I don't appropriate part of them because I "like" them. I appropriate parts of them because I think they are "true". I reject other parts because I think they are not true. It has nothing to do with what I like and do not like.

I respect your right to believe as you do, but I do not respect beliefs, especially those beliefs that I think are harmful to humankind. Asking me to respect a belief in ****** is like asking me to respect the belief that Allah wants political Islamists to fly airplanes into buildings to kill all us infidels. Historically, humor (including sarcasm, cartoons, parody and satire) has been used for thousands of years to mock political ideas in order to make a point. There is no reason why religious ideas should be exempt from that tradition.

Fair enough.

But here's the "question;" how does someone recognize, let alone know and accept, what "truth" is as you are seeking it when truth IS encountered, even if it means that someone has to change prior held opinions, convictions, and beliefs?

It would seem that there is some truth in the biblical statement about many, "always seeking but never finding."

How does this differ from "fencesitting" if no definitive "truth" meets what any one individual might think is the "truth" for them, and only for them?

Furthermore, once having found what they consider to be the truth, what is their responsibility, if any, to tell others about that truth or should they simply allow everyone to "seek their own thing" even though, having found the truth, you know that they are headed in the "wrong" direction and for ultimate disaster? How would NOT telling them about the "discovered" truth be caring for someone else when you know that if you don't at least give them the opportunity to examine that truth for themselves, you are condemning them to much pain and anguish through remaining silent and in "selfish possession" of the truth?

Isn't "truth," by definition (the opposite of falsehood) dogmatic? Granted, anyone can be "dogmatic" about about a false belief, but that isn't what the question is about. It is about truth, "the" truth among all the varying thoughts concerning God, the universe, people, etc.

This point, if you think about it, makes very little sense.

"Taoism believes that man is "perfect", "pure", "exactly and precisely right" at birth."

Two questions seem to logically present themselves.

1. If the "point of reference" is at birth, then by deduction the "moments before birth (usually approximately 9 months) the person is NOT "perfect", "pure", "exactly and precisely right." Perhaps during this time in womb they are "growing toward" the perfection that will be realized only at the moment of birth.

2. Once the "instant" of birth passes, the person becomes "less than" "perfect", "pure", "exactly and precisely right." Less than perfect would logically seem to be "flawed" in some respect, as anything less than "perfect" is flawed in some way.




Given the above comments, it would appear that I am not "mischaracterizing" Taoism. OTHER THAN the instant of birth, it seems clear that Taoism considers man either have not attained perfection, "perfect goodness," PRIOR to birth and to have LOST that "perfect goodness" immediately AFTER birth.

This actually varies only little with the belief of Christianity that Man (Adam and Eve) WERE created perfect and later lost that state of perfection when they chose disobedience to God, desiring what they thought was a "good thing," to be just like God. They believed the lie of Satan because He played to their emotions and His "interpretation" that "God didn't really MEAN what He had said." They "substituted" their own reason and applied the gift that God had given them (Free Will to choose to obey or disobey Him) for a selfish pursuit instead of simply choosing to submit their will to God's will in the matter.

It also "fits" well the Christian belief that ONLY Jesus Christ lived a perfect, sinless, "unflawed" life from birth to death. Everyone else falls under the heading of "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It took God Himself to work what mankind could not work on its own.

What it "denies" IS the one true God.





I would disagree with your conclusion. There are many things that we believe that are true regardless of one's belief in, or rejection of, God. That's because the physical world operates according to the will and plan of God and operate the same regardless of whether somone believes in the Creator or not.




Well, that fits well with the theory of evolution that there is no direction to anything other that random chance and "what will be, will be." It's also an example of why most of the advances of civilization have come from the "West" where people have followed after seeking the "order" that was ordained by God. If not, perhaps we'd all be sitting around in parks and caves still waiting for unguided chance to intervene and make things "better."





And it would seem an equally good way to phrase it would be along the lines of; "Man is God when he thinks he is God, or can become God, because Man IS God."




And this really is THE answer to the questions concerning truth, and sharing truth with others. And since someone doesn't even have "multiple lifetimes to try to get it right," it would seem that the only "practical" answer would be to kill all babies at the moment of birth, to preserve their "perfect goodness" and the real possibility that they will never regain it within their limited lifetime. That might be "useful," so helping someone that way would be prohibited because only newborn babies would be "perfect enough" to qualify for the ability to help someone else, but unfortunately newborn babies can't even take care of themselves, much less be of any "use" to anyone else.


I am assuming from what you have written that the following definition is the one "in play" in your opinion, and not some of the other definitions:

Daoism, Taoism - philosophical system developed by of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu advocating a simple honest life and noninterference with the course of natural events


Noun

1. Taoist - an adherent of any branch of Taoism

Tao

Taoism - religion adhering to the teaching of Lao-tzuTaoism - a Chinese sect claiming to follow the teaching of Lao-tzu but incorporating pantheism and sorcery in addition to Taoism

adherent, disciple - someone who believes and helps to spread the doctrine of another


Adj.

1. Taoist - of or relating to the popular Chinese religious system based on the teachings of Lao-tzu but including a pantheon of gods along with divination and magic; "Taoist temples"

2. Taoist - of or relating to the philosophical system developed by Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu advocating a simple honest life

That is a great question, and let me preface my thoughts by disclosing that I have absolutely no idea. I have ideas, but I admit they are opinion and speculation only. I like your description earlier (I think you said it) of the "Character of God being written on Man's heart". I believe something like that as well, and that is an elegant way to put it as any other. I do believe that Man shares some common core values that come from somewhere innately. I think everyone instinctively knows it is wrong to lie, steal, cheat, murder, etc. And I believe it is this that would accurately be described as "God's Character being written on our hearts". Whether it is a personal God, an essence, some other force or just the synaptic firings of the human brain, I'm not sure. But I do believe that humans instinctively recognize truth when they experience it. That is why I thing there is an element of truth in all religions, because people wouldn't grasp onto them if there were not. How to recognize that truth I can't really say. I can say for me that I apply logic, experience and critical thinking, but I also look for that something about it that rings true in another way. The teachings of Jesus ring true to me. The sermon on the mount is an eloquent speech on ethics, morality, philosophy of life and what it means to be a spiritual person as any you will find. His parables are some of the most thought provoking you will find if you don't just superficially read them. I find other religious teachings that ring true in the same way. I do not; however, believe that Jesus was the son the Jewish God, nor do I believe he rose from the dead. I don't want to start a whole new discussion about the divinity of Jesus, but I believe that most of the New Testament is the religion of Paul not of Jesus (feel free to fire back, I know thats a sore subject).



I completely agree. I also agree when the Bible says, "He who increases knowlege increases sorrow." I would love to be comforted by some belief that there is a personal God that watched over me and I would spend eternity in Heaven. I just don't believe it, and I can just give up searching or continue on.


I don't think truth is relative to what someone thinks. I believe Truth is Truth for everyone. I think that no one really completely understands the truth, and there are many ways of circling the truth. I don't think that anyone has zero'ed in on it, and I don't actually know if we can. This is why I don't consider it fencesitting. People general view Agnostics as someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists; however, that is only part of it. I don't believe it is POSSIBLE to know the complete truth. I believe that some things may be unknowable, and all we can do is get as close to the truth as we can so we may end up "always seeking, but never finding". I may not find it, but I know I can get closer.


I'll let you know when I find the Truth.


I guess maybe it is dogmatic by definition, but unless you are completely sure it is the truth you can not treat it like dogma. Dogma is something that should be believed without question. I just don't see dogmatic belief as something of any value. If it is the truth what harm is there in questioning it?

To answer you last question first, there is nothing wrong with questioning if someone is seeking answers to things.

When the question is answered and the truth is seen, whether or not someone understands "everything," then by definition the truth that has been founded automatically becomes "dogmatic" or else it's not truth to begin with.

An example. The Word, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, took on the form of Man and became fully human.

I don't understand HOW God did that, but that is precisely what God did. God has not revealed the "details" of how He did that, but He has revealed that He DID do that.

In the same way, God has revealed that He has always existed and that He has always existed as three "persons" in one. Until the incarnation, they existed as spirit, not as flesh and blood. I don't understand the "details" about that either.

However, we don't have to rely on our own imaginings or on the imaginings of some other person because God, through the incarnation of Christ, gave us substantial, physical, proof of the veracity and truth.

While someone can choose to disregard what the Scripture reveals or dismiss the Scripture as "just another book," the Bible clearly speaks about itself and the "authorship" of the Bible through the various authors.

The "first truth" is very simple. And this involves what you were asking in the quotation. The question is, "Is Jesus Christ really who He says He is?"

Since Jesus was real person in history, at a specific point in time, if you will, then it is also clear that there are only 4 possibilities in answer to the question.

Either He was a liar, a lunatic (crazy), a legend, or He was God incarnate (fully human and fully God).

Each of those first three "possibilities" can be examined and a decision made concerning them. There are ample things to examine concerning each of them using all of the standard techniques for investigation (such as textual criticism, historical criticism, etc.). There are MANY prophecies in the Old Testament that include specific details about the one who is called "Messiah" that were fulfilled to the letter by Jesus.

That someone could choose to not believe is a given and is nothing new, even when the evidence is "staring them in the face." The Sadducees of Jesus' time, for example, did NOT believe in the possibility of resurrection from the dead. The Pharisees actively sought to destroy not only Jesus Himself, but after the resurrection, anyone who became a Christian (sounds eerily like the Islamists of today, doesn't it?).





Setting aside the "divinity" question for a minute, the "religion" of Paul was Pharisitic Judaism. He was a high ranking Pharisee and the "chief" persecutor of Christians. There was absolutely NO reason for Paul (known as Saul at that time) to accept anything about Christianity, let alone Jesus Christ Himself. He was CHOSEN by God to be God's instrument for taking the gospel to "all nations." Prior to that, the gospel was essentially for the Jewish people. As a practicing and very devout Pharisee, Paul(Saul) would have had nothing to do with anyone who was not a Jew.

It would seem "fair and reasonable" to conclude that "something" extraordinary happened to literally change Paul(Saul) overnight, and that something happened as he was walking on the road to Damascus, intent on persecuting the Christians he might find there.

Paul endured all sorts of things from beatings to imprisonment to death, all because of his belief in Jesus Christ. The same Jesus that he, as a major Pharisee, "nodded" at in approval when He was crucified. Paul was the also present, and approving of, the stoning of Stephen.

AS sincere as Paul was as a Pharisee of Pharisees, he surpassed that in his sincere belief that Jesus IS the Messiah.

One must also understand that ALL of the disciples of Christ DID NOT believe that Jesus would be raised from the dead, certainly not a physical resurrection. But the reality of Jesus' resurrection was NOT a "tale" made up by those same disciples because it was not done in secret. Jesus appeared to MANY people after His resurrection so that there would be no doubt that He really was, and is today, alive.

This is why even Paul clearly stated that IF Jesus was NOT actually raised from the dead, then the faith of Christians is in vain and they are "worse off" than someone who refuses to believe in Christ.

Furthermore, when Paul is writing about his own "opinions" he clearly states that. When he is speaking otherwise, he makes it clear that what he is saying comes from God and he is merely the instrument that God had chosen to use to communicate what God wanted us to know.

For what it's worth, it is NOT a "sore subject" with me. I am more than willing to discuss it with anyone. Truth has no fear of being discussed. That IS, in reality how truth functions. The response to the truth is what everyone be held accountable to by God, not by me.





changd - This is really nothing more than the age old incorrect accusation that is frequently trotted out against Christians and Christianity. The way it is usually phrased is along the line of "Christians just have blind faith and they have to check their 'brains' at the door in order to believe."

"Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul and mind."

True belief encompasses all three. God is not afraid of questions, He encourages questions as part of the process of learning and maturing in the faith.

I'm not going to continue to debate Taoism with you. You don't have enough of an understanding of the philosophy or its tenants to have a reasonable discussion. There are a lot of books out there if you would like to learn about it. I will respond to a couple of your other points.



I am baffled by this response. Most of the advances in civilization have come from the "West"? I am assuming you mean recent technological advances, but your characterization of eastern culture as cave dwellers who have offered little contribution to society is appalling. Here is a list of contributions that I pulled off Wikipedia.



Your belief in the supremacy of Western over Eastern culture is shocking to me as well, since you are a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Didn't Jesus travel the region teaching whoever would follow him similar to Confucius, Lao Tzu, and other Eastern teachers? Didn't Jesus teach to not lay up riches on Earth? Did he not say:




and


You really believe that Jesus teachings are more aligned with our Western, materialistic, technology driven society than a more basic lifestyle? The western world has adopted a lifestyle that makes it at best socially unacceptable to live a lifestyle in the way that Jesus did, and at worst impossible to live it. Didn't Jesus say if someone asks for your coat give him your shirt as well? Which society is more conducive to that type of lifestyle? You seem to believe that your religion is the only truth and any others are false. Your society is right while other societies are backward. Your understanding of someone's religion is more important than actually asking questions and seeking to understand from someone who has actually studied it. Does your favorite football team consist of all scholar athletes while other teams consist of thugs? It seems everything you are associated with is vastly superior to any other options.

Or his teachings were distorted and misrepresented and he never claimed to be God. After hearing you explain Taoism it is clear to me that this is not all that uncommon.


Just because it is an age old assertion does not make it less true. I don't believe that all Christians "check their brains at the door"; however, any system that requires or even encourages dogmatic adherence to itself is asking people to do just that.

Well now, I seem to have "pushed" your emotional buttons. I guess once again it's "okay" to tell Christians what they believe and that what they believe is "stupid" and "dogmatic and wrong," but it's not okay to talk about other religions and ask questions about what is stated as the beliefs of that religion. Pretty much par for the course it would seem. But pushing "emotional buttons" is not what I intended. What is intended is to discuss the differences of opinions as part of your search for truth.




Yep, he said that as well as all the other things, IF you don't make the baseless and unfounded claim that his teachings were distorted and misrepresented and he never claimed to be God in an attempt to both distort and misrepresent thousands of years of opinions by supporters and opponents that what is recorded in the Bible is accurate. Applying your "logic" on this issue, one could just as easily make the claim to "invalidate" the written information about Taoism, or ANY historical events that record what was said and what was seen by eyewitnesses.

If you think that all of his teachings were "distorted and misrepresented," then all of the passages you quoted would be irrelevant and not supportive of what you are trying to say in an attempt to twist the real point of what both Jesus and the entirety of Scripture were teaching.

But you missed the ENTIRE point of what Jesus was saying, even though you included it along with the rest of the stuff. Perhaps that's because you choose not to understand the Christian religion as being GOD's "religion" FOR Mankind, the only one that IS acceptable to God, first for the Jews and second for the rest of humanity. That WOULD make sense, I guess, since your approach to searching for the truth begins with the assumption that God does NOT exist.



The "pursuits" and "desires" of Man are unimportant compared to the truth of God and attaining righteous standing before God. THAT is the "point" of those passages. It is speaking about what we "worship," not what our physical needs are. It has to do with WHO is "first in our lives."

Your desire is to "substitute" and "elevate" the thoughts of "Men" to the level of equality, or even superiority, to the thoughts of God is understandable. Understandable at least on the level of "what other option is there if God does not exist?"




If you mean by "your religion," that religion that is known as Christianity, then yes I do believe that God IS truth and that He has revealed the truth of what is needed for humans to be saved and reconciled to Him, and He provided the only means for that reconciliation Himself.

That IS what TRUTH means. Everything that is "not true" is false by definition.

By "picking and choosing" pieces of various "faith systems" (i.e., some, but not all, of Taoism) you seek to make truth over in your own image. That "some truth" can exist in all faiths is, it would seem sensible, in that there IS a common thread of truth that runs through most of the "religions" of the world. Even in those that are pantheistic there is usually one "chief god." In short, you "misrepresent and distort" the faiths you choose to borrow pieces from by saying, in effect, "this part is good but those parts are bad, indicating that the parts you consider to be bad are false, misleading, and perhaps the teachings have been distorted and misrepresented and that the author(s) of the religion never really made those statements, other people just LIED about it, or them, for their own purposes and a lot of "gullible, unthinking," people have simply fallen for it.

LOTS of people "fall" for untruth when it comes to both the physical and the spiritual world. That may say a lot about the "nature of Man," but it says absolutely nothing that changes TRUTH into falsehood. There were LOTS of people who believed sincerely, for example, that the Earth was flat. That did not change the truth of the matter, and it still doesn't change it even though there may still be some people today who CHOOSE to believe the Earth is flat (the Flat Earth Society). There ARE lots of people today who believe sincerely, and LOTS who simply believe by "blind faith," that LIFE arose from non-living compilations of chemicals in some unknown mixture in some unknown "soup." Contrary to the FACT of "cause and effect," they deny even that the universe has no "cause" for the matter and energy that existed before the universe "exploded" into existence.



But it is interesting to see you getting so "hot under the collar" about this since you claim NOTHING as truth yourself. It would seem illogical to mock someone who does have a belief in the truth when the "accuser" has no frame of reference for what IS truth and is supposedly "seeking" to find what is true. It would make no sense to accuse the writers of Scriptures of "inventing lies and misstatements" without actually examining closely all that has been written.

For example, it is written that Jesus claimed to be God. You claim that was a deceptive misstatement by the authors of the New Testament. But you ignore the fact that the CHIEF opponents of Jesus NEVER question the veracity that JESUS Himself DID claim to be God. That was the precise reason that they plotted to have Him crucified. Jesus claimed to be God and, therefore, the King of the Jews. Even the "unbelievers" in God, the Romans, acknowledge the truth of the claim BY Jesus, and the acceptance of that claim by the Jews, by nailing a board proclaiming that very claim to the world…."The King of the Jews." The Jews recognized NO "King of the Jews" other than the promised Messiah who would rule them forever.



You accuse me of not understanding the "deep truths" of Taoism. Okay, I will admit to that in so far as one does NOT have to be "disciple" of Taoism, or anything else for that matter, to understand what the "basics" are.

YOU, who claim to know Taoism intimately, plainly said; " "Taoism believes that man is "perfect", "pure", "exactly and precisely right" at birth."

Did you mean NOT "at birth?" Did you NOT mean that at that point in time (birth) is the quintessential point in time when every individual IS "perfect", "pure", "exactly and precisely right?" Did you "misrepresent and distort" the FUNDAMENTAL belief of Taoism?

Or did I understand you correctly?

If you didn't mean what you said, where is the logic in accusing ME of "not understanding Taoism?"




That is a "red herring" sort of statement. It has NO basis in fact and is just an opinion that someone can use to rationalize and justify in their own mind that "true" equals "false" because to accept the truth would mean that they would have undergo a radical change in their own lives, especially the part that wants to be sovereign and in control of what they like and don't like, want and don't want, moral behaviors they like and moral choices of others that they don't like, the truth that "right and wrong" IS established beyond their own control by someone who HAS the authority to "impose" His will on everyone regardless of any "opinion."

"Seek, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened unto you. Ask, and you shall receive." "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, and soul."
"Why do you prefer the milk of babies when you should be on to the meat of maturing in the faith?"

The Bible TEACHES that faith AND reason go hand in hand for going beyond mere 'acceptance' by faith. Faith ALONE is what is required to become a forgiven and saved person. Understanding more and more of what God has revealed to us in His Word, takes "going to school," not just sitting on a bump somewhere not learning anything about the nature of God and the purpose of His creation. Born again believers are no long "slaves to the sin-nature" but have a New Nature created in them by God and for God that makes them "slaves to righteousness." Their "free will" is no longer in bondage to sin, they can CHOOSE godliness in gratitude for what God has done for them because they are no longer "their own," they are bought and paid for BY God and are His to command.

There is one "supreme commander," if you will, and "we" are not Him, nor can we become Him.




Nope. It has nothing whatsoever to with a "basic lifestyle." It has everything to do with God and His purpose for mankind. Let me ask you a question about this that might illustrate it a little, even for the "secular Westerners" who operate on a basically Judeo/Christian moral structure. WHAT people and countries "rush" to the aid of the downtrodden, such as Darfur and Cambodia, for instance, and which ones don't? What countries believe in freedom, and which countries and beliefs believe in oppressing, even killing, anyone who does not submit to THEM? Historically, as an example, how "good" was Genghis Kahn and his relations with other peoples?

What is more "basic" than the Hindu concept of Karma? What is more "basic" than the Taoist concept of "non interference" in the "affairs of men?" From the beginning of time the question was asked, "am I my brother's keeper?"

God has answered that question with a resounding "Yes!" and HE died FOR us because we could not save ourselves. So you tell me, of all the religions and beliefs in the world, which do YOU think Jesus would be more "aligned to?"




There are selfish individuals within every society and faith, without exception. But you tell me WHO rushes to the aid of people worldwide, Eastern or Western based societies and faiths? Which IS more "Conducive" to being a "Good Samaritan?" But you fail to ask the critical question of WHY Jesus said to do those things. A statement by itself, devoid of the context of "why," is rather meaningless, don't you think?


Dare we even consider the "differences" between that great eastern religion, Islam, and how IT teaches its believers should interact with those who will not accept Islam? How will Taoism react when Islam forces itself down the throats of Taoists? Once all the Taoists are dead, will it be shown that the Islamists are "good?"

"If only evil didn't exist we could all live in peace with each other." There was a time when evil did not exist in the world, and there will come a time when that will again be true. But the TRUTH is that we are "in between" and evil DOES exist and humans are, by nature, corrupted by sin and "not good." Evil and holiness are not mere "mental concepts," they are living truth and exist. Evil is embodied in Satan and holiness is embodied in God. "YOU are of your "father,"…. Means that all people ARE defined by who is their father, evil or good, because they get their "Nature," the "essences of their being," FROM their father.

"Behold, you are a new creation, the old has gone, the new has come." There is a fundamental change in the "essence" that is GIVEN to us, created in us, BY God, not by ourselves, when we accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. But if someone denies that God exists, rejects Jesus Christ, there can BE "no miracles" that result in a "new creation."

At least an Atheist has chosen to reject any possibility of God and that, therefore, the "affairs of Men" ARE strictly the affairs of Men. The "nature" of Men is, therefore, "survival of the fittest" and there is NO fundamental right or wrong to morality, no point other than SOME people can choose live in harmony with their neighbors just so long as no one else chooses to exert THEIR "survival of the fittest" at your expense. Their morality is right for them. Your morality is right for you. There is NO "universal morality" that exists regardless of the opinions of an individual or group of people when "nature" is the guiding light and Nature teaches clearly that there are "eaters" and there are "eaten." Certainly there is truth in the idea that there IS "strength in numbers" because that enhances the chances of survival of THAT group. But that does not confer moral "rightness" to what the "numbers" decide. No morality, just the way it is. Those who are "eaten" are also "eaters" of those weaker than themselves until they wind up on the dinner plate of someone else playing according to the natural rules of survival of the fittest. Does a virus "think about" what bad effects it will have on some "morally good" or "morally bad" person, does it think about what it is doing is morally good or morally bad? No, it simply does what is its nature without regard to judgments. It simply follows "survival" of fittest, it being the "fittest" and the host it is attacking as being "less fit" for survival or it would destroy the virus.

"Good and Bad" are NOT concepts of Nature, nor are they "inherent" in natural processes. The "natural process" of human development is fertilization, embryonic growth, birth, conscious life, and death. As a "pile of chemicals," there is NO "good or bad," just "IS." "Value judgments" on their own are made by people in reaction to other people pursuing their own self-centered "survival of the fittest" natural orientation because HUMANS have the capacity to choose and reason. Animals do NOT assign "moral value" to anything; they just behave according to their nature. If Man is "nothing more than a higher form of animal (having survived better than others in the game of survival of the fittest), then his NATURE is that of an animal regardless of whether they want to choose to be a socially meek individual or the "tyrannosaurus rex" of people.

FH,

I have typed out two detailed responses to your post. Each time my browser crashed right before I could post. I'm taking it as a sign. I will give you a web site that you may want to read before you get into any other debates.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

lol. Yes, it could be a "sign" that the systems designed by man are not perfect. Or it could be a sign that the weather could be disruptive to internet communications, to say nothing of the required power. I lost power last night from a storm, as an example. But without a "higher power" actually existing, it would fallacious to deduce that not being able to post was a "sign from on high" that someone thought you shouldn't post. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

If you compose in Word or some similar program, you have less chance of losing a post, especially if it's a lengthier post. My UPS allowed me to save files I was working on and not lose any data.



Okay, I read it. Your point for the link and the suggestion that I read it?