That it is. Though I was raised in the Christian (Protestant) tradition, the occasional, arm-chair, amateur Taoist in me understands the idea that motivated and underlies the clearly paradoxical axiom that "The Tao which can be spoken of [to say nothing of named] is not The Tao." I think this idea is somewhat analogous to the Kabbalist notion of "Ain Soph," the highest Sephirot, which can be neither known nor named, except by saying what it is not.
Yep, I've made this connection myself before. Taking "the Bible through the Bible", I think it's inevitable to any deep-thinking person that they'll realize that theophanies of God in the OT are not synonymous with what God
IS in it's Absoluteness. The kabbalistic notion of Ain Soph flows directly into what the OT is actually alluding to in many places, truly.
And yes, the concept of Tao/Dao is referenced in comparative religion often for good reason. Tao, Brahma
n, Ain Soph, Tawhid, "The Father".
(Taoism is really great btw, some incredible stuff has come out of that tradition, aside from the two core texts and the I-ching)
When it comes to Islam, Surah 112 is the most important four lines in our entire religion and they're incredibly deep, incredibly profound. Surah 112:4 in particular, with the very strong notion that one cannot take lightly, that: "There is nothing like God".
There are also several amazing ahadith that expand on that profound Surah. But Surah 112 is not something you just read one-off, it's something that we Muslims spend our lives reflecting on and of course reciting in daily prayer.
Many things in all three Abrahamic religions have made me quite certain over time that some form of Apophatic theology is quite certainly the only way you can go, seeing that God is Creator, not Creation. (although I don't think all expressions I've seen of Apophatic theology 'get it', which is a shame)
I also think
Sir James Fraser and others have done their homework to show that a preoccupation not only with identifying but then wielding the power of the names of the demigods either originated in Egyptian ceremonial magic or was in any case commonly practiced by Egyptian magicians. Whether or not and to what extent the OT, especially, is influenced by Egyptian magical rites and practices is, to me, an open-ended, academic question, keeping in mind not only that Moses and the Israelites are said to have made their physical exodus from Egypt, but also "
borrowed," or would it be despoiled, the Egyptians of their gold, silver, etc., upon departure. On the other hand, the reverse could also be true: Egyptian magic was, and its modern derivatives are, an inversion and perversion of the ostensibly purified
henotheism monotheism of the Israelites.
Depends which side you give more credence to, as the Abrahamic tradition has the underlying notion of cyclical Revelation reoccuring from since the beginning of prehistory. The ancient Egyptian religion and culture is definitely quite interesting though and there is definitely a reason why it has endured interest throughout history (literally pick a random tradition of Occultism) despite it's original practice going defunct.
Aside from this, we tend to make assumptions about ancient 'polytheism' which may just not be true. In many cases it seems to be more like glorified saint-worship or the deification of rulers, possibly of Prophets too.
Anyway, it's nice conversing with you. Sometimes, though not invariably, this sub-forum is characterized more by inter-faith polemics than dialog.
You're welcome, yeah that kind of stuff just makes me roll my eyes.