Compatibility

[Marblehead]

I felt it wouldn't be fair to ignore your post while agreeing that a discussion of the compatibility between Taoism and Christianity shouldn't be in the sub-forum of the TTC.

 

Thank you very much marblehead, I appreciate the kind thoughts. I really do.

 

You were right haha, when I read the part about doing things because there is no other option, I said, "huh?".

 

I can see what you mean when you say that this does not mean we don't have free will. Could this be called "determinism"?

 

I had a very interesting discussion with some Baptist Bible students a couple weeks ago. We were discussing free will and fate, as written in the various books of the Bible. We (honestly I) came to conclusion of the discussion that (and remember this is the Christian God in me): We have free will, yes, the ability to choose one thing over another, but that, because God is all-knowing, God KNOWS what free choice I am going to make before I make it. I may change my choice, and God would know before hand how many times I am going to change it before I actually make up my mind. I know this sounds contradictory but it is not! There are VERY similiar, and these lines are extraordinarily thin, but it makes sense.

 

 

Where a thing/event/our action is GOING to happen and God knows it will happen, even though we CHOOSE to do this or that.

 

Where does this all lead? Well, is this perhaps that level you were saying you couldn't reach? Where omniscience of God and free will of Humans does exist at the same time, and that these 2 concepts are not contradictory of one another?

 

[Now, this is completely different but I want to ask you specifically marblehead (but I hope others answer too!)]: do you believe this statement? "We may choose between doing this or that, but be careful, because we cannot choose the consequences."

 

I'm not sure if that belief is incompatible with the one above. I'm not sure if Choose This, but Not the Consequence is incompatible with Free Will/Omniscience.]

 

{I seriously need the general forums}

 

Edit: Thinking about it a little I would have to say these beliefs are completely compatible. The consequences are the results of our actions which are freely chosen and at the same time known before hand by God.

 

Okay...agree/disagree/don't care/irrelevant to this discussion and I lose browny points...

 

I was raised within the Christian belief system so I do understand what you are saying regarding God and his omniscience. (I released that dogma many years ago.)

 

Let's go back to the early days of monotheism for a moment. Zarathustra envisioned one God, a creator of all things, creator of humankind and giving this humankind free will. (There was no Devil.) Having free will, man is responsible for all his choices and actions, the good and the bad. After Zarathustra died his followers couldn't handle the responsibility so they created the Devil to blame their wrong choices and wrong actions on.

 

The Jews built on this belief system and then the Christians as well.

 

However, as I do not hold to the concept of "God" I should not speak to this further.

 

So, to your first question: Could this be called "determinism"?

 

Depends on who you are attributing the determining factor to. If you are referring to some external power then my answer is "No". However, if you are referring to the individual's determination then my answer is "Yes".

 

But the "Yes" answer contains many factors that must be considered. First of all, our free will is not totally free because of so many factors too numerous to list (and I would probably miss some). But let us say that we have free will within our limited conditions.

 

To the concept of determination, it is my understanding that the Sage does not do things with determination. That is, s/he responds to conditions instinctually, without thought. Determination connotes prior thought and consideration of consequences.

 

So I must answer your question with "Yes, with conditions".

 

Now, if you want to attribute omniscience to your God but you also want free will you must not allow your God to interfer with the choices and actions of the human animal. All knowing but not all doing. It is only by this that you can explain evil acts by humankind.

 

 

To this question: do you believe this statement? "We may choose between doing this or that, but be careful, because we cannot choose the consequences."

 

Yes, but again within limits. If we have full control of all the variables then the result (if we don't mess up) will be exactly as we planned. However, if there are variables we have no control over then it is very likely that the results will not be as we had anticipated. But regardless, we must accept full responsibility for our choice and action. (Remember, we gave God a non-intervening role and there is no Devil.)

 

So, from my understanding of Taoist Philosophy, the key concept to remember is "cause and effect". The effect (result) is a reflection of the cause(s). If we took any action regarding an event we must take responsibility for our part of the results.

 

In Christianity, we must pay one way or another for our wrong thoughts and actions. So yes, the two belief systems are very compatible in this area.

 

 

Okay, I am going to ride my horse here a little.

 

Considering what I have said above, it is a given that we all were created somehow; it is a given that we all are responsible for our thoughts and actions; it is a given that we all have free will within limitations.

 

Where is the need to personify the creating process? Where is there a need to have a God?

[dawei]

Actually, I think it should be in this subforum. Any talk regarding the Dao is probably good to discuss here since it rounds out the bigger picture that the DDJ presents.

 

I will say that I was in very conservative christianity for many,many years. So I know the dogma and divisions quite well. I left because of the people abusing dogma to their end. I found the basic message and even some of the hidden meanings applicable today. But it was clear to me that people twisted it to their own end. I knew this was anything but 'natural', although at the time I was unaware of ideas about Dao.

 

I might start by compare them as follows:

 

Christianity - A higher transcendent powerful, spiritual being, omniscient, omnipotent, and with some afterlife conditions. The functioning of the system is moral based. It is more like moral law and gives rise to moral determinism and dualism. Moral objectivity leads to rule by law and advocates to instill the law upon man's heart (so he will follow God's mandates). Religious morality seeks to produces leaders who want laws. Religious leaders want people to follow in step.

 

Dao - a universal principle (I would not use 'transcendent' since that usually carries an implication of knowledge too) of how things arise and generate. Neither omniscient nor omnipotent. The functioning of the system is cause-effect. It is more like natural law and determinism and gives rise to universal Oneness. Moral subjectivity leads and rule by 'non-action' and advocated to install non-action upon man's heart (so he follows the natural Way). Dao and De do not seek to produce leaders because ultimately 'the best leader is unknown to the people'. A sage does not seek to rule men. If anything, just be another guide to show them 'the Way'.

 

I personally think the idea of 'free will' is one of man's greatest inventions. Of course I can try to convince myself that I choose to eat eggs instead of oatmeal this morning but that's looking at it from purely the physical moment alone. I think it is better to drop the concept altogether.

 

Dao may be the closest thing that Chinese have to a God but it is ultimately different. I am not convinced that Dao is the end-all complete thing out there. It is the path or way; a part of the universalness that binds the physical to the emotional, mental, spiritual, and universal. I personally see something more universal than just the principle itself (Dao) since the principle is just relative to something. That just may mean that we are part of that universal. Which means we are not the physical aspect alone.

 

That's my thoughts.

[Marblehead]

I personally think the idea of 'free will' is one of man's greatest inventions. Of course I can try to convince myself that I choose to eat eggs instead of oatmeal this morning but that's looking at it from purely the physical moment alone. I think it is better to drop the concept altogether.

 

I found this thought provoking so I will speak to it.

 

You know, my holding to the concept of 'free will' is a result of Nietzsche and Zarathustra. The are a part of my belief system.

 

However, If one attains the state (condition) of 'wu wei' what need is there of free will? Thinking on this I observe none. This is because (suggesting the Sage has attained wu wei) the Sage does only what needs be done. There were actually no choices to select from. And there was no free will because the decision to act or to not act was already dictated by the external conditions.

 

So I will agree with you that the concept could be dropped altogether (but I will probably continue to use it in certain discussions).

[Conwaypk]

I found this thought provoking so I will speak to it.

 

You know, my holding to the concept of 'free will' is a result of Nietzsche and Zarathustra. The are a part of my belief system.

 

However, If one attains the state (condition) of 'wu wei' what need is there of free will? Thinking on this I observe none. This is because (suggesting the Sage has attained wu wei) the Sage does only what needs be done. There were actually no choices to select from. And there was no free will because the decision to act or to not act was already dictated by the external conditions.

 

So I will agree with you that the concept could be dropped altogether (but I will probably continue to use it in certain discussions).

 

 

Whoa. That's quite interesting and I really like the way that sounds too, I actually grasped what you were saying quite quickly and easily.

 

I feel like I could adopt this approach very easily: it makes sense to my understanding and feelings and how I believe.

 

I really can't reword what you have said, so I would just simply say that I agree with that.

 

There is no choice, because our actions are dictated by the external factors and whatever needs to be done will be.

 

2 things. 1 - I feel that these external factors are there for a reason, a purpose, as well. Therefore, all the conditions that affect our choice are there for a reason, leading the choice of action to occur for a reason. The cause/effect idea of free will really flows well, I am merely stating that it all happens FOR a reason, and this reason is that of God's will (which Tao is the name I have given to God's will). Any comments on the last sentence?

 

2. Is it possible to go against the external conditions? Is it only the Sage that would not go against the external conditions?

[manitou]

And what if we are the Sage creating the outside conditions from within ourselves? Here's where we get many wonderful Christians who have climbed out of the box; to embrace the One within their framework, but to also know that as he embraces his fondly, perhaps just for comfort, so does the mature Sage. What sweet tenderness surrounds the heart at the viewing of the madonna and child, or a nativity scene. To feel the wonder of the innocence of young voices singing Noel. The Sage may carry the trappings of choice as well; for comfort, for symbol, for ceremony.

 

But this is still the realm of symbol. No more is the mature evolutionary (again, the Sage) prone to taking lore as real or scripture by rote. Those of us with maturity have realized that the ability to think for ourselves, to fully use our brains, means to question everything; every book, every belief, every tome. To trust our inner journey to take us to the Center, the Source. The fact that many of us are here together is....well...wild and happy happenstance.

 

All is embraced and loved.

[dawei]

Whoa. That's quite interesting and I really like the way that sounds too, I actually grasped what you were saying quite quickly and easily.

 

I feel like I could adopt this approach very easily: it makes sense to my understanding and feelings and how I believe.

 

I really can't reword what you have said, so I would just simply say that I agree with that.

 

There is no choice, because our actions are dictated by the external factors and whatever needs to be done will be.

 

2 things. 1 - I feel that these external factors are there for a reason, a purpose, as well. Therefore, all the conditions that affect our choice are there for a reason, leading the choice of action to occur for a reason. The cause/effect idea of free will really flows well, I am merely stating that it all happens FOR a reason, and this reason is that of God's will (which Tao is the name I have given to God's will). Any comments on the last sentence?

 

2. Is it possible to go against the external conditions? Is it only the Sage that would not go against the external conditions?

JMO... your stuck in hyper-Christianity. You can't quite think outside the 'manitou' box.

 

1. There is NO REASON or PURPOSE or WILL. There is only 'doing'.

2. There is NO GOING AGAINST. There is only 'doing'.

 

You want some reason or purpose or determinism that speaks to the physical intellect. That is what binds you.

 

If you step back far enough you will see a connection with:

Physical, emotional, mental, psychological, Physiology, spiritual, universal, energetical

 

When you feel these are all connected as one, what is there? (for some, this takes a moment and for others it takes a lifetime).

Edited March 14, 2011 by dawei

[Conwaypk]

And what if we are the Sage creating the outside conditions from within ourselves? Here's where we get many wonderful Christians who have climbed out of the box; to embrace the One within their framework, but to also know that as he embraces his fondly, perhaps just for comfort, so does the mature Sage. What sweet tenderness surrounds the heart at the viewing of the madonna and child, or a nativity scene. To feel the wonder of the innocence of young voices singing Noel. The Sage may carry the trappings of choice as well; for comfort, for symbol, for ceremony.

 

But this is still the realm of symbol. No more is the mature evolutionary (again, the Sage) prone to taking lore as real or scripture by rote. Those of us with maturity have realized that the ability to think for ourselves, to fully use our brains, means to question everything; every book, every belief, every tome. To trust our inner journey to take us to the Center, the Source. The fact that many of us are here together is....well...wild and happy happenstance.

 

All is embraced and loved.

 

 

I couldn't agree more, manitou.

 

I HAVE questioned my religious upbringing's beliefs. I DO question everything I read, from school work to the Bible to the TTC...to my self. I am a Freerunner, it is in my nature with an affinity for disobedience to seek truth, or reason, and yes, I have found my answers and yes, claim to understand and know my purpose in life.

 

I'm not sure how your post is relating to what I asked..

 

We are the people creating the outside conditions. But people came from somewhere, and my belief about where we came from is irrelevant to this discussion. It does however mean that, to me, God has allowed humans to come about (whether created, evolved, both, or some other way) for a purpose, otherwise we would not be here. For everything has a purpose, even if purpose-less. Like I said, this purpose, God's will, I call Tao.

 

daweiYour #2 statement brings to mind this little story (I am completely butchering this): A man once got a horse, and they said this was good. Then he fell off the horse and broke his leg, and they said this was bad. A war arose in the country and when they came looking for people to serve, this man had a broken leg, so he could not serve and his life was still his. This, we can see, is good.

 

Taking out the good and bad, we see that there is no good and bad, only doing.

 

I think that IS much harder to apply to things such as 9/11 and the earthquake in Japan. I mean, if someone off the street came and asked you if 9/11 was bad, would you be able to look them in the face and say "no"? I DO think there is only doing, I am just saying it would be difficult to deny good and bad to a large mass of people about something so catastrophic.

[Marblehead]

2 things. 1 - I feel that these external factors are there for a reason, a purpose, as well. Therefore, all the conditions that affect our choice are there for a reason, leading the choice of action to occur for a reason. The cause/effect idea of free will really flows well, I am merely stating that it all happens FOR a reason, and this reason is that of God's will (which Tao is the name I have given to God's will). Any comments on the last sentence?

 

2. Is it possible to go against the external conditions? Is it only the Sage that would not go against the external conditions?

 

1. Reason and purpose. In my mind, there is no absolute reason. In my mind, there is no absolute purpose except for Tao to express itself. Beyond that we make up our own stories. If the stories help us through our life then they are good. If the stories do not help us through our life, well, ....

 

2. Tough question. I am not a Sage so I cannot speak for them - I can only say what I think. I know that I have gone against external conditions and I know that I have mostly screwed up whenever I have done so. Intuition is a wonderful thing. My problem is I oftentimes think too much and that is where I screw up.

 

I know that there are many who believe that there are reasons why we are exposed to various experiences in life. Some call these lessons we are supposed to learn.

 

And I know that there are many who need to find a purpose for life. It gives them momentum to move forward.

 

All I can say is that I have a life, the reason and purpose I know not, but I try to live it as best I can so that I can enjoy it as fully as possible.

 

And yes, I think that during the past fifteen years I have pretty much lived in the condition of wu wei. And I do feel pretty much at peace with myself and I for sure am contented with my condition. Oh, sure, there are things I still need to do because I am shooting for perfection, which, of course, I will never attain. Hehehe.

[dawei]

All I can say is that I have a life, the reason and purpose I know not,

[1] All I can say is that I have a life,

[1] the reason and purpose

 

1+1=2. Don't complicate it.

 

As the philosophers might say: That there is something there [me] instead of not there [not me].

 

The problem is trying to make significance of the individual out of the whole... that is the de-evolution.

[Marblehead]

The problem is trying to make significance of the individual out of the whole... that is the de-evolution.

 

Yes, that becomes a problem if we get stuck on it.

 

I am glad I trashed the question a long time ago.

 

To me "I" am important. I am a component of the universe therefore "I" am important to the universe as well because without "me" the universe would be incomplete.

 

Now, does this matter? Not really. Hehehe.

[manitou]

The cause/effect idea of free will really flows well, I am merely stating that it all happens FOR a reason, and this reason is that of God's will (which Tao is the name I have given to God's will). Any comments on the last sentence?

 

 

My suspicion is that you are so very open minded and willing to accept the views of others as viable, that your very definition of God and God's will will be changing. Evolving. A lot of this depends on how very firmly the belief of God creating the earth as per the Genesis accounts have been pounded into us. Although we get erudite and learned and say we now subscribe to this philosophy or that, the fact remains that many of us have the Christian lore pounded into our deepest thoughts.

 

It takes a while for the evolution to occur. First we think of it as God's will - then we start looking at it as all being One; of time being removed and the realization that All is Now - these are realization that await you at a very deep level down the road. When I refer to the Christian lore, I am speaking of the idea of creation, the very base of Christian thought. At some point, one realizes that this ceases being compatible with your new perceptions and new directions of growth. It may perhaps always be there, but you will understand it in a different and a more evolved way - in fact, we are the essence of evolution itself.

 

I think it's all about using this brain that we we evolved into. To cling to some words on a tablet that were hewn thousands of years ago is to remain stuck in that point in time in that tome, written for the people of that time by the people of that time. To purposefully stop evolving and to desire instead to remain stuck in the mire is the biggest waste of a human life that I can imagine.

 

Getting back to the concept of God's Will, as you put it....that would necessarily mean that God, again the old biblical concept, is hanging around somewhere out in space and is directing this football game from the sidelines. Your understanding will increase to the point where God is not something separate from you, out there....it resides within your very breast, if you only knew it. The very last place we would think to look. It may be that we, as the collective, are He; we are very much included in the concept of the Almighty.

 

I've taken to calling it the Intelligence. Somehow, it seems to work best if love and compassion can be worked into the equation as often as possible.

 

2. Is it possible to go against the external conditions? Is it only the Sage that would not go against the external conditions?

 

There's not enough information in this question to answer it very well, lol. The answer is too vast.

[dawei]

I've taken to calling it the Intelligence. Somehow, it seems to work best if love and compassion can be worked into the equation as often as possible.

Even intelligence seems to imply a 'thinking thing' (to borrow from the existentialist Sartre). For now, I have discarded: God, divine, will, intelligence or intelligent design. I tend to just use 'Universal' since it's quite generic and yet covers it all (at least for me). And it can be applied in many ways which fits in with ideas about Dao, IMO.

 

I don't quite go as far as to say there is any kind of "will" out there since that may imply there is preference for one thing over another; but we know from DDJ5 that 'heaven and earth are without prejudice', as is the 'sage'. Dao does not seek anything itself; I will go as far as to say that it doesn't care about balance, order or equilibrium. Dao is non-existent and just the conceptual principle or rule in which we see generation and interaction.

 

The only 'will' I could possibly suggest would be that the 10,000 things will arise and return (DDJ16) and attain oneness and thus existence (DDJ39). To me, that is the merging of will and purpose.

[Marblehead]

The only 'will' I could possibly suggest ...

 

I don't even include universal will into my belief system. The problem is: Who's will?

 

If there is no "Who" there can be no will.

[dawei]

I don't even include universal will into my belief system. The problem is: Who's will?

 

If there is no "Who" there can be no will.

That was my point.. or, so I thought.

 

What people call 'will' and 'purpose' is just the 10,000 arising and returning in the Oneness of existence.

[Marblehead]

That was my point.. or, so I thought.

 

What people call 'will' and 'purpose' is just the 10,000 arising and returning in the Oneness of existence.

 

Hehehe. Yeah, but you were being very gentle saying it. It almost looked like you were trying to avoid insulting Conway and Manitou. That's nice.

 

Ah, the arising and returning. Yeah, all is temporal, the entire physical universe if you accept the Big Bang theory.

[Mr. T]

speaking of the big bang...

 

we were watching the science channel last night, the show called "parallel universe", and they showed this graph of some crazy time photo taken by the hubble (?) (we missed the main explanation). anyway, it had the big bang at the origin and a line extending out at about 25 degrees. the first thing after the big bang was two blobs, one attached to the 25 line and the other to the horizontal axis. one blob was white inside with a black "shell", and the other was a black inner region with a white shell (although, this blob just looked smaller, but the middle part was the same size and shape as the white inner region of the corresponding blob)...a really fascinating image of the manifestation in action. one produces two, two produces three, etc. i can't remember what happened next up the line, whether it was three objects or not, because i was so entrenched in the living yin-yang i was witnessing. it was really cool.

[Marblehead]

we were watching the science channel last night, ...

 

Yeah, I missed that last night. I'll watch for a rerun and catch it. Thanks.

[Conwaypk]

I'm very sleepy after a good day's work...or maybe I should just say after working so much in this day that I'm not going to quote the various comments, just refer to them.

 

Well, I can agree with the whole "I" am here, so I must be important. I think it will be Manitou to comment on my next comment "I" am here because God (biblical Christian) willed it.

 

Though, is "preference" really suggested by that statement? The verses of the DDC that were posted explaining that the Sage, as Heaven and Earth, have no preference is something I think that many people would do well to learn from and exemplify in their daily lives (Yes, I am of course included in that). However, if there is a God, and this God will's my existence, if at any time this God willed me to not be in existence it would be so just like that! (snaps fingers)

 

My point is that, I don't see how anything IN creation can be prefered over something else, because that something else IS IN creation as well. This means there is no room for preference, if you say, as I do, that all comes from God, and His will, the power of Tao.

 

But I do not see God as a pusher of conditions from the side lines! I very much believe that I am a piece of Him, or that when I die my sould shall return to His presence and I may live forever. I do feel that God is not necessarily me, or that I have the powers of God, but that the Love of God, out of being created by Him, is in me.

 

And finally, I believe that Humans were created by God. How, though, is the real question. Did God blow into the nostrils of clay, forming Adam, or did the elemnts and the matter rise up to create an animal that eventually evolved into the Human? Either way, all comes from God, so even evolution (remember, this is all IMO) means that God created us.

 

Peace for all. (Though by saying peace for all, does that mean Unrest now exists in our minds? )

Edited March 16, 2011 by Conwaypk

[Marblehead]

Hi Conway,

 

Good expression of your understnadings.

 

Even Chuang Tzu questioned if there be a "Prime Mover" and decided that the question had no answer so he didn't dwell on it.

 

Yes, it can easily be said that God created the process of evolution and that would be the end of the conflict between science and religion.

[Aaron]

This post was moved because it violates the posting guidelines for the Tao Teh Ching subforum. Please review the Tao Teh Ching Subforum FAQ if you have any questions.

 

Aaron