The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> Yes, the Bible.
> The only book by God.
> 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.
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?
> Yes, the Bible.
> The only book by God.
> 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.
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?
Strafio wrote:
> But God's ONLY book?
Yes, the Bible.
>
> Or just the book you know God by?
The only book by God.
>
> Could one book really sum up EVERYTHING there is to know about God?
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.
> But God's ONLY book?
Yes, the Bible.
>
> Or just the book you know God by?
The only book by God.
>
> Could one book really sum up EVERYTHING there is to know about God?
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.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Yes, yes I did, but I have got the mediator, the mediator is Jesus.
Yet you never mentioned that; you merely said that you spoke directly to him, and he to you. 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?
> Yes, yes I did, but I have got the mediator, the mediator is Jesus.
Yet you never mentioned that; you merely said that you spoke directly to him, and he to you. 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?
But God's ONLY book?
Or just the book you know God by?
Could one book really sum up EVERYTHING there is to know about God?
Or just the book you know God by?
Could one book really sum up EVERYTHING there is to know about God?
Strafio wrote:
> Is that what you make of the Bible then?
> Man's set of rules of what they expect from God?
God has given His Word to man in the form of the scriptures found in the Bible. Really, it is God's book.
> Is that what you make of the Bible then?
> Man's set of rules of what they expect from God?
God has given His Word to man in the form of the scriptures found in the Bible. Really, it is God's book.
SHEEPY wrote:
> How did the man describe the trunk then?
:-)
> How did the man describe the trunk then?
:-)
Forest Fan wrote:
> The basic idea of religion, is usually to get closer to God and
> worship Him, agreed?
Not really, it's a set of beliefs shared by lots of people.
That's why Buddhism can be classed as a religion as a lot of people live by it.
> The problem with this is sinful man has never been able to directly
> talk to God, unless through a mediator like Moses or today through
> Jesus or when the Lord anointed someone.
According to the part of the elephant the Bible pictures.
Personally, I think God is prepared to talk to anyone who's ready to listen.
> This is what makes a religion, trying to meet God, but with just a
> man made set of rules, when God hasn't given His Word to man.
...
Is that what you make of the Bible then?
Man's set of rules of what they expect from God?
Or the Bible is what you've experienced of God so that must be everything there is too him?
Are you sure? :-)
> The basic idea of religion, is usually to get closer to God and
> worship Him, agreed?
Not really, it's a set of beliefs shared by lots of people.
That's why Buddhism can be classed as a religion as a lot of people live by it.
> The problem with this is sinful man has never been able to directly
> talk to God, unless through a mediator like Moses or today through
> Jesus or when the Lord anointed someone.
According to the part of the elephant the Bible pictures.
Personally, I think God is prepared to talk to anyone who's ready to listen.
> This is what makes a religion, trying to meet God, but with just a
> man made set of rules, when God hasn't given His Word to man.
...
Is that what you make of the Bible then?
Man's set of rules of what they expect from God?
Or the Bible is what you've experienced of God so that must be everything there is too him?
Are you sure? :-)
How did the man describe the trunk then?
Forest Fan wrote:
> Yes, yes I did, but I have got the mediator, the mediator is Jesus.
[edi] Can't be bothered to retread old, old ground..................
> Yes, yes I did, but I have got the mediator, the mediator is Jesus.
[edi] Can't be bothered to retread old, old ground..................
I'm Jesus. My Dad says you should shut up.
Page: