I guess if you don't feel it on the inside, just paint it on the outside. If the only way someone can tell you believe something is because you say you do, you're missing the point, and likely don't really believe it, or your actions would demonstrate this belief, and be consistent with it.
Which Gnostic texts?
That first link was a strange story, to put it nicely, but the “lessons” and applications at the end are logical and sensible, so I suppose any way we get to those truths is something I can respect.
Yeah, and we all respond best do different forms of teaching, but I feel some people/authors are arcane for the sake of being arcane, thinking that somehow being difficult to understand inherently makes it more substantial or profound. Sometimes that’s true, but sometimes things are better stated simply, which is why I enjoy Stoicism (it presents things so logically). But to each his own. I’ve heard this explained as the rafts and the shore. We are all trying to reach the other shore, to reach enlightenment/nirvana/heaven/etc. However, we all have different rafts, or different beliefs/systems/faiths that we use to try to reach the shore with. But we too often confuse the raft with the shore, and see people with different rafts (faiths/beliefs) as enemies rather than friends and companions, since we only see the different raft, failing to realize that we’re all trying to reach the same shore (we have the same goal).
You misunderstand my post. I don't mean that yin/yang loses meaning outside the realm of Taoism, only that viewing the yin and yang (which actually can't/shouldn't be separated) as separate entities with the goal being to balance in the middle is not what Taoism strives to do. Walking on this "line" between yin and yang would actually be to embrace neither of them, which is not balance. The balance, or Tao (Way) is not to try to always walk a tightrope in the middle of yin and yang, but to embrace the natural and inevitable flow between yin and yang, to follow the way of nature and not oppose it. This is what Taoism worships, if you can even say they "worship" anything at all. Taoism doesn't worship the self, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Have you read the Tao Te Ching? If anything, it teaches us to be one with nature, with the Tao (the Way), the nature that created the universe and nurtures all equally. Christianity and Islam are not in a yin/yang relationship. To suggest this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of yin/yang. Yin/yang is two parts of the same whole, always changing and flowing between the two; without one the other could not exist. How does this apply to Christianity and Islam? It's a stretch, at best, and Satanism is in no way the "middle line" between the two of them. I respect your views, and you're entitled to them, but you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Taoism, as well as of Christianity and Islam. Have you read the Tao Te Ching? The Bible (Old and/or New Testament)? The Quran? Claiming that Christianity is "lawful chaos" and Islam is "evil order" seems to suggest that you're basing your views on personal experience and what adherents of these religions do today, not what they actually are and actually teach. The Tao, or Way, wouldn't be walking the line between yin/yang, but embracing the flow between yin/yang, being one with nature, not worshiping the self.
I'm pretty comfortable in my 3 dimensions (make it 4, if time counts).
My unshakable materialistic self can't make the mental jump into the "enlightenment zone".
BTW, its getting way too esoteric here for me.
Now excuse me, have to pose in front of a mirror to see if my muscles are growing, the moment I see an aura, I either go to an ophthalmologist -or shoot myself.
You claim that you don't care what religions are made to be, only "what they create in reality," but anyone with even a cursory understanding of Christianity and Islam know that what is practiced today by many of their adherents, including powerful religious and political officials, is nowhere even close to what was originally taught. Both religions have been perverted to suit the agendas of people in power. For example, people used Christianity to justify the Crusades, but, in reality, it was really just a masquerade to justify war to gain power; there is NO biblical justification for the Crusades, and it's in stark contrast to the teachings of Jesus. Similarly, the Islamic terrorists who kill innocent people think they're obeying the Quran, but they're not; in fact, that sort of attacking innocents is actually explicitly forbidden in the Quran, with some severe punishment for doing so.
If I can be frank with you, as not being honest would be doing us both, and this discussion as a whole, a disservice, I really don’t see how you are so confident speaking at length about theology/philosophy that you don’t know the basics of. How can you view two belief systems (Christianity and Islam) in the lens of a third (Taoism) if you haven’t read the fundamental, underlying texts of any of them?
It's actually a very interesting story. Here goes my attempt to explain it:
I'm glad to hear that. But, my friend, we can't ACCURATELY judge a religion on how it impacts the world. Remember, Christianity has been perverted many, many times by people with a lust for power. To say that these actions taken under the guise of Christianity, of demons masquerading as holy men, are representative of Christianity is to really miss out on the teachings of Jesus and what the core and essence of Christianity truly is. Furthermore, reprehensible acts have been carried out by members and officials of almost all religions, and even by people with no religion. I stand by my claims that you can't accurately speak on the true nature of two religions (Christianity and Islam) without actually reading their fundamental texts, and I really don't think you can accurately analyze and compare them in the lens of yet another belief system (Taoism) without reading the very short text (the Tao Te Ching) that explains it. I hesitate to call Taoism a religion because, arguably, Taoism as originally presented by Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching isn't actually a religion, and is compatible with many other religions, or even by people who don't adhere to any religion.
For what in particular?
And if you are interested in atheism, follow muscleupcrohn 's advise. I did.
.
What is my advice? I wouldn't call myself an atheist, but I would say that my beliefs don't DEPEND on the existence of a God(s), so does it really matter? And also that there's no reason that they can't be applied to atheists with very little, if any, minor changes. I truly believe that Taoism and Stoicism can be used/applied/adhered to by ANYONE, atheist, agnostic, or otherwise. They're not religions IMO.And if you are interested in atheism, follow muscleupcrohn 's advise. I did.
Your observations of what SUPPOSED adherents of a religion do and how they act is useful, but it alone can in no way define the truth of a religion.
In other words, we have no qualms or hesitation to say that someone isn't a bodybuilder simply because they lift weights, even if they adamantly state that they are a bodybuilder. However, when it comes to philosophy, which we can essentially replace with religion, we too often believe that someone is a Christian or a Muslim simply because they say they are.
In other words, if we see someone really out of shape and weak lifting weights, we don't say that bodybuilding is useless, but that this man is no bodybuilder. However, if we see someone who claims to be a Christian acting in a way that is not at all consistent with the teachings of Jesus, we say that Christianity is bad/useless, but what we SHOULD be saying, just like we did with the "bodybuilder," is that this man is no Christian.
So you have read the Tao Te Ching? I'm just very confused as to how you think it could possibly come close to advocating Satanism. Perhaps what you call Satanism is just very different than what I have heard/read of it.
If you want to hear something that really makes you think, read the First Commandment. Literally the first commandment from God Himself, and I think the only time when a large group of people has supposedly actually heard God (using the NRSV translation):And if you are interested in atheism, follow muscleupcrohn 's advise. I did.
I don't think we're going to get anywhere here; we seem to be going in circles a bit. My main question now is what exactly do you think Satanism is? Specifically, could you please link up a website or something to read more about it? Because what I've read of Satanism, and what I know of Taoism, Taoism would never advocate practicing Satanism, so I'd like to explore this topic of what you call Satanism to see where the source of this confusion and diverging is.
The most succinct way I've heard it put is that we have to have free will for obedience to God to have any meaning. If obeying God is the only choice we have, it has no real meaning. We need that ability to turn away, to disobey, or obedience means nothing. So the serpent had to give Adam and Eve (who I believe are clearly allegorical, not historical figures) the apple/fruit/whatever to allow them the choice of obedience or disobedience. So we do need the ability to sin or disobey God for obedience to have any meaning or significance. (Side note: I don't think the serpent was associated with Lucifer/Satan/etc until Revelation, so this isn't something that Jews really believed as far as I understand, and also wasn't a thing until the post-Jesus era of Christianity).
I will read it. I'm admittedly not familiar at all with Satanism, but I have read the Tao Te Ching and some commentaries on it, and I have some knowledge of Buddhism, as I've read the Dhammapada and some books by the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, and some Hindu books, since Buddhism itself branched off of Hindusim.
I see what they're getting at, but I think they slightly (but importantly) missed the mark. While it's true that neither Satanism or Taoism, or Buddhism, is about worshiping a God, the goal of Taoism isn't so much to "evolve" as it is to reunite with the Tao, with the way. One could actually argue that this is more of a process of returning to our true state, in union with nature/Tao/the Way/etc. This is actually VERY compatible with the Hindu belief of union with God and our rebirth until we realize this connection and no longer desire to be reborn, no longer subject to the cycle of birth and death and karma. Buddhism branches off of Hinduism, but also believes in the return to our true (arguably divine) nature. Even Plato has a similar belief, where he says that sins are nails that bind our souls to our bodies, and cause us to be reborn again seeking these worldly pleasures, and that only by removing these nails can we return to union with God. This is actually very similar to the Christian belief, that we are created in God's image, but we are tempted and turn away as we are tempted by worldly things and we sin; that it is our goal to return to our true state.
However, simply because a Taoist can learn from Satanism does not mean that Taoism would RECOMMEND or ADVOCATE Satanism by any means.
This specifically mentions vengeance. Vengeance is not promoted in Taoism in any way.
The concept of "treating someone with cruelty without mercy" in ANY situation is not advocated by Taoism.
I enjoy the discussion too. Not many people are even willing to hear/discuss ideas other than their own. I do think that most beliefs have some value, and we can learn something from them, even if we don't believe in or adhere to all of it. As Bruce Lee said, 'absorb what is useful. Reject what is useless. Add what is essentially your own."
I wouldn't say that they're metaphysical equals in any way. They may have some metaphysical similarities, but there is a fundamental difference in their view of how we should interact with the world around us, which stems from an inherent difference in how they view the relation and connection of beings in the universe. Similar =/= equal.