To Master Vigil 8)
First off, the existence of both evil and supreme GOOD is contradictory.
So, it is not so much the 'intelligence of God' that you disagree with, just the notion of supreme good?
And since god did not destroy evil yet, he could be ambivelant to it.
Again, I point to the cross (see above).
...imbalance is extremes..
Okay, but balance and imbalance are both opposites and extremes. How can you deny this? I suppose Daoist philosophy must need to reinterpret (or ignore) this fact in order to make sense. I only mentioned this because you said that Daoists avoid all extremes. I may be wrong (as yet, I don't see it), but it forces me to question the 'simplicity' of such selective thinking.
Earlier you said this;
...yes I do believe all good and evil to be subjective. For no two people have the same idea of what is good, and what is evil. ...I believe that good and evil only exist in our minds."
Okay then, lets take
Shall we say, a devout Buddhist and a God-fearing Jew. Culturally they are poles-apart and yet, according to their basic ethical standpoints, they are very much alike.
Compare:
1) "I refrain from destroying life" (Buddhism)
"you shall not murder" (Judeo-Christian)
2) "I refrain from taking what is not given" (Buddhism)
"You shall not steal" (Judeo-Christian)
3) "I refrain from sexual misconduct" (Buddhism)
"you shall not commit adultery" (Judeo-Christian)
4) "I refrain from untrue speech" (Buddhism)
"you shall not give false testimony against your neighbour" (Judeo-Christian)
These guidelines and commands, I argue, are objective. They are, to quote the Oxford English Dictionary, "Exhibiting facts uncoloured by feeling or opinions. Not subjective." This is what C.S Lewis successfully illustrates in 'the abolition of man'.
You said
The biggest problem is that whoever wrote that site was trying to compare eastern and western ideas, but you cannot do so easily. They have a wholy different way of thinking.
C.S Lewis was not, by any means, ignorant regarding "differences in thinking." (I Just had to mention that.) 8)
To a large extent, our view of the Kosmos always dictates our ethical/moral/scientific views, whether we be secular Athiests, Muslim, 'Hindu', whatever. Here lies the difference between 'Eastern' and 'Western' thought. Our opinions are world views. If an individual's opinions are in accordance with the Cosmos, then they hold correct/objective opinions. If my mental view of the Kosmos differs from your mental view of the Kosmos, our opinions are in danger of becoming subjective.
Returning to our hypothetical Buddhist and Jewish friends, while they both maintain the same Objective cosmological ethics, because their perceptions of the universe are, at many points, disimilar, their interpretations (relating to murder, lying, theft, sex) and motivations for maintaining them greatly differ, and are therefore open to the charge of subjectivity. So proper behaviour, proper respect, and good faith, while open to subjective interpretation, can be understood definitely. The very fact that the notion of properness/goodness is assumed is also evidence of this.
Of course, this doesn't mean that any one belief system, be it spiritual or secular, has the correct cosmological view, but the possibility cannot be denied.
Further, the secular athiest or religious practitioner needn't have complete information to be correct, s/he just needs to have acurate information ( I thought I better throw that in) 8)
And, whats more, if God has a hand on a particular belief system(s), the possibility that that belief system is correct greatly increases. So, I may be, as far as you are concerned, wrong, but the charge that I
goes against the evidence.
Please, with this is mind, read again 'Illustrations of the Tao', or even better the whole book.
You said
...the ideas can change over the course of history.
As you can see, what was held to be 'Dao' in the past is also held to be 'Dao' today.
To clarify, C.S Lewis uses the word 'Dao' in the sence of 'cosmic-ethical-order', like Dharma, Rta, Maat, Me, etc.
Confucious was (as you say) not a Daoist, but he did maintain virtue (te) and taught CORRECT conduct, in relation to a presupposed universal harmony.
Sometimes there is debate over what is actually cosmically ethical. The fifth Buddhist precept "I refrain from intoxicants" is an example of this. Also, in ancient Mesopotaimia, there were particular cosmic virtues that were more to do with culture than Kosmos, such as, 'kingship'; 'priestcraft'; 'prostitution', etc (Campbell. J 'oriental', 1962/200, p.113-114). And so, I admit, there are exceptions, but we need to look at the bigger picture and avoid selectivity.
God Bless 8)