodshed to considered God's plan. It is best that humans take responsibility for this mess and realize the greater unity of the spiritual nature of existence.

It is really quite tragic, that men use their concept of God to justify mistreating and even killing one another.

Men do not realize that we are all in this together, that the whole world has been deceived, that all our 'concepts' of God, although having origins in Truth, have been taken over and distorted by evil.

For those who can See, there is nothing here but great sorrow, in witnessing how all of humanity has been led astray.




J

[shadowmaster]

It's an honour to be put "in one's place" by someone so eloquent.

:lmbo:

[barnasha]

The confusion of men is rather universal, even when considering the Abrahamic succession of prophet's and messiahs as the children of Abraham, this is only a part of the story. The Jews feel the story and succession ends with them, the Christian's with them, and the Moslems with the Koran, but nonetheless the world continues to change and evolve spiritually and physically leaving those clinging to ancient worldviews in the dust.


I consider invalid these generalizations regarding the views of the adherents of those particular teachings and customs.



Than this lineage itself only represents a part of the human journey of less than half the world. I believe God's promise to Abraham was never to leave humanity alone, ALL humanity, in all of human history, of which from Abraham to Mohammod was only part of the journey. There are literally hundreds of millions if not billions of humans who never heard the message. It is rather vain and egocentric to think God only cares for on lineage of people covering only a certain time. It is more than obvious today the the history of humanity spans a far greater span of time and place than one worldview.


none of the bearers of that lineage ever said anything along those lines. so when their followers stray, why don't you focus on the errors of their followers instead of putting the blame on the one they failed to follow?



Abraham did not come up with the concept of God, it was revealed to him as part of a greater plan for the nature of existence for ALL humanity in ALL history and not the vain claim that his 'lord' is 'our' God. This vain claim has generated too many wars and much bloodshed to considered God's plan. It is best that humans take responsibility for this mess and realize the greater unity of the spiritual nature of existence.
[/quote]

On the contrary, "God" typically refers to the Abrahamic god

[shunyadragon]

I consider invalid these generalizations regarding the views of the adherents of those particular teachings and customs.

These are not generalizations, is how the different religions of the Abrahamic line view each other in the same manner the Moslems reject the Baha'i Faith, in a rather violent and bloody manner.


none of the bearers of that lineage ever said anything along those lines. so when their followers stray, why don't you focus on the errors of their followers instead of putting the blame on the one they failed to follow?

This did not respond to my statement, nontheless the laws and teachings of the ancient religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam fail to meet the needs of humanity today in issues like slavery, and the role of women in society. and they have splintered into different groups with different versions to try and make ancient religions fit todays world, and wage bloody wars against each other.



On the contrary, "God" typically refers to the Abrahamic god

I will agree in the universal concept of the 'God' of all peoples of the earth, but in specific not in Hinduism, Native American or other Oriental beliefs in the 'Source' called God, Allah or Yehway(sp?).

[barnasha]

These are not generalizations, is how the different religions of the Abrahamic line view each other in the same manner the Moslems reject the Baha'i Faith, in a rather violent and bloody manner.



I know muslims personally who do not reject the bahai faith, whether or not violent, a direct proof of the invalidity of your particularly blithe generalization



This did not respond to my statement, nontheless the laws and teachings of the ancient religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam fail to meet the needs of humanity today in issues like slavery, and the role of women in society. and they have splintered into different groups with different versions to try and make ancient religions fit todays world, and wage bloody wars against each other.


"Christianity" and "Judaism" are not clearly defined doctrinal systems, but rather umbrella terms which encapsulate deep and rich histories. The same is true for "Islam" when used in the anthropological sense, and not the theological one




I will agree in the universal concept of the 'God' of all peoples of the earth, but in specific not in Hinduism, Native American or other Oriental beliefs in the 'Source' called God, Allah or Yehway(sp?).

as I was saying, to clarify: God, a proper noun, refers to a specific god, usually the god of Abraham

[shunyadragon]

I know muslims personally who do not reject the bahai faith, whether or not violent, a direct proof of the invalidity of your particularly blithe generalization.

My statements do not represent a blyth generalization, and can be well documented as fact. Persecution of the Baha'i Faith is wide spread in the Islamic world as well as other religious minorities. Knowing individual Moslems may say or believe anything, but in reality the Baha'i Faith is legally and religiously banned in almost all Moslem countries including recently Egypt where the Supreme Court passed the decision that Baha'is could not register as Baha'is for ID or any recognized legal purpose. The only predominantly Moslem country that allows the Baha'i Faith to exist conditionally is Turkey, where the government at present is secular. Still minorities religious groups are persecuted in Turkey.


"Christianity" and "Judaism" are not clearly defined doctrinal systems, but rather umbrella terms which encapsulate deep and rich histories. The same is true for "Islam" when used in the anthropological sense, and not the theological one.

I do not feel most Jews, Chriatians, and Moslems would agree with this. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are well defined doctrinal and theolgical systems with well defined theological beliefs. The laws and teachings of their scripture is very specific and well defined. The problem is that they are divided and splintered in bloody wars and violence.


As I was saying, to clarify: God, a proper noun, refers to a specific god, usually the god of Abraham

Yes, this basically true of the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Chriatianity and Islam, which is a very real problem in the modern world concerning the intolerance and bloody violance against the other religiions, and th eHoly wars between them.

[barnasha]

My statements do not represent a blyth generalization, and can be well documented as fact. Persecution of the Baha'i Faith is wide spread in the Islamic world as well as other religious minorities. Knowing individual Moslems may say or believe anything, but in reality the Baha'i Faith is legally and religiously banned in almost all Moslem countries including recently Egypt where the Supreme Court passed the decision that Baha'is could not register as Baha'is for ID or any recognized legal purpose. The only predominantly Moslem country that allows the Baha'i Faith to exist conditionally is Turkey, where the government at present is secular. Still minorities religious groups are persecuted in Turkey.


then could it not also be "documented as a fact" that bahai are people who make generalizations, since I saw you do it?




I do not feel most Jews, Chriatians, and Moslems would agree with this. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are well defined doctrinal and theolgical systems with well defined theological beliefs. The laws and teachings of their scripture is very specific and well defined. The problem is that they are divided and splintered in bloody wars and violence.


this is an argumentum ad populum, which is not as much of a fallacy in your argument as it is a problem with the way you form your understanding of things

besides, what you feel is irrelevant if we are discussing only the facts



Yes, this basically true of the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Chriatianity and Islam, which is a very real problem in the modern world concerning the intolerance and bloody violance against the other religiions, and th eHoly wars between them.

the problem is not the religious or political orientations by which we generalize people, in fact, the fact that we do generalize is a problem itself!

[shunyadragon]

then could it not also be "documented as a fact" that bahai are people who make generalizations, since I saw you do it?

See what? Documented history is not generaliazation. Does citing, 'I know a few moslems who believe . . .' represent any kind of real response?


this is an argumentum ad populum, which is not as much of a fallacy in your argument as it is a problem with the way you form your understanding of things.

Basing an argument on the facs of the reality of actual documented perscution and ethnic cleansing is not argumentum ad populum. The best you have been able to do make vague meaningless responses, and, ah . . . 'I know muslims personally . . ,' Kicking up dust with vague statements is meaningless is evading the issues in the debate.


besides, what you feel is irrelevant if we are discussing only the facts.

These are not what I feel. they are based on historical and current event fact. Your citing what a few moslems believe, is as weak an argument is you can get. Would documented facts help? I can provide them. An easy net search will reveal the recent Egyptian Supreme ruling concerning the Baha'is. Much more documentation concerning policies and events throughout the Islamic world concerning the relationship between Islam, Baha'i aand other religious minorities.


the problem is not the religious or political orientations by which we generalize people, in fact, the fact that we do generalize is a problem itself!

If this is the best you can come up with trying to raise the fog index and not responding to the facts I have cited and can document than your evading the issues and doging the facts in a big way.

[barnasha]

See what? Documented history is not generaliazation. Does citing, 'I know a few moslems who believe . . .' represent any kind of real response?


you are ignoring all the "documented history" of muslims who do not do anything bad to the bahai... Just clarify your statements so they are not erroneous generalizations, such as "muslims do/think/believe this" based on the recorded actions of a certain group of people who happen to be "muslims", sociopolitically speaking



Basing an argument on the facs of the reality of actual documented perscution and ethnic cleansing is not argumentum ad populum. The best you have been able to do make vague meaningless responses, and, ah . . . 'I know muslims personally . . ,' Kicking up dust with vague statements is meaningless is evading the issues in the debate.


Yeah, well, according to this logic, Germans are anti semites, after all, it was the Germans who were persecuting Jews during Hitler's reign



These are not what I feel. they are based on historical and current event fact. Your citing what a few moslems believe, is as weak an argument is you can get. Would documented facts help? I can provide them. An easy net search will reveal the recent Egyptian Supreme ruling concerning the Baha'is. Much more documentation concerning policies and events throughout the Islamic world concerning the relationship between Islam, Baha'i aand other religious minorities.


Egypt is not Islam



If this is the best you can come up with trying to raise the fog index and not responding to the facts I have cited and can document than your evading the issues and doging the facts in a big way.

Just pointing out that your statements -- at least the way you are phrasing them -- are based on rather foggy logic, so it is you who need to decrease the fog index, from where I'm standing

If you are going to say "muslims believe..." or "black people like..." or "white people do..." then I will call you out on it

[shunyadragon]

you are ignoring all the "documented history" of muslims who do not do anything bad to the bahai... Just clarify your statements so they are not erroneous generalizations, such as "muslims do/think/believe this" based on the recorded actions of a certain group of people who happen to be "muslims", sociopolitically speaking.

ALL countries that have Islamic governments have outlawed the Baha'i Faith, and many consider to be a Baha'i is punishable by death, becasue it is considered herasy.


[quote] Yeah, well, according to this logic, Germans are anti semites, after all, it was the Germans who were persecuting Jews during Hitler's reign.

I never said ALL Moslems hate or persecute Baha'is or even consider the Baha'i evil or even bed, but the over whelming predominant view in Islamic countries is anti-Baha'i in a very aggressive manner. Can you cite Islamic organizations the would promote equal rights for Baha'is in their countries?

There is a good argument that the Christian Germans were predominantly and enthusiastically anti-semetic through much of their history up untill WWII. This is also true of most Christian East Europeans. Anti-Semitism remains a problem throughout the much of Europe and other countries in the western world.


Egypt is not Islam

Egypt is one of the more moderate of the predominantely Islamic countries. That is why I picked that example. AS I said above, the Baha'i Faith has been legally banned in ALL countries with Islamic governments, by either or both the religious leaders and the government.



If you are going to say "muslims believe..." or "black people like..." or "white people do..." then I will call you out on it

I did not say ALL moslems believe, but I will say the overwhelming predominace of Moslems, and ALL Islamic religious leaders in Islamic countries would not approve of giving Baha'is equal religious rights in Islamic countries.

Can you cite one Islamic religious leader in the Islamic countries that promotes equal rights for Baha'is?

[Sparko]

Moved to General Theistics because comp religions was theist only (thread starter is agnostic)

Carry on!

[Losvedir]

Oh, I forgot I can't post in there anymore. Sorry.

edit: Wait, where was it before? I thought it was always in here...