Embracing Lao Tzu's Wisdom: A Critical-Analytic Essay in Philosophy of Religion

Minimum of One page double spaced. You need to follow these instructions In the process of defining these key terms, be sure to:

• identify the sources / figures who are chiefly responsible for the terms / concepts / symbols in question;
• provide examples in order to elucidate the full meaning of the term / concepts / symbols in question;
• refer to, and explain, any associated or contrasting concepts that are necessary to arrive at acomprehensive grasp of the term / concept / symbol in question;
• provide a critical assessment (of your own) of the concepts in question (i.e. what is YOUR stance in
  relation to the issues in Philosophy of Religion that the term / concept / symbol raises and why);

5.)  consider the imminent counterclaims that might be raised in relation to your arguments in #4 above and demonstrate why they are wrong (i.e., say how others might respond to your arguments and say why
these responses are not the case)

A critical-analytic essay in which you answer the question asked:

With reference to at least THREE key sets of contrasting terms (examples provided above and below), should Christian theologians and believers embrace Lao Tzu’s wisdom with respect to the equal importance of the terms, their synthesis, and their mutual dependence, in order to render their worldviews more logically coherent (e.g., for instance, in relation to the nature of virtue; the nature of God as the Unmoved, Prime Mover and God’s relationship with the World, His creatures, and with human beings; logical problems concerning the Divine Attributes [e.g. Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnibenevolence, Eternal] traditionally predicated of God, etc...)? If so, why, and how so? If not, why not? Explain fully.

• good” and “evil” (e.g., in relation to the apparent logical incompatibilities pertaining God’s putative attributes and attempts to render the concept of God more coherent; the problems of 1.) evil and suffering in the world and 2.) free will; and/or the issue of whether or not the world is better or makes progress by way of the fluctuation of good and evil, etc...);
• actuality” and “potentiality” (e.g., in relation to Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ respective emphases on the notion of teleology; and/or Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the existence of God which seemingly privileges the former over the latter in terms of the meaning of maximal perfection; and/or to the meaning and importance of spiritual interiority, etc...);
• excess” and “deficiency” (e.g., in relation to the contention between Aquinas, Aristotle, and Lao Tzu in relation to the nature of virtue—the complete elimination of vice / sin versus the Golden Mean and/or Lao Tzu’s wu wei, etc...).
• literal” and “symbolic” (e.g., in relation to interpretations of acts of faith and accounts of miracles in scripture; the messages contained in the Bible about spirituality; conceptions of the immortality of the soul and of the afterlife, etc...);

And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ... I know your works; that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise3?4why destroy yourself? Do not be overwicked and do not be a fool3?4why die before your time? It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.