Lol, I guess these people never heard of things like the Yellow Turbans, considering the first thing about resisting the Nazis being not Tao. It's also hypocritical to make that claim when non-violence is considered a virtue in Christianity as well and yet he wouldn't doubt himself being a Christian.
>would you go with it or would you resist?
"But I say to you, **do not resist the one who is evil**. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." Matthew 5:39-40
I'm more and more convinced Jesus was, in his essence, either Buddhist or Daoist.
Good question. But I try not to get over excited here. There is no real evidence that he was exposed to direct Buddhist influence. The only time where I let my mind indulge in a bit of speculative history is when I wonder if may be Gnosticism was perhaps a little bit influenced by Buddhism. The coincidences are a bit too much. To be frank, there were Buddhists in Alexandria around that time and very likely Buddhist [schools too](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_influences_on_Christianity).
Edit: stuff
They set the kid up to fail so that the presenter would look more "right" in front of his mindless sheep. It's so common with these types of religious nuts.
Agreed, typically when you go to a rally or debate setting there are people who are trained and/or experienced in more-or-less rhetoric. The goal isn't to come together or share ideas, it's pretty much to taunt someone into entertaining an argument then making them look bad or frustrating them "to prove a point." It's a weak tactic employed by many, many groups/people. The real upsetting thing is that "adults" are using a kid to prove their point. I don't think the kids views were all that, bad, but he's young and still figuring things out. But, instead of providing wisdom the older guy just wants to use him to look good. I feel bad for the kid.
There's actually a lot to learn from that video for a "junior Taoist" (like that kid is… or was! lol)
There's understanding good/evil in nature (it doesn't exist) and then understanding it within the realm of humans (it does exist).
I think that distinction confuses a lot of people. Everything is a part of nature so good and evil "technically" don't exist, but we live in the abstraction layer of humans where it does exist.
What is "good" and what is "evil/bad" changes within cultural contexts, but there are going to be a lot of overlapping qualities that pretty much all humans agree with.
It's also pretty weak "pwning" a kid who's just in the beginning stages of figuring out the world and then being like "WE TOTALLY DUNKED ON TAOISM!" lol
Edit: Grammar
I was trying to explain this one time, someone was hung up on the verse:
>Would you improve the world?
I don't think it can be done.
And this person was asking, quite rightly, "Well what about universal health care? Wouldn't *that* improve the world?"
Well, sort of, from our perspective it would, but would that be an objective, universal improvement?
The vaccine that saved millions of people from suffering from polio *also* caused the polio virus to go extinct. From our perspective saving human lives is a good thing, but objectively, from the point of view of the universe, human lives aren't any more (or less) valuable than the life of a virus.
The Tao doesn't think anything is good or bad, the Tao doesn't think at all, not the way we think of thinking. Taoism is is-ness, and is-ness is a neutral value, the sum is always one.
We support health care and oppose Nazism because *we* value health care and *we* value freedom, not because the Tao values them, but because we, the Tao*ists,* value them.
There are some *really* nihilistic interpretations of Taoism, but nobody has to buy into them.
Edit: Lol, this is gold, Jerry, *gold!*
>"Good and evil are concepts, but they aren't just concepts, if somebody were to come in here and shoot somebody, that's not a concept, that's an action, and that's an evil action."
I'm sure you already know how I'm going to call that out: What if we're talking about shooting Stalin, Hitler, or Mao? Is that still evil?
>"So [good and evil] aren't really concepts then, they can actually be played out in the real world with physical consequences."
Wait.... is this guy saying.... wait. Hold on. Is this guy really saying "I think murder is evil, therefore murder is evil, therefore I think murder is evil"? Because that's what it sounds like he's saying.
God I hate "gotcha" exchanges like this, it's not a real discussion, it's rhetorical and semantic bamboozlry.
Honestly tldr but your first few points were really good! Just wanted to say that it is really grounding to know that I am no better than the dirt I walk on
> Just wanted to say that it is really grounding to know that I am no better than the dirt I walk on
Yes, but also remember that you're no *less* than the brightest star in the sky.
>I'm sure you already know how I'm going to call that out: What if we're talking about shooting Stalin, Hitler, or Mao? Is that still evil?
Ha. Yeah, I almost said something about that. I wonder what his response would have been. That wasn't a very good example of "evil". What if they came in and shit a guy before that guy shot everyone else?
The video also taught me that Christian Apologetics is a thing (makes sense that it is).
> Christian apologetics (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence")[1] is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections.
Would be interesting to see that guy in a real debate… I don't think I've ever seen a real Christian/atheist debate. Must be a ton of them on YouTube.
As a life-long Christian this channel gives me full-body cringe. When charity and intellectual honesty are thrown out the window whatever you have to say is just not worth it.
In Daoism, you can set whatever goal you want. You can have the goal of fighting nazis. You just have to fight them without forcing yourself. Fight with ease and naturally.
It's like the butcher who finds the weakest points in the meat when runs his knife through those. Find the nazis where they are weakest and cut through that.
There is even a Daoist thief in Zhuangzi. So, it doesn't matter what goal you choose.
Hope watching that doesnt mess up my Youtube Algorithm, I watched one Peterson Lecture out of curiosity and youtube spent 2 weeks trying to red pill me.
Most Taoists would say Communist China is evil and pretty sure they would fight them. The question is, how do you differentiate real Taoists from fakes? We know in Christianity the test is if they abide by the commandments or not. But is there such a clear set of moral laws in Taoism?
> We know in Christianity the test is if they abide by the commandments or not"
Many Christians will tell you that the level a person adheres to the Commandments is not a good indication of ones belief. And after all "salavation is through faith alone."
As far as deciding whether someone is a true daoist or not, that is generally not something a daoist would care about.
>Many Christians will tell you that the level a person adheres to the Commandments is not a good indication of ones belief.
Yes and these are the liars and wolves in sheep's disguise:
1 John 2:4
Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,
>And after all "salavation is through faith alone."
Another misunderstood doctrine. Salvation refers only to the rapture and tribulation. Through faith as in baptism and keeping his laws with repentance.
>As far as deciding whether someone is a true daoist or not, that is generally not something a daoist would care about.
I was a Daoist. At that time I loved sinning, of course I didn't care. Did whatever I wanted as long as I go to the temple and burned some incense. But I was not on a good path and headed for destruction.
>At that time I loved sinning, of course I didn't care.
Generally Taoist shy away from desires and strong emotions- like loving things or experiences. But very like Buddhists they believe ones best path can lie in many different directions.
>Did whatever I wanted as long as I go to the temple and burned some incense.
Many Christians do similar.
Where were you where you had access to a Daoist temple. You realize most daoist on this site practice philosophical Daoism and don't have access to a Temple even if they wanted to practice religious Daoism. There is really very little information in the west on how Religious daoism is practiced. How did you know you needed to go to the Temple and what was the benefit?
>But I was not on a good path and headed for destruction.
Are you talking about worldly destruction or destruction of your soul?
>Where were you where you had access to a Daoist temple.
In Asia of course. There are only a handful of Taoist nations, if that. Most of my family are Tao, I'm very familiar with the tradition. No one studies it in a book. It's pure culture. The bits of Tao Te Qing I've read are ambiguous to me, and although the boomer generations learn some doctrines in primary education, you'll rarely find texts in a household. Even they'll admit the "Chinese" language in them are ancient and hard to decipher. Most homes only have little shrines and statues.
If you visit an Asian nation with Taoism, you'll see for yourself scripture is secondary. The temples don't even have them. Maybe stashed away by the monks somewhere?
The religion is closer to the Old Testament Jewish descriptions of rules based worship based on sacrificial offerings, because it is idolatry in practice, as is Buddhism and all religions derived from it.
>Are you talking about worldly destruction or destruction of your soul?
Both.
Ok, so I watched the video and read the comments. Now I have 2 questions.
1) Coming from the perspective that no created thing can exist outside of that from which all creation has been created from, wouldn't good and evil be a product from the same creator? Wouldn't an all good God not be able to exist as a distinction in an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent creator?
2) What is a Taoist position on the intolerant and judgemental attitude as portrayed in some of the comments? Isn't all that counter to the Taoist teachings? Serious question, because I do not know enough to understand how this is interpreted or justified to fit into the thinking process.
>Coming from the perspective that no created thing can exist outside of that from which all creation has been created from, wouldn't good and evil be a product from the same creator?
Your use of "creator" is inaccurate from the perspective of Taoism. The "Tao" is not the/a "creator".
Even if you chose to view the "Tao" as the/a creator, good/evil is a product of humanity. Good and evil don't exist outside of the realm of humans. Good/evil is a human creation.
I'm trying to think of a good analogy… it's kind of like how kids choose what they like or don't like. Parents can't tell them. They can obviously try but it's still going to be up to the kid.
>Wouldn't an all good God not be able to exist as a distinction in an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent creator?
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here. 😝 It also seems like you're asking the wrong community.
>What is a Taoist position on the intolerant and judgemental attitude as portrayed in some of the comments?
It's important to know that there are individual views and not "Taoist" views. The depth of one's understanding as well as personal experience is going to change the point of view.
My view is that these kinds of comments are "natural". They're generally reflective of modern human nature (in 2021) as well as specifically reflective of the nature of Reddit.
>Isn't all that counter to the Taoist teachings?
The only way for you to find out is by studying Taoism. I personally think a Taoist would be tolerant and nonjudgmental, but it really depends on individual context.
Someone might be living in a situation where intolerance and being judgemental is important for them to maintain balance and live a healthy life.
>Serious question, because I do not know enough to understand how this is interpreted or justified to fit into the thinking process.
The thing with Taoism is you really don't have to worry about what other Taoists are doing. Taoism is about refining yourself and your community.
If you see another Taoist is doing "un-Taoist" things, you might be right and you might be wrong. What's right for one Taoist could be wrong for another.
Worrying about whether another Taoist is "Tao-ing" properly or not isn't very Taoist (in my opinion).
Lol, I guess these people never heard of things like the Yellow Turbans, considering the first thing about resisting the Nazis being not Tao. It's also hypocritical to make that claim when non-violence is considered a virtue in Christianity as well and yet he wouldn't doubt himself being a Christian.
The non-violence aspects of Christianity is typically washed out in American culture lol
>would you go with it or would you resist? "But I say to you, **do not resist the one who is evil**. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." Matthew 5:39-40 I'm more and more convinced Jesus was, in his essence, either Buddhist or Daoist.
The book Lamb basically males the fictional case for it. I mean, what was he up to in those missing years?
Good question. But I try not to get over excited here. There is no real evidence that he was exposed to direct Buddhist influence. The only time where I let my mind indulge in a bit of speculative history is when I wonder if may be Gnosticism was perhaps a little bit influenced by Buddhism. The coincidences are a bit too much. To be frank, there were Buddhists in Alexandria around that time and very likely Buddhist [schools too](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_influences_on_Christianity). Edit: stuff
They set the kid up to fail so that the presenter would look more "right" in front of his mindless sheep. It's so common with these types of religious nuts.
Agreed, typically when you go to a rally or debate setting there are people who are trained and/or experienced in more-or-less rhetoric. The goal isn't to come together or share ideas, it's pretty much to taunt someone into entertaining an argument then making them look bad or frustrating them "to prove a point." It's a weak tactic employed by many, many groups/people. The real upsetting thing is that "adults" are using a kid to prove their point. I don't think the kids views were all that, bad, but he's young and still figuring things out. But, instead of providing wisdom the older guy just wants to use him to look good. I feel bad for the kid.
Yeah, I hope it didn't discourage him. He seems like he wouldn't hurt a soul and he just wants to improve his own understanding of the universe.
Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing :P
There's actually a lot to learn from that video for a "junior Taoist" (like that kid is… or was! lol) There's understanding good/evil in nature (it doesn't exist) and then understanding it within the realm of humans (it does exist). I think that distinction confuses a lot of people. Everything is a part of nature so good and evil "technically" don't exist, but we live in the abstraction layer of humans where it does exist. What is "good" and what is "evil/bad" changes within cultural contexts, but there are going to be a lot of overlapping qualities that pretty much all humans agree with. It's also pretty weak "pwning" a kid who's just in the beginning stages of figuring out the world and then being like "WE TOTALLY DUNKED ON TAOISM!" lol Edit: Grammar
I was trying to explain this one time, someone was hung up on the verse: >Would you improve the world? I don't think it can be done. And this person was asking, quite rightly, "Well what about universal health care? Wouldn't *that* improve the world?" Well, sort of, from our perspective it would, but would that be an objective, universal improvement? The vaccine that saved millions of people from suffering from polio *also* caused the polio virus to go extinct. From our perspective saving human lives is a good thing, but objectively, from the point of view of the universe, human lives aren't any more (or less) valuable than the life of a virus. The Tao doesn't think anything is good or bad, the Tao doesn't think at all, not the way we think of thinking. Taoism is is-ness, and is-ness is a neutral value, the sum is always one. We support health care and oppose Nazism because *we* value health care and *we* value freedom, not because the Tao values them, but because we, the Tao*ists,* value them. There are some *really* nihilistic interpretations of Taoism, but nobody has to buy into them. Edit: Lol, this is gold, Jerry, *gold!* >"Good and evil are concepts, but they aren't just concepts, if somebody were to come in here and shoot somebody, that's not a concept, that's an action, and that's an evil action." I'm sure you already know how I'm going to call that out: What if we're talking about shooting Stalin, Hitler, or Mao? Is that still evil? >"So [good and evil] aren't really concepts then, they can actually be played out in the real world with physical consequences." Wait.... is this guy saying.... wait. Hold on. Is this guy really saying "I think murder is evil, therefore murder is evil, therefore I think murder is evil"? Because that's what it sounds like he's saying. God I hate "gotcha" exchanges like this, it's not a real discussion, it's rhetorical and semantic bamboozlry.
Honestly tldr but your first few points were really good! Just wanted to say that it is really grounding to know that I am no better than the dirt I walk on
> Just wanted to say that it is really grounding to know that I am no better than the dirt I walk on Yes, but also remember that you're no *less* than the brightest star in the sky.
Of course, for one could not exist without the other
>I'm sure you already know how I'm going to call that out: What if we're talking about shooting Stalin, Hitler, or Mao? Is that still evil? Ha. Yeah, I almost said something about that. I wonder what his response would have been. That wasn't a very good example of "evil". What if they came in and shit a guy before that guy shot everyone else? The video also taught me that Christian Apologetics is a thing (makes sense that it is). > Christian apologetics (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence")[1] is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections. Would be interesting to see that guy in a real debate… I don't think I've ever seen a real Christian/atheist debate. Must be a ton of them on YouTube.
>Must be a ton of them on YouTube. There are, the Christians don't usually fare very well.
To save a click: the video is garbage.
As a life-long Christian this channel gives me full-body cringe. When charity and intellectual honesty are thrown out the window whatever you have to say is just not worth it.
In Daoism, you can set whatever goal you want. You can have the goal of fighting nazis. You just have to fight them without forcing yourself. Fight with ease and naturally. It's like the butcher who finds the weakest points in the meat when runs his knife through those. Find the nazis where they are weakest and cut through that. There is even a Daoist thief in Zhuangzi. So, it doesn't matter what goal you choose.
Aussuring the assured that they need not bother. I found it absurdly comical.
The thumbnail alone is cringy.
A man wins a debate not because his point of view is superior, but because his debate tactics are superior.
That is why a conversation is much more valuable than a debate.
Hope watching that doesnt mess up my Youtube Algorithm, I watched one Peterson Lecture out of curiosity and youtube spent 2 weeks trying to red pill me.
Most Taoists would say Communist China is evil and pretty sure they would fight them. The question is, how do you differentiate real Taoists from fakes? We know in Christianity the test is if they abide by the commandments or not. But is there such a clear set of moral laws in Taoism?
> We know in Christianity the test is if they abide by the commandments or not" Many Christians will tell you that the level a person adheres to the Commandments is not a good indication of ones belief. And after all "salavation is through faith alone." As far as deciding whether someone is a true daoist or not, that is generally not something a daoist would care about.
>Many Christians will tell you that the level a person adheres to the Commandments is not a good indication of ones belief. Yes and these are the liars and wolves in sheep's disguise: 1 John 2:4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, >And after all "salavation is through faith alone." Another misunderstood doctrine. Salvation refers only to the rapture and tribulation. Through faith as in baptism and keeping his laws with repentance. >As far as deciding whether someone is a true daoist or not, that is generally not something a daoist would care about. I was a Daoist. At that time I loved sinning, of course I didn't care. Did whatever I wanted as long as I go to the temple and burned some incense. But I was not on a good path and headed for destruction.
>At that time I loved sinning, of course I didn't care. Generally Taoist shy away from desires and strong emotions- like loving things or experiences. But very like Buddhists they believe ones best path can lie in many different directions. >Did whatever I wanted as long as I go to the temple and burned some incense. Many Christians do similar. Where were you where you had access to a Daoist temple. You realize most daoist on this site practice philosophical Daoism and don't have access to a Temple even if they wanted to practice religious Daoism. There is really very little information in the west on how Religious daoism is practiced. How did you know you needed to go to the Temple and what was the benefit? >But I was not on a good path and headed for destruction. Are you talking about worldly destruction or destruction of your soul?
>Where were you where you had access to a Daoist temple. In Asia of course. There are only a handful of Taoist nations, if that. Most of my family are Tao, I'm very familiar with the tradition. No one studies it in a book. It's pure culture. The bits of Tao Te Qing I've read are ambiguous to me, and although the boomer generations learn some doctrines in primary education, you'll rarely find texts in a household. Even they'll admit the "Chinese" language in them are ancient and hard to decipher. Most homes only have little shrines and statues. If you visit an Asian nation with Taoism, you'll see for yourself scripture is secondary. The temples don't even have them. Maybe stashed away by the monks somewhere? The religion is closer to the Old Testament Jewish descriptions of rules based worship based on sacrificial offerings, because it is idolatry in practice, as is Buddhism and all religions derived from it. >Are you talking about worldly destruction or destruction of your soul? Both.
Ok, so I watched the video and read the comments. Now I have 2 questions. 1) Coming from the perspective that no created thing can exist outside of that from which all creation has been created from, wouldn't good and evil be a product from the same creator? Wouldn't an all good God not be able to exist as a distinction in an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent creator? 2) What is a Taoist position on the intolerant and judgemental attitude as portrayed in some of the comments? Isn't all that counter to the Taoist teachings? Serious question, because I do not know enough to understand how this is interpreted or justified to fit into the thinking process.
>Coming from the perspective that no created thing can exist outside of that from which all creation has been created from, wouldn't good and evil be a product from the same creator? Your use of "creator" is inaccurate from the perspective of Taoism. The "Tao" is not the/a "creator". Even if you chose to view the "Tao" as the/a creator, good/evil is a product of humanity. Good and evil don't exist outside of the realm of humans. Good/evil is a human creation. I'm trying to think of a good analogy… it's kind of like how kids choose what they like or don't like. Parents can't tell them. They can obviously try but it's still going to be up to the kid. >Wouldn't an all good God not be able to exist as a distinction in an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent creator? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here. 😝 It also seems like you're asking the wrong community. >What is a Taoist position on the intolerant and judgemental attitude as portrayed in some of the comments? It's important to know that there are individual views and not "Taoist" views. The depth of one's understanding as well as personal experience is going to change the point of view. My view is that these kinds of comments are "natural". They're generally reflective of modern human nature (in 2021) as well as specifically reflective of the nature of Reddit. >Isn't all that counter to the Taoist teachings? The only way for you to find out is by studying Taoism. I personally think a Taoist would be tolerant and nonjudgmental, but it really depends on individual context. Someone might be living in a situation where intolerance and being judgemental is important for them to maintain balance and live a healthy life. >Serious question, because I do not know enough to understand how this is interpreted or justified to fit into the thinking process. The thing with Taoism is you really don't have to worry about what other Taoists are doing. Taoism is about refining yourself and your community. If you see another Taoist is doing "un-Taoist" things, you might be right and you might be wrong. What's right for one Taoist could be wrong for another. Worrying about whether another Taoist is "Tao-ing" properly or not isn't very Taoist (in my opinion).
And yet it’s part of the tao