• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

YAY, A TAOISM FORUM!!!!!!!

LeNinjaChic

LeNinjaChic

Member
Right...

This is the translation of the Tao Te Ching that I read:

1

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name

So again....please remember that I come from a very Western mindset, from which I am finally freeing myself. In addition to that, I enjoy studying various religious traditions, and pulling the things out that are similar, then comparing them.

But how I interpreted this was that there is an Ultimate Energy/Creator, which cannot be named. From This, all things spring forth (which, if it could be understood, would blend perfectly with science).

The tao (with a small 't') is the spiritual and physical realms that we can perceive and/or put a name to. Some call the spiritual realm "God" and others call it the "Divine." Some still call it "Self."

Since my deconversion, I am seeing all religions in a whole new light. If we could put each religion's "truth" on a transparency, then lay each transparency, one on top of the other, it would be interesting to see which religions' truths line up with the other. (Does that make any sense at all? Makes perfect sense to me! LOL)
 
Master Vigil

Master Vigil

Well-Known Member
"But how I interpreted this was that there is an Ultimate Energy/Creator, which cannot be named. From This, all things spring forth (which, if it could be understood, would blend perfectly with science)."

Very good, simple but you are starting to get the idea. (this would be more like the idea of god, but still not the same)

"The tao (with a small 't') is the spiritual and physical realms that we can perceive and/or put a name to. Some call the spiritual realm "God" and others call it the "Divine." Some still call it "Self."

Very good again, but you must however understand that the Tao cannot be compared to god. They are two completely different ideas. The natural tao, would be more like nature, and nature spirits. Taoists beleive it is what creates chi. But yes, "self" resides here.

If you read the rest of the first passage you begin to understand the duality and the nature of the Tao. As the origin of heaven and earth it is nameless, this part of the tao we do not understand. But as the mother of all things it is nameable. We can understand its creations, and understand its affects on the world. So as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence. This comes from within you first, but the understanding the nature of the Tao comes after a while. And as always manifest (nature) we should look at its outer aspects (its creations). These two flow from the same source (Tao), though differently named (Eternal, Natural). And both are called mysteries, the mystery of mysteries is the door of all essence (Tao).

You see it being referred to as the father of all things in passage 4. But this is the basic idea of the Tao and its affect on the world. Not the same as god.
 
LeNinjaChic

LeNinjaChic

Member
Very good again, but you must however understand that the Tao cannot be compared to god. They are two completely different ideas. The natural tao, would be more like nature, and nature spirits. Taoists beleive it is what creates chi. But yes, "self" resides here.

Yessir ;o)

I actually see the Tao (capital T) as bigger than the Westernized/Christian "God." The reason for this is because while Christians claim "you can't put God in a box," we still are able to put a name and a nature to him. The Judaic/Christian God, if he exists or ever existed, came from the Tao. This same Judaic/Xian God would fit better in with the tao than the Tao. At least, that is my initial reaction to reading the Tao Te Ching.
 
Master Vigil

Master Vigil

Well-Known Member
Well, when you think of god being omnipotent and omnipresent, then it would become close to the idea of Tao, but when you start to put labels on it and giving it human characteristics it would then fall into being a creation and therefore like tao.
 
LeNinjaChic

LeNinjaChic

Member
True, but you and I both know the xian god is neither omnipotent nor omnipresent. I'm sure you've heard the arguments, haven't you? ;o)
 
LeNinjaChic

LeNinjaChic

Member
Ahh...well. It's something to the effect (and different examples can be used) of: If God is all powerful then can He create a rock that He cannot, Himself, lift? Or on the issue of omniscience, if God knew that the 'original sin' was going to take place, why did He not take steps to prevent it, knowing full well that billions of His children would perish in the eternal flames of hell?

As far as omnipresence goes, you might want to check out THIS WEBSITE

Also, taken from ANOTHER WEBSITE

Is god omnipresent? Well, there's this little thing called the Pauli exclusion principle which states that no two particles can occupy the same space at the same time. They don't even need to be the same kind of particle. If god is in the same place as a particle at the same time, he can not interact with the particle in any way--in essence, he would have to be outside the universe. And such a god would then have no influence whatsoever over the universe, and thus also would not be omnipotent.
Click to expand...
 
Runt

Runt

Well-Known Member
Now that I think about it, I don't think the rock question really proves that the Christian God CANNOT be all-powerful. If he is all powerful to begin with, he could create a rock too difficult for him to lift, but by doing so forfeits his ALL-powerful-ness ( 8) ) and immediatly becomes only VERY powerful. But while he was all powerful, he could indeed create a rock too heavy for himself to lift.
 
LeNinjaChic

LeNinjaChic

Member
Runt said:
Now that I think about it, I don't think the rock question really proves that the Christian God CANNOT be all-powerful. If he is all powerful to begin with, he could create a rock too difficult for him to lift, but by doing so forfeits his ALL-powerful-ness ( 8) ) and immediatly becomes only VERY powerful. But while he was all powerful, he could indeed create a rock too heavy for himself to lift.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is exactly the point. Once he has created such a rock, then he is no-longer omnipotent. So is he or isn't he? If he CAN create such a rock, then the answer is no, he's not.
 
Runt

Runt

Well-Known Member
If he CAN create such a rock, then the answer is no, he's not.
Click to expand...

No, I think if he CAN create such a rock he is still all-powerful, but if he DOES create such a rock he becomes limited as soon as he has completed the act of creation.

Kind of like... I can see... until I poke out my eyes. Then I cannot see, and the former reality is now forever out of my reach. That doesn't change the fact that BEFORE I poked out my eyes, I COULD see.
 
LeNinjaChic

LeNinjaChic

Member
I understand what you are saying, however, being omnipotent is more than just being able to do something once. Even I can create something too heavy for me to lift. Let's say I create a building out of...oh...toothpicks. Eventually it will be too heavy for me to lift (if I were to keep going). Does that make me omnipotent in regard to my strength against the toothpick, until I've created such a beast? No. I was never omnipotent to begin with.

The very definition of omnipotent is having unlimited power and authority.

=o)
 
Runt

Runt

Well-Known Member
I guess the question is whether or not an omnipotent God is powerful enough to undo his own omnipotence.

Even I can create something too heavy for me to lift. Let's say I create a building out of...oh...toothpicks. Eventually it will be too heavy for me to lift (if I were to keep going). Does that make me omnipotent in regard to my strength against the toothpick, until I've created such a beast? No. I was never omnipotent to begin with.
Click to expand...

But that is precisely the point! You are NOT omnipotent, so it is in your very nature to be unable to do some things. However, an omnipotent God, by nature, should not be unable to do anything! And yet, being omnipotent and in CONTROL of nature, he should be able to change the nature of himself. So perhaps he makes it so that he is NOT omnipotent, and THEN creates the rock?

I hope it's OK to post the link. If not, please remove it and I will accept the wet noodle lashing like a woman
Click to expand...

LOL, and I think links to other sites are allowed. No wet noodles today!
 
Master Vigil

Master Vigil

Well-Known Member
The idea of god being able to create a rock that he is unable to lift contains a premise that is wrong. You miss the premise of omnipotence which means that no rock is too heavy, no rock is uncreatable, being omnipotent means that he can create anything and can lift anything. No matter how big it is. The premise of something being too heavy for him to lift is not relevant to omnipotence. Even if god created a rock that was maybe heavier for him to lift before, once he created it he would then be able to lift it just because of his omnipotence.
 
Runt

Runt

Well-Known Member
As I said in the "Trinity of Religious Contradiction" thread, I think we are asking the wrong question.

Old Question: "Can an omnipotent God create a rock too heavy for himself to lift?"

Answer: "Yes, because all he need do is change the nature of himself so that he is no longer omnipotent."

New Question: "Can an omnipotent God create a rock too heavy for himself to lift and still retain his omnipotence?"

Answer: "No, because an omnipotent God should be able to do ANYTHING."

It is the new question which proves the fallacy of the "omnipotent God" idea.

However, I was just nitpicking. I agree that the concept of an omnipotent God is ridiculous under any circumstances. It is the question that was wrong, not the concept of the impossibility of an omnipotent God.
 
Runt

Runt

Well-Known Member
LOL, and I think I keep explaining it badly, because that is twice that I've been told that people agree and only disagreed before because they were looking at the question from a different angle. I'm not even sure why I brought it up... when people don't notice that particular answer to the old question, then the question remains valid.

Haha, which proves that no question really proves anything, because there are infinite possible answers to every question--you just have to find them! :p

Even 2+2=X

It could be 4, 1, or "no solution" depending on which tradition of thinking you come from:

Two somethings plus two somethings equals four somethings

Two somethings and two more somethings are still all somethings and therefore there is only one something

Two somethings and two somethings are all one within the Tao so there is one something

Two somethings and two somethings are nothing because numbers do not exist except in our minds

Two somethings and two somethings are nothing because there is no such thing in as a whole number in nature because there are infinite numbers between every two numbers and therefore two doesn't exist and if two cannot exist then you can't add two to two to get anything

And so on...
 
Master Vigil

Master Vigil

Well-Known Member
It shows that words only clutter the mind. A mind that understands completely without words, is an enlightened mind.
 
LeNinjaChic

LeNinjaChic

Member
Master Vigil said:
It shows that words only clutter the mind. A mind that understands completely without words, is an enlightened mind.
Click to expand...

I have no words in response to this. Am I enlightened now? :clap:
 
Runt

Runt

Well-Known Member
*wonders if she's about to hear "To fast!" and the sound of a staff smacking against the side of a head...*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top