Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/1/2002 12:46 AM (GMT -6)

In my understanding, all truth points toward, anticipates, and is fulfilled in the One who is "the truth." (This is sort of what Lewis meant by saying Christ is "Myth become reality."). I see Christ as the fulfillment of all truth and the cessation of all falsehood. I personally find much value in studying other philosophies and religions, for sometimes the precise way a truth is spoken from the perspective of a person in a very different culture and within a very different religion than my own has a unique way of getting through to me. It enlightens aspects of what I know about God, myself and the world in Christ.

My favorite non-Christian system of thought has always been Taoism(pronounced Dowism). Lately I’ve been casually reading exerts from various Taoist masters, and have found that they sometimes express a deep intuition that is, on a profound level, consistent with what we have been finding Bonhoeffer to express. Though there are, of course, many aspects of Taoism that are inconsistent with the revelation of God in Christ (e.g. ultimate reality is personal [though "it" is sometimes spoken of as such] and loving) they seem to consistent nail the insight that life is meant to be lived in union with God ("the Way," the "Tao" ), and this means living free from judgment (knowledge of good and evil). I’m going to offer up a few exerts now, and will continue to do so in the future when I come across them. If others find similar parallel insights in other places, it would be interesting to hear them. (Exerts taken from The World’s Wisdom, edited by Philip Novak). Read these in terms of the fundamental intuition they seem to express.

*** This is the nature of the unenlightened mind
The sense organs, which are limited in scope and ability, randomly gather information.
This partial information is arranged into judgments, which are based on previous judgments, which are usually based on someone else’s foolish judgements.

These false concepts and ideas are then stored in a highly selective memory system.
Distortion upon distortion: the mental energy flows constantly through controlled and inappropriate channels, and the more one uses the mind, the more confused one becomes.

To eliminate the vexation of the mind, it doesn’t help to do something: this only reinforces the mind’s mechanics.
Dissolving the mind is instead a matter of not-doing. Simply avoid becoming attached to what you see and think.
Relinquish the notion that you are separated from the all-knowing mind of the universe.
Then you can recover your original pure insight and see through all illusions.
Knowing nothing, you will be aware of everything.

*** If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of yourself. Truly, the greatest gift you have to give is that of your own self-transformation. (Be a "Doer" of the law, not a judge. Ja 4).

*** Throw away [human constructs of] holiness and wisdom and people will be a hundred times happier. Throw away [human constructs of] morality and justice, and people will do the right thing. Throw away industry and profit, and there won’t be any thieves…

*** Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

*** When the will to power is in charge, the higher the ideals, the lower the results.
Try to make people happy,
and you lay the groundwork for misery.
Try to make people moral,
and you lay the groundwork for vice.

*** IF you don’t trust people, you make them untrustworthy. [Christ Argyus was clearly a Taoist!

]

*** He who stands on tiptoe
doesn’t stand firm.
He who rushes ahead
doesn’t go far.
He who tries to shine
dims his own light.
He who defines himself
can’t know who he really is.
He who has power over others
can’t empower himself.
He who clings to his work
will create nothing that endures.
If you want to accord with the Tao,
just do you job,
then let go.

***"In the days when natural instincts prevailed [an intuition about a pristine original state] men moved quietly and gazed steadily. At that time, there were no roads over mountains, nor boats, nor bridges over water… You could climb up and peep into the raven’s nest. For them man dwelt with birds and beasts, and all creation was one. There were no distinctions of good and bad men. Being all equally without knowledge, their virtue could not go astray. Being all equally without evil desires, they were in a state of natural integrity, the perfection of human existence.

But when sages appeared, tripping people over charity and fettering them with [humanly constructed regulations about ] duty to one’s neighbor, doubt fond its way into the world. And then with their gushing over music and fussing over ceremony, the empire because divided against itself.

Horses live on dry land, eat grass and drink water… Thus far only do their natural instincts carry them. But bridled and bitted, with a plate of metal on their forehead, they learn to cast vicious looks, to turn their head to bite, to resist, to get the bit out of their mouth or the bridle into it. And thus their natures become depraved…

In the days of Hso Hsu [a legendary person before "the fall"] the people did nothing in particular when at rest, and went nowhere in particular when they moved… But when the sages came to worry them with ceremonies and music in order to rectify the form of government, and dangled charity and duty to one’s neighbor before them in order to satisfy their hearts – then the people began to develop a taste for knowledge and to struggle one with the other in their desire for gain. This was the error of the sages.

** * Like a mosquito keeping a man awake at night, all this talk about charity and duty to ones neighbor drives me crazy. Strive to keep the world to its own original simplicity. And as the wind bloweth where it listeth, so let virtue establish itself. Wherefore such undue energy, as though searching for a fugitive with a big drum? [In other words, striving for virtue by spending energy constructing a keeping regulations about duty and charity is like searching for a fugitive while beating a big drum – thus sending him further into hiding, insuring you’ll never find him].

Live simply
Blessings

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 8/1/2002 5:28 AM (GMT -6)

John Cobb Jr. describes his own (Christian) beliefs as “way” rather than “religion.” Simply, Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 8/1/2002 5:31 AM (GMT -6)

Wow. I feel like walking on rice-paper without leaving any footprints.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 8/1/2002 11:07 PM (GMT -6)

Doc

quote:
for sometimes the precise way a truth is spoken from the perspective of a person in a very different culture and within a very different religion than my own has a unique way of getting through to me. It enlightens aspects of what I know about God, myself and the world in Christ.

Looking at the beauty in different cultures and religions is like looking at a beautiful sunset or marveling at the stars. All beauty can point us and lead us to greater understanding of God's truth BUT all truth must be challenged with the ultimate truth found ONLY in the bible, right? Do I hear an AMEN?

Can I ask you somewhat of a personal question, Doc? PLEASE don't take this as judgment or criticism or anything of that sort because it REALLY is not intended as that AT ALL.

Do you sometimes like to ruffle the feathers of us "fundamental" Christians? Do you sometimes like to stir the pot? I have sometimes wondered if you stir up controversy for serious fun or if you're totally serious?

One thing to be sure about you, Doc, you are an open minded open theist!

~Brandi~

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 8/3/2002 1:32 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Doc, since you did not respond yet I am hoping I didn't offend by my last post?

I agree with you that we can find beauty all around us and this beauty can lead us to God's truth (including the literature of other religions and cultures.) There are some lyrics on secular songs that have ministered to my soul quite a bit. My biggest concern with this though is that we challenge and test everything against the Word of God.

Humbly and hoping not having offended,
~Brandi~

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/3/2002 1:47 AM (GMT -6)

Yes Brandi, you greatly offended me!

You're almost as bad at Semeia in your callous bombardment of words daring to question me! You all know how sensitive I am.

HA HA HA CHOKE WHEEZE COUGH GURGLE HA HHA HA!!!!

I actually posted something from a friend's computer last night while visiting with them (oh the addiction!) but, oddly, it didn't seem to take. demons I supppose, heh?

For the record, I don't intentionally stir anyone up... certainly not fundamentalists. (okay, maybe a little) But I seem to nevertheless have a gift in this area.

If someone gets mad or cries fowl because a Christian finds something of value in another religious book, they are obviously presupposing that there is nothing of value -- only lies -- in all other religious and philosophical systems of thought. Everyone is TOTALLY wrong -- except them. wonderful.

Now, if they made their case after having studied all other religious and philosophical systems, and could argue it rationally, I'd give them a hearing. I've never seen anyone do this, however. This mindset usually is evidenced by people who know very little of other religious and philosophical systems. It is an incredibly arrogant and unfortunate position. It also harms the cause of Christ, for it reenforces the (largely justified) perception of evangelical Christians as narrow and arrogant.

If these folks are stirred... so be it.

I appreciate your openness and agree that everything must be tested against the Word.

Finally, to BJS -- I suggest you change your tag to "grasshopper"

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 8/3/2002 5:48 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
(okay, maybe a little)

SEROUSLY DOC?! A little? Compared to whom? Christ?
I have never seen anyone have as much fun as you do challenging the worldviews of others. Although done in, and with, great deal of humor, and certainly good will, you seriously have a lot of fun doing it, and convey very serious truths in the process.

-S

Though all men
Across the seas of this world
Are brothers,
Why do the wind and waves
Yet so resound? - Emperor Meiji

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 8/3/2002 5:50 AM (GMT -6)

An excerpt from Constructing a life philosophy by Schmidt, 2002.

“Our view of reality is like a map with which to negotiate the terrain of life. If the map is true and accurate, we will generally know where we are, and if we have decided where we want to go, we will generally know how to get there. If the map is false and inaccurate, we generally will be lost.”
“… if our maps are to be accurate we have to continually revise them. When we are children we are dependent, powerless. As adult we may be powerful. Yet in illness or an infirm old age we may become powerless and dependent again. When we have children to care for, the world looks different from when we have none; when we are raising infants, the world seems different from when we are raising adolescents. When we are poor, the world looks different from when we are rich. We are daily bombarded with new information as to the nature of reality. If we are to incorporate this information, we continually revise our maps, and sometimes when enough new information has accumulated, we must make very major revisions. The process of making revisions, particularly major revisions, is painful, sometimes excruciatingly painful. And herein lies the major source of many of the ills of mankind.” [or womankind]

“What happens when one has striven long and hard to develop a working view of the world, a seemingly useful, workable map, and then is confronted with new information suggesting that that view is wrong and the map needs to be largely redrawn? The painful effort required seems frightening, almost overwhelming. What we do more often than not, and usually unconsciously, is to ignore the new information. Often this act of ignoring is much more than passive. We may denounce the new information as false, dangerous, heretical, the work of the devil. We may actually crusade against it, and even attempt to manipulate the world so as to make it conform to our view of reality. Rather than trying to change the map, and individual may try to destroy the new reality. Sadly, such a person may expend much more energy ultimately in defending an outmoded view of the world than would have been required to revise and correct it in the first place.” (p.19)

-S

Though all men
Across the seas of this world
Are brothers,
Why do the wind and waves
Yet so resound? - Emperor Meiji

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 8/3/2002 5:51 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Relinquish the notion that you are separated from the all-knowing mind of the universe.
Then you can recover your original pure insight and see through all illusions.
Knowing nothing, you will be aware of everything.

Tell me oh wise one. When we are united with the all-knowing mind of the universe and the rest of reality is an illusion, are there people that are not united with the Mind? And if so are they illusions? And how do we know which ones are illusory and which ones aren’t?
-S

Though all men
Across the seas of this world
Are brothers,
Why do the wind and waves
Yet so resound? - Emperor Meiji

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 8/3/2002 9:08 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

For the record, I don't intentionally stir anyone up... certainly not fundamentalists. (okay, maybe a little) But I seem to nevertheless have a gift in this area.

If anyone has the time, what, briefly, is a fundamentalist?

Thanks,

Markus

Edited by - markus on 08/03/2002 2:09:50 PM

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 8/3/2002 5:01 PM (GMT -6)

According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology

Fundamentalism
The term fundamentalism is derived from the title of a series of booklets, The Fundamentals, published in the USA between 1910 and 1915. The Fundamentals referred to central elements of the traditional Christian teaching, such as the divinity of Jesus Christ, the second coming, heaven and hell, and the inspiration and authority of the scriptures.

As a specific movement fundamentalism is, however, not so much characterized by the authority which it attributes to the Bible and a literal interpretation of the biblical texts as it is by its claim of biblical inerrancy. Thus fundamentalist preachers often speak of the claims of the Bible as if the only acceptable response is assent, understood as assent to the truth, any other response being equated with disbelief. This approach to the scriptures does not take into consideration the variety of literary forms in which the “biblical message’ is phrased nor it it sufficiently attentive to the various modes of human discourse, principally the referential, the attitudinal and the performative.

Fundamentalism is basically an attitude whose major tenet is that the Bible is inerrant. Because of its insistence that the scriptures are the word of God, fundamentalism stands in radical opposition to Roman Catholicism, and the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, the former because of its insistence on ‘human’ tradition, the latter because it understands the scriptures as works of human literature.

-S

Edited by - Springs on 08/03/2002 10:02:43 PM

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 8/3/2002 5:04 PM (GMT -6)

Doc

quote:
I appreciate your openness and agree that everything must be tested against the Word

Thank you and I am delighted (and relieved) to hear that you agree that it ALL must be tested against the Word of God.

Have you thought about getting some help for that addiction? Using a friends computer during a visit is SERIOUS dependency don't ya think?

~Brandi~

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 8/3/2002 7:55 PM (GMT -6)

Markus

quote:
If anyone has the time, what, briefly, is a fundamentalist?

I'd like to share with you my personal reflections on the term "fundamentalist". Markus, on another thread we discussed the "roadtrip of life" analogy. So I want to use that analogy to share my understanding of fundamentalism.

On our road trip of life we have this map (the bible) which gives us the directions to our destiny. We may find many beautiful scenic views along the trip (beautiful literature including that of other world religions....) and we may stop to admire and appreciate this beauty BUT the map (the bible) is the guide we use to keep us on track to our final destination.

As much beauty as there is in other world religions and other literature I find that there is SO MUCH beauty to behold and grasp in the bible. Getting back to this thread I would like to offer a beautiful scripture found in Revelation 22:1-5 "1.Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2. down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever."

This "river of the water of life, as clear as crystal" is so breathtaking! I can almost see the clear crystal water flowing down the river as I read these words. There is so much beauty found in the genre used in much of the bible!

~Brandi~

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 8/3/2002 8:30 PM (GMT -6)

Thankyou, Springs, for your reply. I wanted to be sure what we are talking about here as I was struggling with these two statements from Dr Boyd:

quote:

For the record, I don't intentionally stir anyone up... certainly not fundamentalists. (okay, maybe a little) But I seem to nevertheless have a gift in this area.

quote:

I ....agree that everything must be tested against the Word.

If by fundamentalists we were referring to those who believe in the Bible's inerrancy, then these two statements appeared to work in opposing directions - challenging those that believe fully in the Bible and yet running to the Bible oneself to validate any claims originating from elsewhere.

However, if one means by fundamentalist those that:

quote:

... speak of the claims of the Bible as if the only acceptable response is assent, understood as assent to the truth, any other response being equated with disbelief.

then I guess we are really only referring to those who are adamant about their own personal understanding of the Bible, to the exclusion of everyone else's - but that is surely not really so much "fundamentalism" as being overly dogmatic and rigid about one's own narrow viewpoint.

The Bible tells us clearly that Jesus will send us the Spirit of Truth, and I guess everyone agrees there is only one Absolute Truth. Therefore the fact that so many people have so many differing views about faith matters suggests that much of what we talk about is not, in fact, inspired by the Spirit - even though many think it of themselves, and would have us think so, too.

There are possibly two explanations for this. First, by being adamant proponents and followers of our own "truth", we actually inhibit or block further enlightenment by the Spirit, or, secondly, many topics about which we hold diverse opinions are not actually important enough to be of concern to the Spirit - the Spirit being more concerned with the authenticity of our core faith than with our ability to score well in intellectual debate.

...so I guess those blinkered folk, whom I believe we are referring to, who are prisoners of their own interpretation are not really, truly, "fundamentalists", are they?

I have been pondering over the above issue (probably unnecessarily) as I wanted to grasp the real value of studying other religions. It seems to me there are several basic possible "fundamental" assumptions here:

1) The Bible is not entirely correct and therefore the real truth about some matters can only be found elsewhere - and is therefore lost to those who only study the Bible.

2) The Bible does not offer the whole truth, only some of it. Therefore more truth is available elsewhere - and is therefore lost to those who only study the Bible.

3) The Bible is written in such a manner that it is impossible to discern the real Truth from it without also gaining further enlightenment from other religious sources - and is therefore unaccessible to those who restrict their study to the Bible.

4)That God has not just revealed Himself to Christians, but to all mankind in many different ways, and that other religions can give us even greater insight into the nature of our God through their own regilious development - which, in turn, deepens and sharpens our own understanding of God through the Bible.

I only really like the last option, and I guess that is why we spend so much money on books written by other people, whether Christian or otherwise! But I would like to think that such exploratory forages into other religions is a side issue to core, Christ-like, study of the Bible and is constantly compared with the Bible, and always rejected where contradictory. That such study seeks complementary enhancement to Biblical understanding and not a viable alternative. I would think it also wise to restrict such adventures to the other great, established, religions of the world? (or does this exclude other truths?

Otherwise there is a great risk of, at minimum, wasting valuable time, or at worst, being led astray into all kinds of cult or personality by-ways.

I DO believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but I also believe my understanding of the Bible is still very immature - and that my lack of grasping of the Truth is a fault in me not in the Bible. But I hope that the fact that I do believe in the

quote:

central elements of the traditional Christian teaching, such as the divinity of Jesus Christ, the second coming, heaven and hell, and the inspiration and authority of the scriptures

and have not read much of other, especially eastern religions, does not automatically put me in an

quote:

....incredibly arrogant and unfortunate position. It also harms the cause of Christ, for it reenforces the (largely justified) perception of evangelical Christians as narrow and arrogant.

I guess, since my beliefs are boringly traditional, I would be classified by many as a "Fundamentalist". I am also classified by many as "close-minded" just because I don't instantly get ecstatic and throw my traditional beliefs away every time some new popular angle comes along.

I am a great believer in looking for all ways to see God in an ever-expanding light, and would not exclude many additional avenues to Bible study - but I do have a sneaky suspicion that, when all the study is done, we will find the same God there, where He has always been, and as we have known Him all along - at least to the extent to which we have actually permitted ourselves to know Him....

Markus

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 8/3/2002 9:17 PM (GMT -6)

Dear Brandi,

Your post appeared whilst I was writing my previous post. Many thanks for your thoughts - which I appreciate and agree with (not that my agreement bears any significance!!)

I also find much of the Bible beautifully written, and other parts written with great passion - and some statements are written with such stark simplicity, that their truth is revealed simply through their brevity and punch.

But in essence, I like your description of stopping off to admire the views and explore the scenery for a while - it can only help in appreciating the value of the main route. For we surely must all have a main route, a clear destination, otherwise we are just aimlessly lost. It is just that sometimes the signposts along our route can be misleading, missing or smothered in graffiti - and then it is maybe also sensible to stand still for a while and take a good look around and gain one's bearings before moving on...

I don't believe God has rejected any person or nation outright. I also don't believe that all non-Christians are automatically God-rejects. But I am inclined to believe that God is only directly revealed through Christ to those who believe and become slaves to Him. To others He remains a distant figure that can only be guessed at second-hand through the imagery in the world around them and through their minds. I also believe there are many good hearts amongst non-Christians.

For these reasons, I do accept that there exist great insights of the nature of God and humanity amongst other religions that can make our journey more valuable and rewarding. But it is only those pebbles of wisdom that we choose to put in our pockets that have an inner significance, the rest is just scenery.

Souvenirs along the way, if you will, like strings from our minds reaching back to precious moments of insight. Strings we can sit and pull upon in quiet reflection, recalling those key moments of sudden enlightenment as we took a little leap forward in understanding - no matter what the source.

Maybe they are just words, as foolish as all man's words, but, like the travel souvenirs on our mantlepiece, it's not their material content that comprise their value, but the personal spiritual panorama to which they form the unique key.

Maybe also, at times, these souvenirs and photos we collect along the way are not so important at the time of acquisition as later, once the pace has slowed, when we have time to look back. And then we may find that where we have actually been has a big part in understanding where we are actually going.

Thanks once again for your help!

Markus

pouringagape
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 28

Posted 8/4/2002 2:41 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Brandi,

I love those verses too! [did you know that?

]

peace and love,
pouring

John 17:11 And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me , so that they may be one, as we are one.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/4/2002 10:52 AM (GMT -6)

Though the ORIGIN of "fundamentalism" had to do with people who believe "the fundamentals" of the faith, it has become a word denoting not so much WHAT one believes, but HOW one believes. It denotes someone who believes things in a narrow, dogmatic, irrational, intolerant and usually angry way. Thus in popular culture we speak not only of Christian "fundamentalists" but also of Muslim, Sikh fundamentalists.

Good question Markus.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/10/2002 10:23 AM (GMT -6)

When the Tao was lost, there was virtue;
When virtue was lost, there was benevolence;
When benevolence was lost, there was rectitude;
When recitude was lost, there were rules of propriety.
Propritety is a wearing thin of loyalty and good faith,
And the beginning of disorder.
Tao Te Ching 38

Comment: The Tao is the natural way. Lao Tzu had the profound intuition that virtue -- achieving competency at practicing ethical principles -- represents a break from the Tao. Though it is praise as the most excellent thing by most, and though it is not evil, Lao Tzu saw the striving for virtue as a result of a fall. When virtue is lost, we practice benevolence. This might mean we are gracious toward those who, for lack of virtue, commit vice. Again, this is good, but a result of a twofold fall (from the Tao and from virtue). When benevolence is lost, we practice rectitude. I think Lao Tzu has in mind legal arrangments to compensate for losses. We need lawyers because of a threefoldl fall. When this is lost, we practice propriety. I think Lao Tzu has in mind here the Confucian rules of proper behavior that are to govern all people. The legal mindset of rectitude has now been expanded to cover all human behavior, and it is the result of a fourfold fall.

Disorder arises from propriety, in Lao Tzu's understnading, because the imposition of external rules of conduct creates opposition to these rules, just like a bridle on a horse creates resistance. He thinks it is against nature.

One thinks of Romans 7.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

seeker35
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 25

Posted 8/21/2002 2:34 AM (GMT -6)

anyone here ever read the Tao of Pooh? i know, sounds silly. but it's simple, like me. here is a quote I would like to share, regardless..

...some of us were discussing the Great Masters of Wisdom, and someone was saying how all of them came from the East, and I was saying that some of them didn’t, but he was going on and on, just like this sentence, not paying any attention, when I decided to read a quotation of Wisdom from the West, to prove that there was more to the world than one half, and I read:

“When you wake up in the morning, Pooh,” said Piglet at last, “what’s the first thing you say to yourself?”

“What’s for breakfast?” said Pooh. “What do you say, Piglet?”

“I say, I wonder what’s going to happen exciting today?” said Piglet.

Pooh nodded thoughtfully. “It’s the same thing,” he said.

“What’s that?” the Unbeliever asked.

“Wisdom from a Western Taoist,” I said.

“It sounds like something from Winnie-the-Pooh,” he said.

“It is,” I said. “That’s not about Taoism,” he said.

“Oh, yes it is,” I said.

“No, it’s not,” he said.

“What do you think it’s about?” I said.

“It’s about this dumpy little bear that wanders around asking silly questions, making up songs, and going through all kinds of adventures, without ever accumulating any amount of intellectual knowledge or losing his simpleminded sort of happiness. That’s what it’s about,” he said.

“Same thing,” I said.

...We go inside and ask to be shown something allegorical—something humorous, perhaps, but with some sort of Timeless Meaning. The shopkeeper smiles. I have just the thing,” he tells us, “A copy of The Vinegar Tasters!”

...We see three men standing around a vat of vinegar. Each has dipped his finger into the vinegar and has tasted it. The expression on each man’s face shows his individual reaction. Since the painting is allegorical, we are to understand that these are no ordinary vinegar tasters, but are instead representatives of the “Three Teachings” of China, and that the vinegar they are sampling represents the Essence of Life. The three masters are K’ung Fu-tse (Confucius), Buddha, and Lao-tse, author of the oldest existing book of Taoism. The first has a sour look on his face, the second wears a bitter expression, but the third man is smiling.

To K’ung Fu-tse (kung FOOdsuh), life seemed rather sour. He believed that the present was out of step with the past, and that the government of man on earth was out of harmony with the Way of Heaven, the government of the universe. Therefore, he emphasized reverence for the Ancestors, as well as for the ancient rituals and ceremonies in which the emperor, as the Son of Heaven, acted as intermediary between limitless heaven and limited earth.

...To Buddha, the second figure in the painting, life on earth was bitter, filled with attachments and desires that led to suffering. The world was seen as a setter of traps, a generator of illusions, a revolving wheel of pain for all creatures. In order to find peace, the Buddhist considered it necessary to transcend “the world of dust” and reach Nirvana, literally a state of “no wind.”

...To Lao-tse (LAOdsuh), the harmony that naturally existed between heaven and earth from the very beginning could be found by anyone at any time, but not by following the rules of the Confucianists. As he stated in his Tao Te Ching (DAO DEH JEENG), the “Tao Virtue Book,” earth was in essence a reflection of heaven, run by the same laws—not by the laws of men. These laws affected not only the spinning of distant planets, but the activities of the birds in the forest and the fish in the sea. According to Lao-tse, the more man interfered with the natural balance produced and governed by the universal laws, the further away the harmony retreated into the distance. The more forcing, the more trouble.
--not saying i agree with it All, but, i think there is some important truth here. even for a Christian. that's all.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/27/2002 2:47 PM (GMT -6)

Burton Watson on Chuang Tzu (from the introduction to “Chuang Tzu – Basic Writings”)

If man would once forsake his habit of labeling things good or bad, desirable or undesirable, then the man-made ills, which are the product of man’s purposeful and value-ridden actions, would disappear and the natural ills that remain would no longer be seen as ills, but as an inevitable part of the course of life. Thus, in Chuang Tzu’s eyes, man is the author of his own suffering and bondage, and all his fears spring from the web of values created by himself alone.

Iconoclast

The problem of "Natural Evil" only arises from the stolen knowledge of good and evil. Free-will human beings are the ONLY creators of actual evil on this earth. To get rid of our own stolen knowledge of good and evil IS to change our "field of interpretants" - our logic for interpreting events and thus THE ACTUAL MEANING of said events - such that we now see clearly that these same "Natural evil" events are not evil at all but rather an integral part of life.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 8/27/2002 3:40 PM (GMT -6)

Icon,

quote:
The problem of "Natural Evil" only arises from the stolen knowledge of good and evil. Free-will human beings are the ONLY creators of actual evil on this earth. To get rid of our own stolen knowledge of good and evil IS to change our "field of interpretants" - our logic for interpreting events and thus THE ACTUAL MEANING of said events - such that we now see clearly that these same "Natural evil" events are not evil at all but rather an integral part of life.

I would agree, but, of course, you know that some interesting implications regarding theodicy come with this idea. I know that some people think that Doc's idea of "natural evil" may be far fetched...it is the ONLY one to date, I believe, that really tries to tackle the problems brought up by people like David Ray Griffin, about a significantly UNILATERALLY efficacious God in th world and the existence of a nature "red in tooth and claw" I do think Doc understands that JUST dealing with "moral evil" is vastly inadequate...as he realizes that even the combinations of the free will defense AND soul-making ideas don't really get God off the hook. It would be interesting to try to understand why God would bother sometimes using EXTRAORDINARY MEANS to save certain individuals from more "natural evil" aspects of life. Wouldn't it be BETTER for God to ALWAYS allow humans (and animals) to experience the "fields of force" (ala Cobb) of such an "intergral part of life"? Hmmmm... Perhaps you REEEEEEEEALY oughta check out being a process theist. You may like it....

Holla,

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/28/2002 4:16 AM (GMT -6)

Icon: Free-will human beings are the ONLY creators of actual evil on this earth. To get rid of our own stolen knowledge of good and evil IS to change our "field of interpretants" - our logic for interpreting events and thus THE ACTUAL MEANING of said events - such that we now see clearly that these same "Natural evil" events are not evil at all but rather an integral part of life.

Doc: Hold on here buddy. Seems to me, Icon, that if you accept that people should "forsake [their] habit of labeling things good or bad, desirable or undesirable," then you couldn’t even say that HUMANS do any evil. But this aside, once you GRANT that humans can do evil, there’s nothing in the logic of your system that would prevent you from affirming that spirits can do evil. Denying the existence spirits is a metaphysical assumption that is not intrinsic to Taoism. Indeed, Taoists have almost uniformly affirmed the existence of spirits.

For my part, I don’t see how certain "natural evils" are "an integral part of life." Nor do I see any reason why we should adopt this conclusion. On the surface, the primary difference between a man who murders a child and luekemia that kills a child is that we can physically identify the human murderer. If we grant that the murder is evil, there’s no reason to accept that the "natural" death is not.

I agree that it is our "stolen knowledge" that leads us to distinguish between good and evil. But now that the world is fallen – now that we’re strapped with this knowledge, I don’t think that distinguishing between good and evil is a misapplication of this knowledge. PLAYING JUDGE IS a misapplication. If one insists that the very distinguishing between good and evil is wrong (an evil?), then it would apply both to humans and to spirits.

What do you think?

Blessings
Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/28/2002 4:18 AM (GMT -6)

To Seeker: Welcome aboard. Great to have you. YES I read the Tao of Pooh many years ago and found it delightful and insightful!

To Meph: Thanks for the compliment.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 8/28/2002 4:34 AM (GMT -6)

Doc said:

quote:
I agree that it is our "stolen knowledge" that leads us to distinguish between good and evil. But now that the world is fallen – now that we’re strapped with this knowledge, I don’t think that distinguishing between good and evil is a misapplication of this knowledge. PLAYING JUDGE IS a misapplication.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. This, I believe, is the proper way to handle the knowledge of good and evil. To the extent that Bonhoeffer agrees with this, I agree with him. My discomfort with his stuff, and some of the interpretation of his stuff here on the board is directly related to my concern that Bon (perhaps unintentionally, since "Ethics" was an unfinished manuscript) implied that the very categories of good and evil were to be rejected.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/28/2002 4:55 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Doc said: I agree that it is our "stolen knowledge" that leads us to distinguish between good and evil. But now that the world is fallen – now that we’re strapped with this knowledge, I don’t think that distinguishing between good and evil is a misapplication of this knowledge. PLAYING JUDGE IS a misapplication.

and

quote:
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. This, I believe, is the proper way to handle the knowledge of good and evil. To the extent that Bonhoeffer agrees with this, I agree with him. My discomfort with his stuff, and some of the interpretation of his stuff here on the board is directly related to my concern that Bon (perhaps unintentionally, since "Ethics" was an unfinished manuscript) implied that the very categories of good and evil were to be rejected.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

WOW!!!

Doth my eyes decieve me?

I am with Brett and Greg's statement 200%!

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

Edited by - BBBCanada on 08/28/2002 09:57:40 AM

54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:15 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual