Are both the theist and atheist wrong?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes you are correct. Thanks for correcting.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Raggedyman

The only point I seek is truth. ...

What would be a good way to figure out what is true/correct, without error and what isn't, i.e. to distinguish what is true from what is false/incorrect/in error?

Would it involve evaluating some kind of evidence, accompanied by argumentation, using one's thinking ability, incl. your “powers of discernment” “to distinguish both right and wrong”? (Heb 5:14)

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” “We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now* [Lit., “in view of the time.”] you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Col 2:8; Hebrews 5:11-14)

Is there any evidence or argumentation related to the things you've been proposing or talking about, or did I miss something important? Something akin to this evidence and accompanying argumentation regarding one of the reasons why I take my information regarding God and theological matters from the Bible:



Context (playlist)

a reply to: whereislogic

All books are written by men. Some prophets might have higher spiritual insights but even those insights may vary in scope. So saying the entire Torah is truth is absurd. No God of mine wants you to stone to death your misbehaving sons. In the case of Christianity, Paul openly stated that he would spin the truth for the sake of the gospel (1 Cor. 9.19-23). Did Paul actually see Jesus on the road to Damascus, or was that just another spin for the sake of his gospel, is anyone's guess. Religion is a signpost to God. It is not God in itself. So having an inflexible belief system will not serve us. It may indeed obstruct our path.

Can our mind realize the absolute reality?

This is what Taoism questions. The name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name. The mind that can conceive cannot conceive the absolute reality. Or if you prefer "no man can see God and live".

Taoism is not truth. It is merely another signpost.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: whereislogic
...
Taoism is not truth. It is merely another signpost.

Because it sounds spiritually insightful to you? Or is there some vital evidence that made you draw that conclusion?

You said you were seeking truth, so I wondered how you go about in your search, or what you think is a good method to tell truth from error. I can understand if you feel uncomfortable responding to the related questions in my comment, but you feel comfortable talking about these views, the next logical step is to discuss the related evidence and line of reasoning if you want to convince someone that 'taoism is another signpost', for example (to summarize the more specific things you talked about). Unless it's already 'tickling their ears' (as described at 2 Tim 4:3,4), then it doesn't need a whole lot of convincing.

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

Anyway, it's not entirely clear to me why you think for example that taoism is another signpost (in your search for truth I presume is how you meant that), other than that it sounds spiritually insightful to you, i.e. it sounds good (as music to the ears, figuratively speaking, tickling one's ears).

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: whereislogic
...
Taoism is not truth. It is merely another signpost.

Let's have a look at some of the history and development of Taoism (the evidence), and see if that can function as a signpost to the truths stated in the Bible concerning false religion, described as "Babylon the Great"... (between brackets is mine, when indicated by "wil:")

Chapter 7: Taoism and Confucianism—A Search for Heaven’s Way (Mankind's Search for God)

...

... Naturally, this brings up the following questions: How did these two systems come into existence? Who were their founders? How are they practiced today? And what have they done as far as man’s search for God is concerned?

Taoism​—A Philosophical Start

In its early stages, Taoism was more a philosophy than a religion. Its founder, Lao-tzu, was dissatisfied with the chaos and turmoil of the times and sought relief by shunning society and returning to nature. Not a great deal is known about the man, who is said to have lived in the sixth century B.C.E., although even that is uncertain. He was commonly called Lao-tzu, which means “Old Master” or “Old One,” because, as legend has it, his pregnant mother carried him for so long that when he was born, his hair had already turned white. [wil: can't say that sounds very believable, more like something to juice up a false story and the character, making him more special to the audience, marketing him to the public.]

...

A Glimpse of “Tao Te Ching”

...

Taoism’s Second Sage

...

From Philosophy to Religion

...

Stories like these fired the imagination of Taoists, and they started to experiment with meditation, dieting, and breathing exercises that supposedly could delay bodily decay and death. Soon, legends began to circulate about immortals who could fly on clouds and appear and disappear at will and who lived on sacred mountains or remote islands for countless years, sustained by dew or magical fruits. Chinese history reports that in 219 B.C.E., the Ch’in emperor, Shih Huang-Ti, sent a fleet of ships with 3,000 boys and girls to find the legendary island of P’eng-lai, the abode of the immortals, to bring back the herb of immortality. Needless to say, they did not return with the elixir, but tradition says that they populated the islands that came to be known as Japan. [wil: all this is not scoring very high on my credibility meter, let's just skip some more]

... He was particularly taken up with concocting ‘immortality pills’ by alchemy. In the Taoist view, life results when the opposing yin and yang (female and male) forces combine. Thus, by fusing lead (dark, or yin) and mercury (bright, or yang), the alchemists were imitating the process of nature, and the product, they thought, would be an immortality pill. ...

By the second century C.E., Taoism became organized. A certain Chang Ling, or Chang Tao-ling, established a Taoist secret society in western China and practiced magical cures and alchemy. Because each member was levied a fee of five pecks of rice, his movement came to be known as the Five-Pecks-of-Rice Taoism (wu-tou-mi tao). * [A peck is a dry measure equaling two gallons [8.8 L]. wil: that's a nice profit for selling some supposed "magical cures", scam-alert! Ever heard of snake-oil salesmen?] Claiming that he received a personal revelation from Lao-tzu, Chang became the first “celestial master.” Finally, it was said that he succeeded in making the elixir of life and ascended alive to heaven, riding a tiger, from Mount Lung-hu (Dragon-Tiger Mountain) in Kiangsi Province. With Chang Tao-ling there started a centuries-long succession of Taoist “celestial masters,” each said to be a reincarnation of Chang.

Meeting the Challenge of Buddhism

By the seventh century, during the T’ang dynasty (618-907 C.E.), Buddhism was making inroads into Chinese religious life. As a countermeasure, Taoism promoted itself as a religion with Chinese roots. Lao-tzu was deified, and Taoist writings were canonized. Temples, monasteries, and nunneries were built, and orders of monks and nuns were established, more or less in the Buddhist fashion. In addition, Taoism also adopted into its own pantheon many of the gods, goddesses, fairies, and immortals of Chinese folklore, such as the Eight Immortals (Pa Hsien), the god of the hearth (Tsao Shen), city gods (Ch’eng Huang), and guardians of the door (Men Shen). The result was an amalgam embracing elements of Buddhism, traditional superstitions, spiritism, and ancestor worship.​—1 Corinthians 8:5.

As time wore on, Taoism slowly degenerated into a system of idolatry and superstition. Each person simply worshiped his favorite gods and goddesses at the local temples, petitioning them for protection against evil and for help in attaining earthly fortune. The priests were for hire to conduct funerals; select favorable sites for graves, houses, and businesses; communicate with the dead; ward off evil spirits and ghosts; celebrate festivals; and perform sundry other rituals. Thus, what started off as a school of mystic philosophy had transformed itself into a religion deeply mired in belief in immortal spirits, hellfire, and demigods​—ideas drawn from the stagnant pool of false beliefs of ancient Babylon.

...

Looks like a money-making scheme, just like all the other religions that take their ideas/philosophies from Babylon. The truths regarding Babylon the Great and human philosophy stated in the Bible vindicated again by the evidence, as has been my usual experience:

“Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words.” (2 Peter 2:3)

Babylon the Great (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

... In time, Babylonish religious beliefs and practices spread to many lands. So Babylon the Great became a fitting name for false religion as a whole.

...

Ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide

“Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.

...

Babylon the Great is like an immoral harlot, one living in shameless luxury

...

a reply to: whereislogic

I have had experiences that has confirm the purity of Taoism to my mind. To be specific, I have tasted the source which Taoism calls darkness. To enter that void at will, I still need to overcome my ego. To say things only empowers that ego. So I can offer nothing concrete for you to agree or dispute.

Christianity is a path of devotion. Either you believe in Jesus or you believe in yourself. There is no middle ground. That path is not suitable to my intellect. So I follow a different signpost.

Do consider that a great many of us remain at the signposts. Promoting our signpost is the only true signpost. Adding spot lights so others can see it better. Chopping down other signposts so only ours exists. In the end the signpost becomes their god. All announcing to themselves, hallelujah we be saved. Whereas the ultimate truth is in the following. Not the adorning of those signposts.

originally posted by: glend
I have been studying the Tao Te Ching...


The tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name.
The nameless is the boundary of Heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of creation.
Freed from desire, you can see the hidden mystery.
By having desire, you can only see what is visibly real.
Yet mystery and reality emerge from the same source.
This source is called darkness. Darkness born from darkness.
The beginning of all understanding.


...
Are both the theist and atheist wrong? The very nature of the absolute reality beyond the capacity of our minds to grasp. If we dive deeper than the deepest into the darkness born from darkness within ourselves can we experience that absolute reality.

Me thinks so.

Me thinks you are onto something.

With the Tao.

Am not interested in the theist and atheist angle though, cause it seems to just draw argumentations.

That first stanza, or chapter of the Tao, is still deeply intriguing to me.
So many thoughts, and potential threads to pull on.

There are many possible ways of contemplating it,
pondering more rigorously, or loosely, and other ways around the bush.

Everytime we may think something resonates, or appears realish, or truthfulish : bam !
Another potentiality appears. LoL !!

One way of smashing these ideas, when they seem to want to stick : is to consider that the Tao was also written by a human, and this version was also translated by a human, and is being read and interpreted by a human.

Then have a gander over at this site : where there are over one hundred different translations, by different humans !
Then we compare, and ponder the different interpretations, and..... ohhhh boy ! ... LoL !!

For example : just reading the first sentence in many of those interpretations, opens so many doors, no ?

a reply to: Nothin

I looked at the different translations as well. But felt many translators were trying too hard to pin down the expression in words rather than allowing words just to hang in the air by themselves, requiring greater contemplation.

I am curious what you make of "The source, Darkness born from darkness. The beginning of all understanding."

a reply to: glend

LoL ! Yes : felt some of those feelings swirling-around as well.

Then went to questioning these feelings, and the angle of perception/interpretation,
and wondered how much bias, or ego may by lurking under those thoughts.

But can also see them sort-of, mechanisticish approach sometimes, as you point to the flavour.
A sort of ' forcing ', to be precise : at the loss of openness, and somehow therefore ' claiming ' some of that wide-open potentiality, and almost stating that there are known facts, and established ideas.

As an attitude from the authors/interpreters : it must have been very temping to ' splain ' things.
Just as ole Nothin : has trouble stopping himself from ' splainin ' things right here, right now ... LoL !!

"The source, Darkness born from darkness. The beginning of all understanding."

Stirs a few lightbulbs, here and there.
As just an example of some ways to view it : one could center the focus on some various different words, which then open different paths of contemplation.

Make "The source" as the focal-point : then the other words may be descriptors.
Same if we make "Darkness", or "darkness", or "beginning", or "all-understanding", or "understanding" :
the focal-point.

It can change the meaning, and show many lights.
Similar to those little waves, in the Mosaic-Soup thought-experiment.
And so-on, in endless different ways, to no limit of possibilities and potentialities.

Then : we throw those lights in a hat, and toss them on the table, and see how it all spills-out.
We can use different filters, or screen, to extract meta-ideas, that resonate more than others, under certain angles.

Then ole Nothin can come-up with a temporary, passing, whim of an interpretation, that is ephemeral, and gone like a soft wisp of cloud, in a mostly blue sky.

That might, despite only standing for this now, and will be gone and forgotten in a soon-to-be now.

Then : we might be contemplating, attempting to point-to, the melting-place, where duality bursts-out from oneness.
In doing-so : am weighting "beginning of all understanding", as dualism, belief, ego, thingness, where there are known-facts, and Newtonian-Laws-of-Physics.
Also birthing verbs, action, movement, paternalism, and other ism's and ist's. Thingness.

When tuning to look at "darkness" : there is nothing to observe. Not-knowing.
The looker cannot perceive this lower-level, because it's not really a lower-level anything : it's nothing ! LoL !
But the interested looker, on the side of duality, can see where all of their stuff originates, and is unknowable, unnamable darkness.

The looker wonders : what is this darkness ? If it is not knowable, but still somehow unknowably perceived, then perhaps it has a tiny little pinch of thingness ?
If so what is this tiny bit of thingness ?

That tiny glimmer of thingness, might be the "Darkness".

And that tiny glimpse we think is perceivable of the called "Darkness", might also have an origin, from which it was birthed, like other things ?

So the author/interpreter pushes us deeper, "Darkness born from darkness", may be indicating that "The source" is not-only beyond perception, but beyond, any possible place with light in it, or knowledge, further and deeper than the unknowable unknown.


Am just guessing really.
Might as well be some lyrics from a Ronny-James-Dio song, eh ? Heech-heech-heech ...

Please share your ideas, and ponderings, as you feel free to do so.

a reply to: Nothin

All your thoughts do echo my own.

But a change of tack has come to mind ... When I examine the words, they are very succinct, a simplicity about them, that might be a lesson in itself. We can either exist as a segmented consciousness experiencing desires or not. Its as simple as that. Perhaps its all the erroneous thinking that in itself is also a "desire" even if that desire be only for knowledge. If we have no desire's. The hidden mystery will come to us ..... "Freed from desire, you can see the hidden mystery."

The non-grasping of mind for something it cannot grasp might be an important aspect that we both may have neglected. What do you think?

It's best to answer the theist's question with a 'no'. The buddha didn't lie. The buddha is a buddha. They are there to aid other people on the way. It's like asking if it's good to eat spinach. You can say yes, but eating it it's possible the person doesn't like the taste, so for that person eating spinach is not good.

Answering if the Brahman is the abosule reality with a 'no' leaves room to find out for yourself. The answer will pull you in the direction of finding that aboslute reality. Then from your own experience is the belief created Brahman is the absolute reality. If Buddha answered yes he would've brought the theist on the wrong path. The theist would know the answer to his question but with his little experience would not understand and even be blocked on his path. The day the theist 'experiences' Brahman is the absolute reality he will create his belief from his own experience and remember the buddha's answer as direction towards his goal.