The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
tphi wrote:
> Weren't Noah and Abraham and Moses all in the same sort of area?
>
> You never here about his Eskimo Exploits, or his Native People's of
> North America Travels. Oh, that's because they have
> "special" religions of their own.
From the top of my head, the following countries and areas are all mentioned in the Bible:
Europe
Cyprus
Germany
Greece
Italy
Romania
Russia
Spain
Turkey
Asia
India
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Lebanon
Africa
Egypt
Ethiopia
-------------------------------
And many more........
> Weren't Noah and Abraham and Moses all in the same sort of area?
>
> You never here about his Eskimo Exploits, or his Native People's of
> North America Travels. Oh, that's because they have
> "special" religions of their own.
From the top of my head, the following countries and areas are all mentioned in the Bible:
Europe
Cyprus
Germany
Greece
Italy
Romania
Russia
Spain
Turkey
Asia
India
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Lebanon
Africa
Egypt
Ethiopia
-------------------------------
And many more........
Forest Fan wrote:
> He has appeared to people all through history. He was with Noah
> thousands of years ago and Abraham, then Moses and with the prophets
> and later Jesus and then in the Holy Spirit and He is coming again in
> the form of living Jesus.
Weren't Noah and Abraham and Moses all in the same sort of area?
You never here about his Eskimo Exploits, or his Native People's of North America Travels. Oh, that's because they have "special" religions of their own.
> He has appeared to people all through history. He was with Noah
> thousands of years ago and Abraham, then Moses and with the prophets
> and later Jesus and then in the Holy Spirit and He is coming again in
> the form of living Jesus.
Weren't Noah and Abraham and Moses all in the same sort of area?
You never here about his Eskimo Exploits, or his Native People's of North America Travels. Oh, that's because they have "special" religions of their own.
Strafio wrote:
> I mean, God wouldn't be so limited to just appearing to one race of
> people, right?
He has appeared to people all through history. He was with Noah thousands of years ago and Abraham, then Moses and with the prophets and later Jesus and then in the Holy Spirit and He is coming again in the form of living Jesus.
> I mean, God wouldn't be so limited to just appearing to one race of
> people, right?
He has appeared to people all through history. He was with Noah thousands of years ago and Abraham, then Moses and with the prophets and later Jesus and then in the Holy Spirit and He is coming again in the form of living Jesus.
Strafio wrote:
> I mean, God wouldn't be so limited to just appearing to one race of
> people, right?
It's the same thing at the end of the day, just in different wrapping paper. ff however, might as well start goosestepping around with the belief only his cult is "special"
> I mean, God wouldn't be so limited to just appearing to one race of
> people, right?
It's the same thing at the end of the day, just in different wrapping paper. ff however, might as well start goosestepping around with the belief only his cult is "special"
Yep, and could possibly be found elsewhere too, right? :-)
I mean, God wouldn't be so limited to just appearing to one race of people, right?
I mean, God wouldn't be so limited to just appearing to one race of people, right?
Strafio wrote:
> It's not sinful to have an open mind you know.
> You're not denying God, just admitting that there might be more to
> him than you previously imagined. :-)
God cannot fully be summed up in the Bible, but all there is that God wants us to know about Him, can be found in the Bible.
> It's not sinful to have an open mind you know.
> You're not denying God, just admitting that there might be more to
> him than you previously imagined. :-)
God cannot fully be summed up in the Bible, but all there is that God wants us to know about Him, can be found in the Bible.
Here it is again. :-)
Strafio wrote:
> So the great almighty God can be wholy represented by a single series
> of books?
>
> Or perhaps that's the part of the elephant the Jews got their hands
> on, while other parts of the world got their own taste of God from a
> different perspective.
>
> Can you rule that out?
It's not sinful to have an open mind you know.
You're not denying God, just admitting that there might be more to him than you previously imagined. :-)
Strafio wrote:
> So the great almighty God can be wholy represented by a single series
> of books?
>
> Or perhaps that's the part of the elephant the Jews got their hands
> on, while other parts of the world got their own taste of God from a
> different perspective.
>
> Can you rule that out?
It's not sinful to have an open mind you know.
You're not denying God, just admitting that there might be more to him than you previously imagined. :-)
An Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Immortal being, would have little concept of the passage of time. It is everywhere, anytime and in any context. It knows everything and everyone.
If god is all seeing, then it saw that its 'creation' (man) would fail (or sin) before it happened. It saw that man would kill other men for petty reasons such as land, wealth and perceived knowledge.
The fact that god did it anyway, surely means that it did it because it was cruel - it wanted to inflict pain on beings lesser than itself, for reasons unknown.
Man 'sinned' because the behaviours, desires and instincts are written into his DNA. Though man has conscious thought, a huge percentage of his actions can be attributed to his natural make up. If god created the universe, he designed man down to the very molecule. God is therefore responsible for mans actions directly or indirectly.
But he has plans to return and 'punish' his children for doing only what it could have been hoped they would do. Their piffling achievements mean nothing, because they were unable to rise above their primitive make-up. But any attempts to alter this make-up using science is also a sin, they are only allowed to transcend their primitive instincts through confessing just how pathetic, sinful and downright evil they are to their master.
Indulgence in any hedonistic practices is forbidden, one must live a sheltered existence to ensure a place in the afterlife.
This deity is clearly as confused and imperfect as ourselves. It is capable of hatred, revenge, torture, cruelty, petty grudges, and above all - arrogance.
I can find these qualities anywhere in life, why should I beg forgiveness for any of these qualities found in myself, when the being hearing my confession is guilty of them all in the extreme.
To hell with god, I say.
If god is all seeing, then it saw that its 'creation' (man) would fail (or sin) before it happened. It saw that man would kill other men for petty reasons such as land, wealth and perceived knowledge.
The fact that god did it anyway, surely means that it did it because it was cruel - it wanted to inflict pain on beings lesser than itself, for reasons unknown.
Man 'sinned' because the behaviours, desires and instincts are written into his DNA. Though man has conscious thought, a huge percentage of his actions can be attributed to his natural make up. If god created the universe, he designed man down to the very molecule. God is therefore responsible for mans actions directly or indirectly.
But he has plans to return and 'punish' his children for doing only what it could have been hoped they would do. Their piffling achievements mean nothing, because they were unable to rise above their primitive make-up. But any attempts to alter this make-up using science is also a sin, they are only allowed to transcend their primitive instincts through confessing just how pathetic, sinful and downright evil they are to their master.
Indulgence in any hedonistic practices is forbidden, one must live a sheltered existence to ensure a place in the afterlife.
This deity is clearly as confused and imperfect as ourselves. It is capable of hatred, revenge, torture, cruelty, petty grudges, and above all - arrogance.
I can find these qualities anywhere in life, why should I beg forgiveness for any of these qualities found in myself, when the being hearing my confession is guilty of them all in the extreme.
To hell with god, I say.
Forest Fan wrote:
> The Bible is a collection of the sixty six books, written over a time
> period of 1,500 years and is one of the lengthiest books you are
> likely to find, so I would say, yes.
Oral tradition, actually, handed down until monks finally wrote it all down for people to read.
Partly because before this, a lot of people couldn't read anyway.
> The Bible is a collection of the sixty six books, written over a time
> period of 1,500 years and is one of the lengthiest books you are
> likely to find, so I would say, yes.
Oral tradition, actually, handed down until monks finally wrote it all down for people to read.
Partly because before this, a lot of people couldn't read anyway.
Remember - the Bible is a group of books, collected by a man. Yes - a man: one of those sinful, foolish, lying things.
You don't think there were other books - other accounts of Jesus' life and the other events (perhaps different ones) told in the Bible?
Of couse there were.
And have you ever asked yourself why these weren't included in the Bible?
You don't think there were other books - other accounts of Jesus' life and the other events (perhaps different ones) told in the Bible?
Of couse there were.
And have you ever asked yourself why these weren't included in the Bible?
Page: