The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
While I was browsing the site you can find if you [URL]http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14510&page=2&pp=15[/URL] , I came across this interesting story.
Some people were arguing over which version of Taoism was the best (Taoism was an alternative to Buddhism in China) and also what was best out of Buddhism and Taoism (which was silly considering that they're both so similar and a proper Taoist/Buddhist wouldn't be bothered by who's belief is best...) and a guy came out with this analogy:
It's like in the old story of the blind guys all grabbing an elephant on a different part and then trying to describe to each other what an elephant really is based on the one part they have in their hands. One guy has an ear, one guy has the tail, one guy has the torso, one guy has a leg, another guy has a tusk. They all have a real part of the elephant, but they also all have completely different descriptions and end up getting mad and yelling at each other about what an elephant is really like. It isn't because they are stupid or wrong, it is because they can't see the rest of the elephant.
Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, you name it, they all have dozens, if not hundreds, of sects just because of "blindness" regarding their other parts. If you dig into the roots of the traditions you'll see that most of the founders of different religions all warned against this happening. But, people being who they are, everyone wants their part of the elephant to be the best one and don't give a monkey's (or an elephant's) butt about the other parts (if they even admit that other parts exist) and spend all day yelling about their own.
Do you think that God has revealed EVERYTHING there is to know about him in your Bible?
Even if you were to be right, that would not necessarily make over religions and beliefs wrong?
What do you think? :-)
Some people were arguing over which version of Taoism was the best (Taoism was an alternative to Buddhism in China) and also what was best out of Buddhism and Taoism (which was silly considering that they're both so similar and a proper Taoist/Buddhist wouldn't be bothered by who's belief is best...) and a guy came out with this analogy:
It's like in the old story of the blind guys all grabbing an elephant on a different part and then trying to describe to each other what an elephant really is based on the one part they have in their hands. One guy has an ear, one guy has the tail, one guy has the torso, one guy has a leg, another guy has a tusk. They all have a real part of the elephant, but they also all have completely different descriptions and end up getting mad and yelling at each other about what an elephant is really like. It isn't because they are stupid or wrong, it is because they can't see the rest of the elephant.
Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, you name it, they all have dozens, if not hundreds, of sects just because of "blindness" regarding their other parts. If you dig into the roots of the traditions you'll see that most of the founders of different religions all warned against this happening. But, people being who they are, everyone wants their part of the elephant to be the best one and don't give a monkey's (or an elephant's) butt about the other parts (if they even admit that other parts exist) and spend all day yelling about their own.
Do you think that God has revealed EVERYTHING there is to know about him in your Bible?
Even if you were to be right, that would not necessarily make over religions and beliefs wrong?
What do you think? :-)
Page:
~pop~
Still waiting. Oh, and you're still running from Pandaemonium's query about free will too. I'll say this for you; your cowardice at least is of biblical proportions...
Still waiting. Oh, and you're still running from Pandaemonium's query about free will too. I'll say this for you; your cowardice at least is of biblical proportions...
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> I have 'tootled off' and answered your question, now I'll start work
> on Light's 20 questions.
No you haven't; you've tried to say that both statements are simultaneously correct. Typically for your gutless self, you're incapable of admitting that you could have made a mistaken statement, and now you're tying yourself into knots to get out of it. And it's failing. Heheheh.
>
> 20 questions...
Mm, and maybe you'll actually answer more than 3 of them this time, my egocentric and visibly obnoxious bumworrying friend.
>
> I have 'tootled off' and answered your question, now I'll start work
> on Light's 20 questions.
No you haven't; you've tried to say that both statements are simultaneously correct. Typically for your gutless self, you're incapable of admitting that you could have made a mistaken statement, and now you're tying yourself into knots to get out of it. And it's failing. Heheheh.
>
> 20 questions...
Mm, and maybe you'll actually answer more than 3 of them this time, my egocentric and visibly obnoxious bumworrying friend.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> In my words, in my own time.
>
> hows about you tootle off and answer my question in the being a
> christian thread then? It's a simple two choice answer. that
> shouldn't take you long.
I have 'tootled off' and answered your question, now I'll start work on Light's 20 questions.
20 questions...
> Forest Fan wrote:
> In my words, in my own time.
>
> hows about you tootle off and answer my question in the being a
> christian thread then? It's a simple two choice answer. that
> shouldn't take you long.
I have 'tootled off' and answered your question, now I'll start work on Light's 20 questions.
20 questions...
Forest Fan wrote:
> In my words, in my own time.
Heh. Does your definition of "in my own time" mean "I will avoid and run from all questions, repeatedly ask people to repost them, claim I've forgotten what they are, attempt to change the subject, attempt to use the shrivelled part of my brain that contains wit and sarcasm to try and make people go away, and then eventually having exhausted all possibilities, post a number of evasive half answers that are no answer at all"?
Cos y'know, seeing as that's all you ever do I thought we may as well clear this up now. Don't you agree, you snivelling and wretched little coward?
> In my words, in my own time.
Heh. Does your definition of "in my own time" mean "I will avoid and run from all questions, repeatedly ask people to repost them, claim I've forgotten what they are, attempt to change the subject, attempt to use the shrivelled part of my brain that contains wit and sarcasm to try and make people go away, and then eventually having exhausted all possibilities, post a number of evasive half answers that are no answer at all"?
Cos y'know, seeing as that's all you ever do I thought we may as well clear this up now. Don't you agree, you snivelling and wretched little coward?
Forest Fan wrote:
> In my words, in my own time.
hows about you tootle off and answer my question in the being a christian thread then? It's a simple two choice answer. that shouldn't take you long.
> In my words, in my own time.
hows about you tootle off and answer my question in the being a christian thread then? It's a simple two choice answer. that shouldn't take you long.
In my words, in my own time.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Oh yeah, in my own time of course.
In other words, no.
> Oh yeah, in my own time of course.
In other words, no.
Light wrote:
> Gonna answer the questions, or just continue to show what an arrogant
> and stupid little me-monkey you are?
Oh yeah, in my own time of course.
> Gonna answer the questions, or just continue to show what an arrogant
> and stupid little me-monkey you are?
Oh yeah, in my own time of course.
Light wrote:
> No. Neither would anyone else. Add "sarcasm" to the list of
> things you can't comprehend...
Got it in one.
> No. Neither would anyone else. Add "sarcasm" to the list of
> things you can't comprehend...
Got it in one.
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> Wouldn't quite call it 'witty', but I'll take it as a compliment.
No. Neither would anyone else. Add "sarcasm" to the list of things you can't comprehend...
>
> Wouldn't quite call it 'witty', but I'll take it as a compliment.
No. Neither would anyone else. Add "sarcasm" to the list of things you can't comprehend...
Page: