What would happen to the Christian religion if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was a fictional character? Since Christianity is built upon the foundation of this man, it would crumble into a heap of dust. (Of course, the most fundamentalist believers would contrive some methodology to keep the faith going, but the mainstream institution would fall into the category of a cult.)
What would happen to philosophical Taoism if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lao Tzu was a fictional character? Nothing! While Lao Tzu is regarded as a wise counselor, he is still supposedly just another human being. His words and thoughts may inspire others, but there is nothing divine about them.
In fact, I'll go one step better. In my estimation, I think the chances are very strong that Lao Tzu either never existed or is a composite of several people. The book attributed to him, the Tao Te Ching, doesn't need for him to be a real person. It still serves as a poetic and insightful document.
In the end, philosophical Taoism doesn't rely on a real or fictitious person of thousands of years ago. It doesn't rely on a supreme being who demands worship, devotion and reverence. It doesn't rely on creeds written by people long since dead. It doesn't rely on an institutional web of churches, ministers, deacons and offering plates. It doesn't rely on any of these things.
It relies on nothing and, by needing nothing, it is everything.
What would happen to philosophical Taoism if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lao Tzu was a fictional character? Nothing! While Lao Tzu is regarded as a wise counselor, he is still supposedly just another human being. His words and thoughts may inspire others, but there is nothing divine about them.
In fact, I'll go one step better. In my estimation, I think the chances are very strong that Lao Tzu either never existed or is a composite of several people. The book attributed to him, the Tao Te Ching, doesn't need for him to be a real person. It still serves as a poetic and insightful document.
In the end, philosophical Taoism doesn't rely on a real or fictitious person of thousands of years ago. It doesn't rely on a supreme being who demands worship, devotion and reverence. It doesn't rely on creeds written by people long since dead. It doesn't rely on an institutional web of churches, ministers, deacons and offering plates. It doesn't rely on any of these things.
It relies on nothing and, by needing nothing, it is everything.
A lot of people, who do not believe in Christ as god or even maybe that he existed, feel that same way about his teachings. They can stand apart from the religion that usurped them in so many ways while losing the spirit of the ideas. Christ's teaching and those of Lao Tzu always seemed to go well together-- in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteHi R T
ReplyDeleteI absolutely "Ditto" what Rain said. The teachings of Jesus stand on their own and they blend well with Lao Tzu. We are all on the same page here, yes?
Love Gail
peace.....
The Jesus of modern Christianity and the historical teacher are quite different. The ideas expressed by Jesus in the published New Testament and the excluded books is basically the same as those espoused by Lao Tzu and the Buddha. If you expunge all the crap added on to what Jesus said by the church then you are looking at the Tao. Rain is correct in that you don't have to believe Jesus was a fact in order to understand and live by what he taught.
ReplyDelete