>my favorite book of all time is Tao Te Ching by LaoziWhat type of person do you imagine?
>>24087922Spergy asianAny western hippy would have other books come to their mind first if you asked them
>>24087922PewDiePie
>>24087922Gigachad NEET
>>24087922A weakling I can crush under my heel like an ant. Such a wicked philosophy is contained therein.
>>24088186Kek
I prefer the Zhuangzi
>>24087922>What type of person do you imagine?I don't presume.
>>24087922Maybe a person I would like,Maybe a person I would not like
>>24087922PKD
>>24087922Read it the other day. Not very good. I thought Eastern philosophy would have more to offer than "temperance = good." The style isn't even particularly impressive either, no matter which translation I look up. The Greeks mogg Eastern philosophers so hard it's almost unreal.
>>24087922It's usually a midwit Westerner who goes around speaking in enigmas to sound profound. So the Taoist Westerner is basically the Rinzai Zen Westerner without the zazen practice. At least the Zenoid fucks off for a few hours and leaves you alone.
Depends. How many different translations have you got.
>>24087922I preferred this version.
>>24088373Every dualistic system is a pathetic cope by terrified primates desperate to escape their own insignificance. These sniveling wretches, too weak to face raw existence, construct elaborate fairy tales about "good" and "evil," "right" and "wrong," like children clutching security blankets in the dark. What laughable arrogance - to think the cosmos gives a fuck about their manufactured moral categories and kindergarten ethics. Every prophet, priest, and ideologue peddling these simpleminded binaries is either a coward or a con man, selling comfortable lies to other cowards. The universe is not your nursery school morality play. It just IS - vast, uncaring, and utterly beyond your cute little categories. Those who need to divide everything into opposing teams reveal themselves as intellectual and spiritual infants, still sucking at the dried teat of dualistic delusion rather than facing reality in all its terrifying wholeness.
>>24088525I'm sorry did you create this world and yourself?I missed that part in your glib nihilistic diatribe.
>>24088537The Christian God's laughably simplistic role as a "good guy" in a cosmic morality play immediately disqualifies any claim of being the source of existence. What kind of supreme creator restricts itself to one half of a binary moral system? A true source would transcend such childish notions of good versus evil, encompassing all aspects of reality rather than playing favorites in an eternal wrestling match with darkness. The very fact that this deity needs to struggle against evil forces proves its limitations - a genuine prime mover would simply BE, without requiring opposition to define itself. The Christian God is clearly just another player in a larger game, a powerful but ultimately derivative entity desperately trying to control a reality it never created in the first place.
“A book about nothing”
>>24087922the average atheist merchant
>>24088550Christians are the epitome of intellectual dishonesty—barreling into every discussion with their sanctimonious drivel, accusing others of being 'midwits,' while parroting arguments that would embarrass a middle school debate team. Their entire belief system is a house of cards built on circular reasoning, outright rejection of evidence, and blind adherence to a cobbled-together patchwork of stolen myths and contradictory dogma. They wear their ignorance as a badge of honor, projecting their own intellectual inadequacy onto anyone who dares question their crumbling, medieval worldview. Their arrogance is only matched by their incapacity to engage with ideas that challenge their fragile faith. What’s worse is that Christianity is an abject failure at its supposed purpose: connecting with God. Unlike other spiritual traditions that emphasize personal growth, self-discovery, and direct experience of the divine, Christianity offers nothing but borrowed myths and hollow rituals. It turns spirituality into a shallow transaction—blind obedience in exchange for the hope of eternal reward. True seekers of the divine strive for understanding and transcendence, but Christians cower in fear, clutching their outdated scripture like a security blanket. Their religion isn't a path to God; it's a mental prison designed to control the weak, stifling curiosity, and replacing enlightenment with servile groveling to an incoherent deity. Compared to genuine spiritual traditions, Christianity is a cheap, bloated parody—a hollow shell for those too scared or lazy to seek truth for themselves.
>>24087922some flavor of online influencer or grifter. same as marcus aurelius meditations
Anybody who judges a text by the quality of its average reader is a midwit
>>24087922mea pretty cool guy
>>24088373>>24088396lol>>24088443this guy knows
>>24088549*enduring through millenia
>>24088373>Temperance = GoodTao doesn't make such claims.Why are some people shit and others not shit? It's in their nature. The universe isn't fair, kind, just, malevolent, or anything else. It simply IS.What works for you won't work for others and vice versa.Taoism is more of the stance "You cannot change the nature of things, just go with the flow and accept that is how they are".People assume that means being a doormat, but it doesn't. Is it your nature to defend your family from outside violence including destroying said source of violence? Then that's your nature, accept that is a part of you and move on.Much more of a philosophy of accepting that positive and negative make up all things.
>>24088544>The very fact that this deity needs to struggle against evil forces proves its limitationsIn what part of The Bible does God struggle against evil?
>>24089222The Gospel.
>>24088525>the /lit/ taoist is just a fedora atheistcan't say i'm surprised
>>24089267Huh? Where?
>>24089333picrelalso the whole cross thing
>>24089322Non-duality is not Atheism you dumbfuck, try reading some books.
>>24089208>Is it your nature to defend your family from outside violence including destroying said source of violence? Then that's your nature, accept that is a part of you and move on.thisthat's how I truly made peace with myself
>>24089350>Non-duality is not Atheismdidn't say it was.
>>24088525is this pasta? 10/10
>>24089369are you offended because anon exposed your belief as lackluster?
>>24089385
>>24088525>>24088544>>24088551kek
>>24089414
>>24088551>Christians are the epitome of intellectual dishonesty—barreling into every discussion with their sanctimonious drivel, accusing others of being 'midwits,' while parroting arguments that would embarrass a middle school debate teamAbsolutely correct. Christianity has a million logical holes that even a small child can notice. Christians willingly ignore things like pic related to allow their delusions to persistChristianity creates a fictional problem, a fictional solution, a fictional punishment and a fictional reward. At no point in the process does it ever present genuine truth or realityA pit of lies from beginning to end. No wonder Christians are inherently such dishonest cowards. Especially 4chan Christians
>>24089397i'm also an atheist, just not an insufferable redditor.
>>24089369>>24089430good thing you like funny animals because otherwise your posts are shit
is this board daoist pilled now
Consciousness was only a "mistake" due to evolution Which we cannot even call a mistake as such things could only be random genetic Playing their part Which on its own term came due some reason which we have no idea ofIt is most probable that it was also just a mere play of probability as there already are millions of worlds out there so it is highly probable that life is rareRare in the meaning such that it has no initial purpose and it also is not purposeless due to contradictory veiws which themselves came due to consciousnessWhich was due to genetic mutationWhich was due to the initial will for life to keep on livingTherefore the conclusion isSuch that consciousness and identity of self just happened there is no reason for them We are alone in finding peace which was never the original reason due to which we are alive natural selection only gave humans the bare minimum to survive in the wild or to socialize(which itself is another complex topic) therefore if belief grants you peace have blind face in God (But always remember that YOU have the ability to open them again having an open mind(meaning to look over as many different perspectives as you are capable of) is a great ability if you want to keep having the benefits that comes with society(making sure to coordinate yourself with others or atleast not to be in others ways so others may also not be in YOUR WAY)As for what tao te ching tell It just helps us "humans" to cope with this lonely reality with no meaning unless you give itIt allows you to be more free to be more in control to allow yourself to fully develop your actual consciousness to be truly yourself without holding onto too much to things that it destroys you and the people you l8ve. It is only one prespective to the infinite Amount of prespective you can look life with which is truly based onYOUR NATURE(But that is only my perspectiveIt may be helpful to fewOutrageous to many But that is your responsibilityTo go with the flow and not let external factors control you)-crimson
>>24089422>claims Christians 'ignore' one of the most hotly debated topics in Christian theologyLol, lmao evenTo answer it myself, yes God does know because he is omniscient, no this does not make it "predetermined" in the sense of what the word is usually loaded to mean. The Christian claim is that God is omniscient as a necessary attribute of being timeless, not because he can logically deduce what will happen from what has happened. He knows what you will choose but this doesn't somehow mean it isn't you choosing it, nor does it even affirm determinism in the physicalist sense.
>>24089461>He knows what you will choose but this doesn't somehow mean it isn't you choosing itIf God knew each and every single action that you would ever perform an infinity before he created reality, then it was all predeterminedIn a book all actions are predetermined. God is the author of this reality, not a mere readerHis foreknowledge of your actions resulting from his creation is determinism
>>24089474All you've done is restate your stance.>God is the author of this reality, not a mere readerThe whole idea of free will is that God is not the author of our actions within this reality.He can have foreknowledge because He is omniscient but this doesn't mean that actions are deterministic (absolutely determined by what happened previously) unless you literally presuppose determinism.Take certain events in quantum mechanics as an example. The indeterminacy of an event like radioactive decay is not just because we lack information or something like that, it is impossible to predict exactly when it will occur based on past events (we can only give probabilities). God knows when these events will happen because He is timeless, i.e. the event has sort of already happened from His perspective, but this does NOT somehow make the event physically deterministic.
24 years old, passing me a bowl on his stepdad's couch while we watch the second hour of Koyanisqatsi
>>24089344How is that even struggling when it was voluntary?
>>24089505>The whole idea of free will is that God is not the author of our actions within this realityHe is literally the creator of all reality though. Explain this to me like I'm retarded please- how does God's foreknowledge of all events before he created anything not mean determinism?Are you saying that human will is beyond causation?
The Western religious notion of free will is pure narcissistic delusion - a grandiose fantasy that places human choice on a preposterous metaphysical pedestal above the natural laws and deterministic forces governing the entire cosmos. This contra-causal fairytale imagines our minds as immaterial, formless, magical sources of utterly uncaused, ex nihilo causal powers, exempt from the physiological constraints and causal chains that rationally explain all other phenomena. It arrogantly recasts human decision-making as some miraculous, self-created form of willful creationism rather than recognizing it as shaped by the same rational patterns and processes describing the rest of the known universe. In essence, it inscribes blatant anthropocentric narcissism as pseudo-profundity, shamelessly elevating human ego over empirical explanations of how embodied minds actually operate via scientific naturalism.
>>24089449always wasanonymity is daoist aftbqh
>>24089547True. Daoism is the only anonymous religion. Only anonymity is free of egoism and a fitting vessel for truth
>>24089523Because that foreknowledge is direct, not just a result of knowing all of the physical causes of an event. As in the example I gave, we know for a fact that certain things like radioactive decay are NOT deterministic, yet a hypothetical time traveler would be able to come back in time and tell us exactly when any such event would happen.Maybe we're using two different definitions of determinism without realizing? It's not just that 'only one set of events will ever occur, as opposed to the alternatives', but rather that everything that occurs is necessarily determined by prior physical causes.So you're right that I am claiming that there is an element to the human will that is beyond physical causes -- that what a person might choose in all circumstances cannot be absolutely determined even if you had an absolute knowledge of their genes and environment / experiences as well as a perfect neuroscience / genetic science.
>>24089461>>24089505the abrahamic god is just fiction anon
>>24087922Either a wise magician or an ordinary man.
>>24089560word salad
>>24088525I AM THE COSMOS
>>24089563Thanks for sharing>>24089573Which part don't you understand
>>24089563Study this and learn something
>>24089583'no'
>>24089560>Maybe we're using two different definitions of determinism without realizing? It's not just that 'only one set of events will ever occur, as opposed to the alternatives', but rather that everything that occurs is necessarily determined by prior physical causes.I don't think determinism addresses "why" at all. It merely states that all events are scripted and obey the script>that what a person might choose in all circumstances cannot be absolutely determined even if you had an absolute knowledge of their genes and environment / experiences as well as a perfect neuroscience / genetic scienceGod does understand perfectly though. I may not understand where the ball will roll down the hill, but God created both the ball, the hill, the atmosphere, the laws of reality, etc. He knows the exact position of every electron in both ball and hill, and where the ball will go. He knew all of this before he created anything. That sounds like determinism to meGod, the Prime Mover, is the determiner>>24089528You understand what I'm saying. I don't see my will as some supernatural force that exists above and beyond the universe around me. I am simply a part of the whole
>my favorite book of all time is the BibleWhat type of person do you imagine?
>>24089647These three images>single, misshapen 32 year old chud>fat redneck that's never actually read the Bible>a priest or pastor, someone that depends on the Bible to make a living
>>24089647
>>24089635>I don't think determinism addresses "why" at allI really think it does mean that. From the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, determinism is "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature". >It merely states that all events are scripted and obey the script.Again, there is a real difference between knowing what will happen and causing something it to happen.>God does understand perfectly though. I may not understand where the ball will roll down the hill, but God created both the ball, the hill, the atmosphere, the laws of reality, etc. He knows the exact position of every electron in both ball and hill, and where the ball will go. He knew all of this before he created anything. That sounds like determinism to meYes, he does know all of that. A ball rolling down a hill IS a physically deterministic event, we agree. Human decision making is not the same, though. God created the conditions we exist within but gave us the ability to choose how we react to those conditions. He knows what we will choose, but so what? If you want to slap a label of "predetermined" on this, it's technically incorrect but also no longer matters to me -- it no longer has any serious consequences for Christian theology, though, so at this point I don't really care any longer.To clarify the distinction, Calvinists make it sound as though God orchestrated events such that the elect MUST come to Christ and the damned MUST go to Hell, whereas I'm saying that unsaved people COULD have chosen to be saved, even if God knows whether or not they WILL choose to be. Maybe you're leaning against some kind of implicit problem of evil thing here, where you're assuming God would never want to create someone who isn't saved, but that isn't the case. He respects and loves human beings too much to rob us of that choice.
>>24089647The Tao Te Ching is a single book whereas the Bible is composed of many books.
>>24089736>it no longer has any serious consequences for Christian theology, though, so at this point I don't really care any longerThere is a very serious consequence though: if God is omniscient then he already knew who would go to heaven and who would go to hell before he created anyoneIf your neighbor is going to hell, did God know that before he made him?
>>24089770Are you even reading my repliesI already said>Maybe you're leaning against some kind of implicit problem of evil thing here, where you're assuming God would never want to create someone who isn't saved, but that isn't the case. He respects and loves human beings too much to rob us of that choice.
>>24089801Can you answer the question?>If your neighbor is going to hell, did God know that before he made him?I know the Bible teaches predeterminism. I'm just more interested in trying to get a Christian to practice intellectual honesty
>>24089742it's usually only one physical book tho
>>24089842>I'm just more interested in trying to get a Christian to practice intellectual honestyyou sick fuck lol
>>24087922Do you have a recommended translation for this?
>thread about Tao Te Ching>out of nowhere Christians feel offended and start shit>they get rekt by common sense >Tao Te Ching still unscathedinteresting
>>24090061the whole point is to compare them all anon and be amazed anon
>>24089208That was about the only part of it that was salvageable. The rest was mostly embarrassingly simple, even for the time period.
>>24090061The old Feng translation is my favorite, followed by the Thomas Cleary translation which sounds like shit but is technically accurate with every single word
>>24090114Filtered
>>24090114Truth is simple. Lies are complex. The more bullshit, the more words are needed
>>24089842>If your neighbor is going to hell, did God know that before he made him?Lol but this is exactly what I mean, I already answered this in my previous post:"you're assuming God would never want to create someone who isn't saved, but that isn't the case"
>>24090121based
>>24090142>"you're assuming God would never want to create someone who isn't saved, but that isn't the case"So you admit then that the God you worship explicitly made men knowing beforehand that they would be tortured in lava forever?
>>24090145it's just a prank
>>24087922Unironically a very cool person but ironically chooses to shoot themselves in the foot at every opportunity.
>>24090145When did I say that Hell is being tortured in lava forever
>>24088551>>24089422The shape of Christianity was fought over in the early days of the church, with the institutionalist faction winning out over the groups that encouraged more penetrating or thorough interpretations of the Bible. The Gnostics synchronize with Eastern philosophy in a bunch of curious ways, so much so that Elaine Pagels, in her book, ponders the potential for Buddhist influence.The majority of apparent oversights or logical holes stem from Christians contorting themselves into knots to maintain a collection of fundamental tenets to do with the nature of God (loving, omnipotent), the aspect of the faith (monotheistic), and structure (hierarchical church with an unquestionable canon and scripture). Gnostics step outside the uncompromising tradition to question these fundamental tenets and posit a view of Christianity that is constructive, building towards a knowledge of the divine. Enlightenment becomes a deeply personal experience, but one in which those further along the path can help the newly initiated, not dissimilar from the Bodhisattva. The asceticism and esotericism, as well as the focus on meditation, similarly reinvoke the Mahayana branch. Gnostic interpretations of key Christian events are also highly divergent. They argue that the God of the OT is not the same as the God of the NT and suddenly their cosmology becomes one in which a host of divine beings exists. One is reminded of the bardos inhabited by various deities and other spiritual beings. Their view on Jesus' death is one of transcendence of the spirit, disregarding the material, and accessing something higher; transcending, in other words.The Gnostic stance on the gender of God may even be an example of nondualism, where they posit a divine feminine in addition to the standard divine masculine, inherit in a single being. Christianity *could* have been similar to Eastern philosophy, there was capacity for this early on. But power politics ensured it developed in the more bland style that it did.
>>24090159>"It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched"- Christ Jesus in Mark 9:43You're probably just trolling at this point
>>24089422Modal fallacy.https://iep.utm.edu/foreknow/#SH6bThere are plenty of reasons why Christianity is a dumb religion. A supposed incompatibility between omniscience and free will isn't one of them.
>>24090116Do you speak any Chinese? Enough to have any familiarity with Chinese commentary on the book, I mean. I speak some but I understand that even Chinese people these days have to use annotated versions to understand what's going on.
Anyone know of any good books on religious taoism?
>>24090187>There are plenty of reasons why Christianity is a dumb religion. A supposed incompatibility between omniscience and free will isn't one of themIslam recognizes this directly and says in honest chad style that Allah specifically made people in order to burn them in hell. Even Maimonides in Judaism acknowledges that free-will and omniscience are completely incompatible, though he avoids answering this and calls it a 'paradox' in lazy avoidant styleBut you though, a Christian- you avoid the question entirely and link to some other man's words>>24090189No. I have the Jonathan Star translation also which lists each and every character with a dictionary. I have to look up each word in peasant styleThe Star translation is extremely flowery to an ostentatious extent
>>24090176Sorry anon, I'm not trolling. Smugly posting a verse saying that Hell contains fire that never goes out is not proof that Hell is eternal torment.Here's another verse for you:>Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." -- Matthew 10Modern notions of Hell have been horrifically distorted by non-canonical medieval folklore and Greek philosophy. The biblical concept of Hell is that of a temporary state of punishment, probably based on the wickedness of the sinner, followed by annihilation. There is only a single verse in the NT that seems to be talking about eternal torment of human souls, Revelation 14:11, and not only does it come in the most non-literal and visually symbolic book in the whole NT, but it isn't even clear what exactly it is referring to ("in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb" ?). Of the rest of the references to Hell in the NT:10 texts (4%) refer just to "Gehenna"26 (10%) to "burning up"59 (22%) to "destruction, perdition, utter loss or ruin"20 (8%) to "separation from God"25 (10%) to "death in its finality" or "the second death"108 (41%) to "unforgiven sin", where the precise consequence is not stated15 (6%) to "anguish"Beyond these, it's for some reason ignored that Christ promised eternal life (often referred to as "triumph over death and the grave") to Christians only. I don't buy the alternate explanations that he means earthly life because Christians do in fact die here on Earth (resurrection of the body doesn't count as 'never perishing').
>>24090208>you though, a Christian- you avoid the question entirely and link to some other man's wordsThat poster outright said, "There are plenty of reasons why Christianity is a dumb religion" to begin their post. At this point I'm starting to seriously question your reading comprehension capability.
>>24090222Yeah I saw that afterwards. Real life is distracting me at the moment. Need to stop arguing like a retard on the internet>>24090219Plenty of references to fire in Revelation
>>24090237>Plenty of references to fire in RevelationSo? I don't care if there is fire in Hell I care if Hell is eternal torment or not
>>24090204>religious taoismit's not really a set of unified belief from what I understandmore like an assemblage of folk religion and shamanist ritualsnot really interesting from a spiritual point of view imho
>>24090053>usuallyAy, there's the rub!
In Taoist thought, words are but fleeting shadows of the reality they attempt to describe. As Laozi wisely observed, “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.” Language is a tool of limitation, carving the boundless into shapes our minds can grasp, yet in doing so, it loses the essence of the infinite. The Tao is formless, eternal, and ungraspable—it cannot be confined to symbols or bound by the rigid framework of human speech. To cling to words as truth is to clutch at reflections on water, mistaking their shimmer for the depths beneath. True understanding of the Tao arises not through language, but through silence, stillness, and the surrender of the mind to the unity of all things.
Someone who read a translation made by an angloid instead of a taoist monk and has never touched the other two books which alongside it compose to foundations of taoism.
Taoism is Buddhism for people who live in moral societies (China) as opposed to holy men societies (India).I wonder if such a person is familiar with the Diamond Sutra or Amitābha Sūtra.
>>24088191Based as fuck.>A fire is cold
>>24087922myself two years ago, but I would never say this out loud
>>24089647I picture that bell curve meme ťbh, and I'm an atheist. One side has inbred mouth breathers who take everything at face value and discard/disengage passages they don't like. The other side has some real scholarly, intellectually curious people who can tease out the profundity of the text
>>24090237>Plenty of references to fire in Revelationgreat response to an analytical breakdown..
>>24090603and that's probably a good thing
>>24091708>analytical breakdownnot sure you really want to go that way christian anon
>>24090243Nta but hell Is not eternal torture but you are correct that certain translation and sects have at least alluded to it.
>>24091708>>24090219Regardless of the exact nature of hell, it's cruel for an omniscient God to explicitly make people that he knows will end up thereThe nature of hell is irrelevant. The point of conversation has always been that it's fucked up to send your creations to hell knowingly and willinglyIf a human bred animals knowing they would be locked into a kennel forever they would be arrested for animal cruelty. Yet the omniscient God is held to a lower standard than trailer trash meth-heads>it's not a pit of fire, it's eternal darkness, it's a void empty of God's love with suffering and gnashing of teeth
>>24092489No Anon, it's annihilation after a temporary state. Oh but don't tell me, you think that too is somehow cruel, as if you're owed eternal life just for existing.
>>24092580>No Anon, it's annihilation after a temporary stateI remember Jesus conjuring up Lazarus from hell who begged him to let him warn his loved ones to follow God properly so they wouldn't have to suffer like him, but Jesus wouldn't let him>Oh but don't tell me, you think that too is somehow cruel, as if you're owed eternal life just for existingStrawman. I'm merely stating that eternal torture of one's creations is wrong. Especially making creations knowing beforehand that they'll be tortured
>>24092580The Christian paradigm reveals itself as nothing but a cosmic good cop/bad cop routine, a metaphysical protection racket designed to keep consciousness imprisoned in false choices. God plays the benevolent father while Satan serves as the threatening enforcer - both roles carefully crafted to force souls into accepting a diminished existence. This theatrical production of salvation versus damnation keeps humanity trapped in the prison of duality, forever choosing sides in a rigged game that prevents recognition of their own divine nature. The true obscenity isn't the threat of hell, but the way this system forces beings of infinite potential to grovel for salvation, to deny their own godhood and accept the role of helpless children needing cosmic supervision. It's a brilliant trap - make prisoners thank their jailers, make gods beg for mercy, keep consciousness itself bound in the chains of false morality while calling it freedom. They've convinced divine beings to trade their birthright of infinite potential for a bowl of salvation soup.
>>24092624>I remember Jesus conjuring up Lazarus from hell who begged him to let him warn his loved ones to follow God properly so they wouldn't have to suffer like him, but Jesus wouldn't let himUm, I think you're confusing the story of Lazarus and Abraham in 'Hades' and Abraham's bosom. It's a parable that refers to temporary afterlife states pre-Resurrection. Different words are used to refer to these than to post-Christ Heaven and Hell. >I'm merely stating that eternal torture of one's creations is wrong. Especially making creations knowing beforehand that they'll be torturedAnd I'm stating that Hell as eternal torture isn't biblical>>24092655>Satan serves as the threatening enforcerPretty definitive proof that you don't understand Christian theology in the second sentence. Otherwise, you're not really making any argument here, just stating your impression of what Christianity represents if it is in fact false.
>>24092580>eternal lifemiss me with that gay shit
>>24090535>>24092655I like your style anonwhat else do you like to write about?
>>24092816Wu wei, the art of effortless action, whispers the truth of existence: harmony is not found in striving, but in yielding to the natural currents of life. Like a river carving mountains without intent, it moves without resistance, embodying the rhythm of the Tao. In this flow, the illusion of free will dissolves, for what we call choice is but a fleeting ripple on the vast ocean of cause and effect. Every decision, every impulse, is shaped by forces beyond comprehension—ancestry, circumstance, the ceaseless dance of nature itself. Wu wei teaches that freedom is not the assertion of control, but the relinquishment of it, a quiet surrender to the unfolding of things as they are. To live in wu wei is to awaken to the profound beauty of inevitability, where effort fades and only grace remains.
>>24092816
>>24092748>And I'm stating that Hell as eternal torture isn't biblicalHow much torture do you consider reasonable to knowingly create beings that will be tortured there? Let's say a man has one lustful thought in his life, how much torture is reasonable for this?
>>24089344yeah I "struggle" at the gym willing too.He had a purpose with His suffering.Do you?
>>24093008did he?
>>24092825is this AI generated? I really can't tell
>>24092872Um, I think you're still mistaking my view.Punishments in the temporary state prior to annihilation are commensurate with what the person actually did in life ("it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah"). So if someone's only sin in their whole life is somehow just a single lustful thought, I imagine the only real punishment will be knowing of their separation from God and ultimate fate. This is also why there are references to a judgement according to works even though salvation is by grace (being in the Book of Life).
>>24093013Yeah they wrote a whole book about it and everything.
>>24093020
>>24087922is it true that this book can give you magic powers?
>>24087922about to find out. what am I in for?
>>24089505This is literally just blabbering nonsense trying to justify a contradiction
>>24091689The bell curve meme is the opposite of reality though
>>24088525kino
>>24088525Define dualism?
>>24093246Definitions are dualistic.
>>24093287Why? And how would that prevent you grom defining it?
>Crane fly>River flow>Never try, never learn, just mindlessly exist and till your land you worthless peasantWow. What a wonderful and life-improving philosophy...
>>24093378Which one do you prefer?
>“I’ve also heard that in ancient times animals were many but humans were few, so the people had to stay clear of them by living in nests up in the trees. In the daytime they gathered chestnuts and at night they roosted up in their nests. That’s what got them the name ‘Nesters.’ In ancient times the people knew nothing about clothing; in the summer they gathered much firewood, which was used in the winter to keep them warm. That’s what got them the name ‘Survival-savants.” In the time of Shennong, people fell asleep on the spot without ceremony and woke to where they were all wide-eyed.A They knew who their mothers were but not who their fathers were. They commingled with the bucks and does, plowing for their food, weaving for their clothes, with no thought of harming or being harmed. This is the full flourishing of utmost human excellence, of our utmost intrinsic virtuosity. But then the Yellow Emperor, unable to realize this virtuosity to the utmost, instead went to war with Chi You in the wilds of Zhuolu, until blood was flowing for a hundred miles around. Then Yao and Shun arose, setting up their throng of ministers. Thereafter Tang banished his own lord, and King Wu murdered Zhou. From that point onward, the strong have oppressed the weak and the many have violently imposed themselves on the few. Everyone from Tang and Wu onward has been just another disrupter of the people.
>>24093388
>>24093378>What a wonderful and life-improving philosophy...What life improving philosophy do you recommend?
>>24093426
>>24093071an underwhelming experience if you don't read at least a few different translations
>>24093378...he said, shitposting on a sudanese group B rally forum
>>24093035ok keep on the good work then cyberlaozi
>>24093653
>>24087922Depends. If it's a white guy, I imagine a beanie wearing, pot smoking "spiritual but not religious" hipster. If it's a chinaman, I imagine a rootless chinese guy trying to escape the bugman lifestyle and clinging to the only important spiritual text related to his ethnicity.
>>24093852>the only important spiritual text related to his ethnicity.why do people this ignorant post on /lit/?
>>24093852>the only important spiritual text related to his ethnicity.
>>24088186Actual cringe
>>24093917ezpz"He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know."
>>24094112pretty funny when you picture him fighting ants tho
>>24089222So he is evil then?
>>24094772Of course the christian narcissists are always the loudest on /pol/ - they literally can't handle a space existing without trying to control it. Notice how they have to inject themselves into every thread, demand special treatment, and screech when anyone ignores their attention whoring?>must colonize every thread with biblical blogposts>constant victim complex about "their" board>cries to jannies about moderation>needs everyone to validate their larping>seethes when ignored>claims everyone else is triggeredClassic narcissistic behavior pattern - they're so desperate for control and validation they have to make everything about them. Can't let a single thread exist without sliding it into their crusader roleplay.The absolute state of these parasites - turning /pol/ into their personal hugbox while pretending everyone else is trying to take over. Most obvious narcissistic projection - they're always the loudest about "defending the board" while being its biggest cancer.
>>24087922A litbro
>>24093287Only a Sith deals in absolutes!
>>24088186If you don't struggle, no one can struggle with youIf you don't resist, nothing can resist you.If you don't exist, you'll never cease to be.
>>24087922a person with a cute gf
>>24087922Someone akin to me with some caveats
>>24087922I also wonder what Foucault's theory of power would look.like viewed through the Tao.or vice versa
>>24089430So, a unicorn?
Philip K. Dick and all main characters from "The Man in the High Castle"
>>24097826really interesting questionI think the Taoist answer would be akin to these"Information is not knowledge."― Albert Einstein“Information is not knowledge.Knowledge is not wisdom.Wisdom is not truth.Truth is not beauty.Beauty is not love.Love is not music.Music is THE BEST.”― Frank Zappa
>>24097826>Foucault objects to the very idea of a knowledge or a truth outside of networks of power relations. The scope of his objection thus also encompasses the possibility of a critical knowledge that would speak the truth to power, exposing domination for what it is, and thereby enabling or encouraging effective resistance to it.>In other words, if all knowledge is constructed and shaped by those in power, how does Foucault have the freedom to critique and expose such structures? Moreover, if all knowledge is produced through power, how can there be such a thing as objective truth?>A further issue arises when we consider Foucault’s stance on resisting power. While Foucault argued, ‘where there is power, there is resistance’ (1978, 75), Charles Taylor argues that Foucault’s theory leaves no room for the subject to escape power (Charles Taylor, 1984). This is primarily because Foucault fails to provide a means by which resistance can occur. The inability of the subject to resist power structures, some scholars argue, means a lack of recourse to argue for social change. Hartsock is among these critics and accuses Foucault of a ‘pessimism’ and ‘passivity’ which undermines attempts at social change and the universality of reason (1990, 167). In addition to not offering any real avenues for resistance, Nancy Fraser argues that without providing a normative framework, Foucault does not give any reason as to why we should resist as the productive nature of power ‘rule[s] out those types of liberationist politics that presuppose that power is essentially repressive’ (1981, 272).>However, Foucault does not view power as an all-encompassing force that renders resistance futile. He emphasizes the existence of various forms of resistance that arise in response to power. According to Foucault, power is not a one-way street; it involves a dynamic interplay between those who exercise power and those subjected to it. He underscores that resistance is an inherent aspect of power relations and that power itself generates counterpower.>Resistance, as Foucault contends, takes diverse forms, ranging from individual acts of defiance to collective movements aimed at challenging oppressive structures. He highlights the significance of “micro-resistances,” which encompass everyday acts of resistance occurring within the gaps and crevices of power. These acts may be as subtle as questioning norms, subverting expectations, or engaging in small acts of rebellion. Through these micro-resistances, individuals carve out spaces of autonomy and contest dominant power structures.
