Chris-TAO

For us Christians, we identify God as the "God of all". Contrary to, for example, those of the previous Egyptian's pantheon of gods which depicts a certain designation of godly and divine interventions (e.g. Heket, the frog goddess). What I mean is that, whenever there would be a discussion of a certain Egyptian primordial god and his/her being a god, the first question would be that of: "of what?/God of what?". Clearly, we can presuppose that their practicing this so-called polytheism, where an individual, instead of having faith to a single source of all the things, chose to specify gods per things; making a heterogeneity among them. But the point is, going back to that of our/the Christian God, since such God is responsible for the entirety of things, He is then to be associated to every single matter (and form) that comprises all that there is. If that's the case then, everything we see and could be found wherever we go, still somehow, such consists the presence of God; Thus, God, in the Christian sense, is really everywhere. As how the idea of the Ignatian Spirituality would emphasize it: "Seeing God at all things". Therefore, there is really God that could somehow be seen in all things. Such notion of His "everywhere-presence" could somehow justify that He doesn't takes sides; He could be with the rich and with the poor, or with the intelligent and with the dumb. -Indeed, He could be everywhere!

Such character was somehow perfectly established by Jesus Christ, a human manifestation of God. He doesn't take sides. Although there are some emphasis in His closeness with the poor, He carried such out in order to keep up the balance between that of the rich and poor. Also, in all the things He do, He doesn't claim such recognition form Him, but instead to that of the Almighty Father. He also feeds and helps people of need but doesn't impose His superiority over them. Evidently, He could be considered as a little kind of being because of such humility and simplicity He carries out with Him. But, for the faith that He is somehow the responsible one for these things that there is, but still would prefer not to be identified in order to avoid superiority, and of course, subordination.

Such idea and character of the Christian "God" though is somehow similar to that of the notion of the Taoist Tao, as for Lao Tzu, in Tao Te Ching, 34. That Tao, like the Christian God, "flows everywhere", "could be left or right", "doesn't carry any need for recognition", and "is not to that of superiority and subordination". It could be called Small, for it lacks personal desire, but actually it is Great, for it is for the good of the many, and not for one power-craving self.