Text and Tradition

Originally posted by vistesd
There’s only one reason people don’t come into alignment with the Tao—because their minds are clouded by illusion, especially the illusion of a non-transient individual ego-self. What they fail to understand is that if they let go of their illusions, they can live in clarity and trueness. If one does not live by the Tao, one will remain lost in illusion. ...[text shortened]... e in error.

The Tao is the way. It is the only true way. How do I know this? By the Tao.

Pray tell what is 'truth' as defined by the Tao?

And what has the Tao done to demonstrate that he/she/it has the right to make an absolute truth claim, and that it even deserves consideration?

Originally posted by vistesd
There’s only one reason people don’t come into alignment with the Tao—because their minds are clouded by illusion, especially the illusion of a non-transient individual ego-self. What they fail to understand is that if they let go of their illusions, they can live in clarity and trueness. If one does not live by the Tao, one will remain lost in illusion. ...[text shortened]... e in error.

The Tao is the way. It is the only true way. How do I know this? By the Tao.

Point taken. And you would have every right to believe in the Tao, if you so choose. However, the Tao is not a person. The Tao is not transferable to biblical scripture, because the bible's salvation requires belief in 'the only begotten Son of God', who is a person (Jesus). You will probably want to counter with the Logos argument: that Jesus Christ merely stands for the Logos, and the Logos is just another word for Tao. But Jesus, the man himself, is inseparable from the Logos, that is, you cannot have one without the other. Yes, there is no confusion between the two, but they (Jesus and the Logos) are still nevertheless inseparable. So the bible's claim on salvation remains radically different from the 'salvation' from illusion found in the Tao. EDIT: In that, the only way to salvation is through a person; a man.

Originally posted by vistesd
Nevertheless, I think I understand what you’re saying, and I would also say that the process can be iterative. I think we might both end up affirming the same kind of iteration between two kinds of knowing.

That's presuming your axiom is correct, that the iterative claims of two different belief systems are 'knowing' the same Truth. This may bring us to a logical impasse within its own universe of discourse, but were we to try inverting the axiomatic lens, we would be forced to prove scriptural claims by their means; i.e. that not all claims to Truth are linguistically interchangable; e. g. only one claim on Truth is the right one. Since you've admitted to having no certainty as to what God is, and admitted that only divine revelation can impart the deepest mysteries of God's actual existence as God, then you have only one of two options: remain unconvinced by and perpetually aloof from all revelatory books, or choose one of them. If you don't choose one, then that's that, but if you do choose one, then the question remains: which one is the Truth? Since you have no means to know the Mystery of God outside of revealed knowledge and faith in that knowledge, this is your only recourse.

EDIT: I'd like to see you use logic to make that kind of choice. 🙂

EDIT: In the end, only God has the power to impart faith in Jesus Christ. 'I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion...'

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Exactly. 'The Light' is Christ. And there's only one reason people don't 'come to the light'--because their deeds are evil and they fear exposure. What they fail to understand is that if they repent for their evil deeds, Christ will forgive them and clothe them in His light, so they may live by the truth. But the Gospel requires obedience, and that's s not give glory to God. One is God-righteous, while the other is self-righteous.

I suggest you actually read Matthew 25:31-46 rather than rely on Fundie crib notes. Jesus specifcally says what is required for salvation and those are described in representative deeds and that is the key difference between the "goats and sheep" (in fact, the ONLY difference).

Originally posted by no1marauder
I suggest you actually read Matthew 25:31-46 rather than rely on Fundie crib notes. Jesus specifcally says what is required for salvation and those are described in representative deeds and that is the key difference between the "goats and sheep" (in fact, the ONLY difference).

Fundie cribe notes? No, how about John 3:16-19. 🙂 Those aren't crib notes; that's the word of God.

Hey, if you want to believe good deeds get you to heaven, feel free. I won't stop you. But I assure you, the two scriptures aren't mutually exclusive.

Let's agree to disagree.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Pray tell what is 'truth' as defined by the Tao?

And what has the Tao done to demonstrate that he/she/it has the right to make an absolute truth claim, and that it even deserves consideration?

As Holy Week approaches, you are sounding a lot like Pilate.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
That's presuming your axiom is correct, that the iterative claims of two different belief systems are 'knowing' the same Truth. This may bring us to a logical impasse within its own universe of discourse, but were we to try inverting the axiomatic lens, we would be forced to prove scriptural claims by their means; i.e. that not all claims to Truth are l art faith in Jesus Christ. 'I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion...'

...and admitted that only divine revelation can impart the deepest mysteries of God's actual existence as God...

Ah, but only with respect to the posited God of dualistic theism.

And don’t forget: I dispute your claims to certainty as well; I do not claim that confidence is invalid, however.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Fundie cribe notes? No, how about John 3:16-19. 🙂 Those aren't crib notes; that's the word of God.

Hey, if you want to believe good deeds get you to heaven, feel free. I won't stop you. But I assure you, the two scriptures aren't mutually exclusive.

Let's agree to disagree.

But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants."

And what does God want? See Matthew 25. Not a mere belief, but acts. The two scriptures aren't exclusive, but your reading of them is simply wrong.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Point taken. And you would have every right to believe in the Tao, if you so choose. However, the Tao is not a person. The Tao is not transferable to biblical scripture, because the bible's salvation requires belief in 'the only begotten Son of God', who is a person (Jesus). You will probably want to counter with the Logos argument: that Jesus on found in the Tao. EDIT: In that, the only way to salvation is through a person; a man.

Point taken.

Of course, the point also then has to be taken on this side of the net...

With regard to Logos and Tao—I will; grant that you don’t have to read very far into the intro in John’s Gospel before that distinction is made. John basically takes a prior ands very rich term (sometimes I like it better than Tao), and makes the Christian transition.

With regard to non-duality, I don’t speak of my experiences much on here, and always with caution, but I too do that iteration—and if I were to parse it more carefully, perhaps, I might say that the experience is that of, among other things, non-separability. Other than that, I find that I can only attempt to say something of it in poetic metaphor—and poets generally hate to dice out and explain their metaphors...

EDIT: “Universe of Discourse”—I see we have both been imbibing from the Good Doctor. Yes, that is a helpful term here.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Pray tell what is 'truth' as defined by the Tao?

And what has the Tao done to demonstrate that he/she/it has the right to make an absolute truth claim, and that it even deserves consideration?

To discover that is to discover bliss.

The Tao has done everything as it is everything (and nothing as well).

Originally posted by dj2becker
Pray tell what is 'truth' as defined by the Tao?

And what has the Tao done to demonstrate that he/she/it has the right to make an absolute truth claim, and that it even deserves consideration?

Wrong question sonny boy, you should ask "Where did Christ get his pacifist attitude from? ". Certainly , he didn't get it from the OT's Big Daddy god.

Originally posted by no1marauder
But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants."

And what does God want? See Matthew 25. Not a mere belief, but acts. The two scriptures aren't exclusive, but your reading of them is simply wrong.

If the two scriptures aren't mutually exclusive, as you say, then you must take the Christian position which I am professing: belief in Jesus Christ and obedience to Jesus Christ go hand in hand. Up until now you were saying only works were necessary to stumble into heaven. Why change your tune all of sudden?

Regarding the good deeds/works issue you were up until recently championing, consider these passages:

"They replied, “We want to perform God’s works, too. What should we do?” Jesus told them, “This is the only work God wants from you: Believe in the one he has sent" (John 3:28-29).

"And since it is through God’s kindness, then it is not by their good works. For in that case, God’s grace would not be what it really is—free and undeserved" (Romans 11:6).

"I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die" (Galatians 2:21).

"For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace. But we who live by the Spirit eagerly wait to receive by faith the righteousness God has promised to us" (Galatians 5:4-5).

Believing in Jesus Christ is not 'mere belief', or 'merely' anything. You falsely assume that faith can just be conjured at will. But faith is a gift of grace bestowed by God, through His power, and not 'merely' an arbitrary decision or choice:

"God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God" (Ephesians 2:8)

Originally posted by vistesd
EDIT: “Universe of Discourse”—I see we have both been imbibing from the Good Doctor. Yes, that is a helpful term here.

I thought you'd like that. 🙂

Originally posted by epiphinehas
If the two scriptures aren't mutually exclusive, as you say, then you must take the Christian position which I am professing: belief in Jesus Christ and obedience to Jesus Christ go hand in hand. Up until now you were saying only works were necessary to stumble into heaven. Why change your tune all of sudden?

Regarding the good deeds/works issue you ...[text shortened]... ved. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God" (Ephesians 2:8)

I don't pay much attention to Paul's words, so you might as well stop quoting them. He never even met Jesus and certainly his words shouldn't be taken as more authoritative on Christianity than Jesus'. Whether you are espousing the "Christian position" i.e. the position that Christ took - is what is being debated - you still haven't bothered to give any interpretation that deals with the specific words of Jesus in Matthew 25.

I'll be back after I look at John 3 in context.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]...and admitted that only divine revelation can impart the deepest mysteries of God's actual existence as God...

Ah, but only with respect to the posited God of dualistic theism.

And don’t forget: I dispute your claims to certainty as well; I do not claim that confidence is invalid, however.[/b]

Ah, but only with respect to the posited God of dualistic theism.

No, as I recall, you admitted that you could not be 100% sure of your non-dualist axiom, since the possibility exists of revelatory knowledge trumping your original assertions about God; or at least fill in certain blanks where inscrutable mystery resides. (I may be wrong about this, though.)

And don’t forget: I dispute your claims to certainty as well; I do not claim that confidence is invalid, however.

I don't claim to have intellectual certainty about God. I know what the bible tells me, but that is a matter of faith-knowledge and nothing ascertained through the use of intellect. Whatever assurance I have as to the truth of God's word is the work of the Lord and I can claim no credit for it. As I recently quoted in my 'argument' with no1marauder:

"God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God" (Ephesians 2:8).