The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Forest Fan wrote:
> It does require faith, a lot of faith.
Just to add to this, the theory that all matter evolved from nothing, requires much, much, much more faith.
> It does require faith, a lot of faith.
Just to add to this, the theory that all matter evolved from nothing, requires much, much, much more faith.
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> It does require faith, a lot of faith.
And, if you're anything to go by, an IQ of less than room temperature.
>
> It does require faith, a lot of faith.
And, if you're anything to go by, an IQ of less than room temperature.
Strafio wrote:
> Fair enough, but you only have that very book's word for it that it
> was written under divine inspiration. The rest is faith. :-)
It does require faith, a lot of faith.
> Fair enough, but you only have that very book's word for it that it
> was written under divine inspiration. The rest is faith. :-)
It does require faith, a lot of faith.
tphi wrote:
> My point was more about the fact Forest Fan said the first people to
> live in Australia were British.
I know. :-)
But Forest Fan said that because he was trying to show the universality of the Bible. :-)
I think we've established that it didn't cover the entire world.
Well, not THAT part of the elephant anysway.
> My point was more about the fact Forest Fan said the first people to
> live in Australia were British.
I know. :-)
But Forest Fan said that because he was trying to show the universality of the Bible. :-)
I think we've established that it didn't cover the entire world.
Well, not THAT part of the elephant anysway.
Forest Fan wrote:
> I don't know about individual Religious books and how they were
> written, but as a general pattern fallible man has been included in
> its production. As for the Bible, the book was written by men under
> the spirit of the Lord, all books are included in their (which is why
> it is so long!)
Fair enough, but you only have that very book's word for it that it was written under divine inspiration. The rest is faith. :-)
> and as for translating, we need it in English and
> other languages. There are some very good versions of the Bible, that
> do a very good translation, the only downside is a poetic book like
> Psalms, where there are some rhyming patterns we miss out in the
> English.
Again you're right, but like you said the difference in languages can lead to discrepancies... Not important in general but can be a real thrower if someone was trying to take it word for word.
But my real point here was that the Bible is an ancient book, just like the others and no one truly knows where it comes from, apart from what it says, which means nothing if you disbelieve it.
Just like the all the old documents from other religions.
So why believe the Bible and not them.
Was it because the Bible was the first one you came across, while you were still impressionable?
> I don't always disbelieve Historic Religious texts (it depends who
> wrote it), but as a general pattern the Bible is all I need for
> creation, the Old Covenant, Jesus, New Covenant and End Times etc.
In another thread you said that the Bible telling us what God needed us to know. Now suppose Genesis IS the word of God, perhaps instead of bogoling people with the complexities of science and nature, perhaps he kept it simple for them, telling them what they needed to know for that time.
Do you accept that this is a possibility and that the world maybe, (just maybe! ;-D), might have evolved the scientific way after all?
> It clearly reads like the Lord's Word. I have read small parts of the
> Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon and without disrespect they do
> not read like the Word of God.
How do you know what reads like the word of God?
I mean, from what I read of mormon, it was a lot more detailed, being written straight from the man rather than being passed down by word of mouth for generations.
> Jesus is our only Spiritual leader. He's not going to tell us to
> worship Buddha or follow Buddha, because Jesus wants committed
> followers, faithful servants.
So Jesus has a jealous ego?
I think Buddha and Jesus thought along the same lines.
It would only be their misguided followers, with the "us and them" attitude which would snub the other.
> The Bible all fits together, you only have to read it to discover
> that, therefore I hold no doubts about how good the version I read
> is. You can still read the original Hebrew and Greek Bible - and like
> I say, there are some good translators out there!
>
> Hope this helps and sorry for the delay, :)
Sort of. I still see the only reason why you believe the Bible and not the rest of "religions" is because you got into Christianity first and were told to dismiss the other religions automatically.
But we'll work on that. :-)
> I don't know about individual Religious books and how they were
> written, but as a general pattern fallible man has been included in
> its production. As for the Bible, the book was written by men under
> the spirit of the Lord, all books are included in their (which is why
> it is so long!)
Fair enough, but you only have that very book's word for it that it was written under divine inspiration. The rest is faith. :-)
> and as for translating, we need it in English and
> other languages. There are some very good versions of the Bible, that
> do a very good translation, the only downside is a poetic book like
> Psalms, where there are some rhyming patterns we miss out in the
> English.
Again you're right, but like you said the difference in languages can lead to discrepancies... Not important in general but can be a real thrower if someone was trying to take it word for word.
But my real point here was that the Bible is an ancient book, just like the others and no one truly knows where it comes from, apart from what it says, which means nothing if you disbelieve it.
Just like the all the old documents from other religions.
So why believe the Bible and not them.
Was it because the Bible was the first one you came across, while you were still impressionable?
> I don't always disbelieve Historic Religious texts (it depends who
> wrote it), but as a general pattern the Bible is all I need for
> creation, the Old Covenant, Jesus, New Covenant and End Times etc.
In another thread you said that the Bible telling us what God needed us to know. Now suppose Genesis IS the word of God, perhaps instead of bogoling people with the complexities of science and nature, perhaps he kept it simple for them, telling them what they needed to know for that time.
Do you accept that this is a possibility and that the world maybe, (just maybe! ;-D), might have evolved the scientific way after all?
> It clearly reads like the Lord's Word. I have read small parts of the
> Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon and without disrespect they do
> not read like the Word of God.
How do you know what reads like the word of God?
I mean, from what I read of mormon, it was a lot more detailed, being written straight from the man rather than being passed down by word of mouth for generations.
> Jesus is our only Spiritual leader. He's not going to tell us to
> worship Buddha or follow Buddha, because Jesus wants committed
> followers, faithful servants.
So Jesus has a jealous ego?
I think Buddha and Jesus thought along the same lines.
It would only be their misguided followers, with the "us and them" attitude which would snub the other.
> The Bible all fits together, you only have to read it to discover
> that, therefore I hold no doubts about how good the version I read
> is. You can still read the original Hebrew and Greek Bible - and like
> I say, there are some good translators out there!
>
> Hope this helps and sorry for the delay, :)
Sort of. I still see the only reason why you believe the Bible and not the rest of "religions" is because you got into Christianity first and were told to dismiss the other religions automatically.
But we'll work on that. :-)
Strafio wrote:
> It's alright, your point is made.
>
>
> The Bible doesn't cover all people. :-)
My point was more about the fact Forest Fan said the first people to live in Australia were British.
> It's alright, your point is made.
>
>
> The Bible doesn't cover all people. :-)
My point was more about the fact Forest Fan said the first people to live in Australia were British.
Strafio wrote:
> It does cover Native Americans, whom Jesus appeared to...
>
>
> ... only the Book of Mormon is just a cult. Oh well. ;-)
Heh. With horses?!?!
>
>
> Seriously though FF, be thinking about my question! ;-)
OK, I answered a block of them, if there are others, just remind me.
> It does cover Native Americans, whom Jesus appeared to...
>
>
> ... only the Book of Mormon is just a cult. Oh well. ;-)
Heh. With horses?!?!
>
>
> Seriously though FF, be thinking about my question! ;-)
OK, I answered a block of them, if there are others, just remind me.
Strafio wrote:
Here goes...
> I guess my question now is:
> All religious writings, including the Bible, have been written,
> interpreted, put together, edited, translated and whatnot by
> "fallible men".
I don't know about individual Religious books and how they were written, but as a general pattern fallible man has been included in its production. As for the Bible, the book was written by men under the spirit of the Lord, all books are included in their (which is why it is so long!) and as for translating, we need it in English and other languages. There are some very good versions of the Bible, that do a very good translation, the only downside is a poetic book like Psalms, where there are some rhyming patterns we miss out in the English.
>
> So other than your personal faith, what is it about the Bible that
> makes you believe its EVERY word and disbelieve EVERY word of one of
> these "rival" religions?
I don't always disbelieve Historic Religious texts (it depends who wrote it), but as a general pattern the Bible is all I need for creation, the Old Covenant, Jesus, New Covenant and End Times etc.
> Is it because it was the first one to tell you to "believe me
> and no one else"?
It clearly reads like the Lord's Word. I have read small parts of the Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon and without disrespect they do not read like the Word of God.
>
> The way you say that anyone who isn't mentioned in the Bible
> (including those who are extremely similar to Jesus in terms of moral
> and lessons taught) is the work of the devil makes me think that you
> believe God cares more about his ego than the human race.
Jesus is our only Spiritual leader. He's not going to tell us to worship Buddha or follow Buddha, because Jesus wants committed followers, faithful servants.
>
> Are you really thinking about what the Bible is and where it came
> from or are you basing your every belief in a book which has probably
> been severely doctored between its conception and the
> "version" you own.
The Bible all fits together, you only have to read it to discover that, therefore I hold no doubts about how good the version I read is. You can still read the original Hebrew and Greek Bible - and like I say, there are some good translators out there!
Hope this helps and sorry for the delay, :)
Here goes...
> I guess my question now is:
> All religious writings, including the Bible, have been written,
> interpreted, put together, edited, translated and whatnot by
> "fallible men".
I don't know about individual Religious books and how they were written, but as a general pattern fallible man has been included in its production. As for the Bible, the book was written by men under the spirit of the Lord, all books are included in their (which is why it is so long!) and as for translating, we need it in English and other languages. There are some very good versions of the Bible, that do a very good translation, the only downside is a poetic book like Psalms, where there are some rhyming patterns we miss out in the English.
>
> So other than your personal faith, what is it about the Bible that
> makes you believe its EVERY word and disbelieve EVERY word of one of
> these "rival" religions?
I don't always disbelieve Historic Religious texts (it depends who wrote it), but as a general pattern the Bible is all I need for creation, the Old Covenant, Jesus, New Covenant and End Times etc.
> Is it because it was the first one to tell you to "believe me
> and no one else"?
It clearly reads like the Lord's Word. I have read small parts of the Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon and without disrespect they do not read like the Word of God.
>
> The way you say that anyone who isn't mentioned in the Bible
> (including those who are extremely similar to Jesus in terms of moral
> and lessons taught) is the work of the devil makes me think that you
> believe God cares more about his ego than the human race.
Jesus is our only Spiritual leader. He's not going to tell us to worship Buddha or follow Buddha, because Jesus wants committed followers, faithful servants.
>
> Are you really thinking about what the Bible is and where it came
> from or are you basing your every belief in a book which has probably
> been severely doctored between its conception and the
> "version" you own.
The Bible all fits together, you only have to read it to discover that, therefore I hold no doubts about how good the version I read is. You can still read the original Hebrew and Greek Bible - and like I say, there are some good translators out there!
Hope this helps and sorry for the delay, :)
It's alright, your point is made.
The Bible doesn't cover all people. :-)
It does cover Native Americans, whom Jesus appeared to...
... only the Book of Mormon is just a cult. Oh well. ;-)
Seriously though FF, be thinking about my question! ;-)
The Bible doesn't cover all people. :-)
It does cover Native Americans, whom Jesus appeared to...
... only the Book of Mormon is just a cult. Oh well. ;-)
Seriously though FF, be thinking about my question! ;-)
tphi wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Australia was not discovered in Biblical times and
> even then, the first people to live there would be British and
> Britain is indirectly mentioned in the Bible.
>
> I can't believe anyone hasn't seen this already. :D The first people
> to live in Australia would be British, eh? That's funny.. because I
> always thought there were these Aboriginee people.. or is that a
> fabrication by the devil to trick us?
I'm still waiting for you to answer. :)
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Australia was not discovered in Biblical times and
> even then, the first people to live there would be British and
> Britain is indirectly mentioned in the Bible.
>
> I can't believe anyone hasn't seen this already. :D The first people
> to live in Australia would be British, eh? That's funny.. because I
> always thought there were these Aboriginee people.. or is that a
> fabrication by the devil to trick us?
I'm still waiting for you to answer. :)
Page: