0
   

taoism and christianity

 
 
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2014 02:24 pm
Yes words are just symboles of meaning.do the religions taoism and christianity mean the same thing.
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2014 02:25 pm
@martinies,
Nope.
0 Replies
 
martinies
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2014 03:04 pm
@martinies,
Reckon they are if you enterprit them correct.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2014 04:30 pm
Translation: You reckon your idea is correct, no matter what anyone else says. Try being honest and making statements rather than phony-baloney questions.

EDIT: By the way, your English sucks.
0 Replies
 
martinies
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2014 10:30 pm
@martinies,
But the identity they give the observer is the same.sorry bout the spellin
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2014 01:34 am
@martinies,
Quote:
Yes words are just symboles of meaning


Not according to recent views regarding semantics. It is specific combinations of words in particular social contexts which give "meaning". (Quine, Sellars et al)

The fact that one context might involve similarities across different religions perhaps from a perspective of social function, is separate from investigating the psychological differences between Christians and Taoists.

Note too that "identity" tends to lie in the eye of the beholder.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2014 02:01 am
@martinies,
martinies wrote:
Yes words are just symboles of meaning.do the religions taoism and christianity mean the same thing.
Thay mean that u r supposed to HIT THE SPACE BAR
AFTER EVERY PERIOD
.
Lordyaswas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2014 03:47 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Omsig......erm......do you see the irony in you getting annoyed about another person's style of posting?


Hilarious!
0 Replies
 
martinies
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2014 04:07 am
@fresco,
Fresco . Religion is about identity. These two religions taoism and christianity are the exact same in terms of describing super identity or universal identity of an observer in the event. They both describe identity in nonlocal terms.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2014 05:13 am
@martinies,
Quote:
Religion is about identity.

I agree in part. But "identity" has both social and psychological aspects which differ.
Quote:
These two religions taoism and christianity are the exact same in terms of describing super identity or universal identity of an observer in the event.

You are going to have to explain that. As I understand it, Christianity involves the independent existence individual entities (like observers and an omnicient observer "God") whereas Taoism seems to advocate a form of holism, or a non-separation of observer and observed.
Quote:
They both describe identity in non-local terms.

If you mean that both attempt transcendent discussion about "the nature of reality", I agree. But I suggest that this is very different say to "non-locality findings in physics with respect to particle identity" no matter how much we are tempted to speculate on a possible correspondence.

Again, without any background reading, you are playing what Wittgenstein called "language games". You are taking a word like "identity" out of its normal context (e.g. feeling of group membership) and assuming that the same game can be played as in "particle identity". This is like trying to play golf with a basketball on the assumption that any "ball" is equivalent to any other.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2014 06:55 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Quote:
.if we accept that what we distinguish depends on what we do, as modern physics does, we operate under the implicit assumption that, as observers, we are endowed with rationality, and that this need not or cannot be explained. Yet, if we reflect upon our experience as observers, we discover that our experience is that we find ourselves observing, talking, or acting, and that any explanation or description of what we do is secondary to our experience of finding ourselves in the doing of what we do.
Maturana

The salient point in this closed circle is the basic condition that Maturana repeats so frequently, namely that what is observed are not things, properties, or relations of a world that exists "as such", but rather the results of distinctions made by the observer himself or herself. Consequently, these results have no existence whatever without someone's activity of distinguishing. Just as Vico, the first constructivist thinker, said, the cognitive subject can know only facts, and facts are items the subject itself has made (Latin: facere). The observer, thus, arises from his or her own ways and means of describing, which is to say, by distinguishing him-or herself.

Von Glasersfeld
http://www.oikos.org/vonobserv.htm
0 Replies
 
martinies
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2014 08:38 am
@fresco,
Yes and thats absolutly true. And in that light we know the doer dosnt do the doing but at a certain juncture conjoins with the general mover of the action in the event as in nonthinking nonego. So the nonmoving thing moves all other things and hostes them. This is true in both taoism and christianity. Non acttachment is at the core of both religions.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2014 09:16 am
@martinies,
That's the first time I've heard "non-attachment" applied to Christianity except in the case of monasticism. In the absence of references you appear to be making this up. Sorry, but I've been around here too long to bother indulging idiosyncratic meandering. If you follow up some of my references or can provide others I will respond further, but not otherwise.

martinies
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2014 09:22 am
@fresco,
Jesus teachings.love without attachment
Tao is
love without attachment.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » taoism and christianity
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 02:54:01