The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
So, let me get this straight. You're saying that humans killed God on Earth?
monkey_man wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> And I'll also ask you to answer this question. Which thread were you
> lying in please?
>
> Jesus is a part of the GODhead. God is in three forms, God The
> Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
[URL]http://www.godhead.com/downloads/images/2003_02_l.jpg[/URL]
If god is a scary bald goth, he gets my vote.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> And I'll also ask you to answer this question. Which thread were you
> lying in please?
>
> Jesus is a part of the GODhead. God is in three forms, God The
> Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
[URL]http://www.godhead.com/downloads/images/2003_02_l.jpg[/URL]
If god is a scary bald goth, he gets my vote.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> And I'll also ask you to answer this question. Which thread were you
> lying in please?
>
> Jesus is a part of the GODhead. God is in three forms, God The
> Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Which part is the Quincy part, and what does it taste like?
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> And I'll also ask you to answer this question. Which thread were you
> lying in please?
>
> Jesus is a part of the GODhead. God is in three forms, God The
> Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Which part is the Quincy part, and what does it taste like?
Pandaemonium wrote:
> And I'll also ask you to answer this question. Which thread were you
> lying in please?
Jesus is a part of the GODhead. God is in three forms, God The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
> And I'll also ask you to answer this question. Which thread were you
> lying in please?
Jesus is a part of the GODhead. God is in three forms, God The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Light wrote:
Seems that you've once again been caught out.
> Especially as you also said (and I quote...)
>
> "God = Jesus"
>
> So you're either saying you DID speak directly to him and you're
> lying here. Or you're lying when you said you spoke direct, and
> telling the truth here.
>
> Which is it?
And I'll also ask you to answer this question. Which thread were you lying in please?
Seems that you've once again been caught out.
> Especially as you also said (and I quote...)
>
> "God = Jesus"
>
> So you're either saying you DID speak directly to him and you're
> lying here. Or you're lying when you said you spoke direct, and
> telling the truth here.
>
> Which is it?
And I'll also ask you to answer this question. Which thread were you lying in please?
Forest Fan wrote:
> tphi wrote:
> But no Australia? Now why could that be.. is it:
>
> A) Because God just ignored it.
> B) Because the bored blokes who sat around and wrote the books of
> the
> Bible just didn't know it existed.
>
> Secret Option C) 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?
> tphi wrote:
> But no Australia? Now why could that be.. is it:
>
> A) Because God just ignored it.
> B) Because the bored blokes who sat around and wrote the books of
> the
> Bible just didn't know it existed.
>
> Secret Option C) 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?
Right.
Don't rush though. :-)
It sometimes takes me days to think over an idea properly.
I just come out that little bit wiser. :-)
It sometimes takes me days to think over an idea properly.
I just come out that little bit wiser. :-)
I'll reply...
Don't be forgetting my questions now! ;-)
Take plenty of time to think about it, but so long as you are thinking about it. :-)
Take plenty of time to think about it, but so long as you are thinking about it. :-)
Page: