The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Despite when most people thought the world was flat, the Bible always showed it to be round.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Or if you thought the world was flat.
They didn't ever believe that in the past. I was all made up in a very poplular biography of some guy in the victorian times, and all the 'commoners' thought it was true, and thus people think that in the olden day people thought the world was flat.
> Or if you thought the world was flat.
They didn't ever believe that in the past. I was all made up in a very poplular biography of some guy in the victorian times, and all the 'commoners' thought it was true, and thus people think that in the olden day people thought the world was flat.
monkey_man wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> monkey_man wrote:
> But your all powerful overseer does, right?
>
> Yep, absolutely. Only someone as large and magnificent as God, could
> create a universe like ours.
>
> Which God - Allah? Buddha? Chuck Norris?
God actually refers to the Christian God, tis his/her/its name.
These you quoted are deities from the other religions.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> monkey_man wrote:
> But your all powerful overseer does, right?
>
> Yep, absolutely. Only someone as large and magnificent as God, could
> create a universe like ours.
>
> Which God - Allah? Buddha? Chuck Norris?
God actually refers to the Christian God, tis his/her/its name.
These you quoted are deities from the other religions.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Yep, absolutely. Only someone as large and magnificent as God, could
> create a universe like ours.
Seems a bit of a waste really doesn't it. A small planet on the western arm of the milky way, and all the rest of that universe gone to waste..........
Unless of course, your belive the earth is the center of the universe, and from what I read of your other beliefs, it wouldn't suprise me. Or if you thought the world was flat.
> Yep, absolutely. Only someone as large and magnificent as God, could
> create a universe like ours.
Seems a bit of a waste really doesn't it. A small planet on the western arm of the milky way, and all the rest of that universe gone to waste..........
Unless of course, your belive the earth is the center of the universe, and from what I read of your other beliefs, it wouldn't suprise me. Or if you thought the world was flat.
Forest Fan wrote:
> monkey_man wrote:
> But your all powerful overseer does, right?
>
> Yep, absolutely. Only someone as large and magnificent as God, could
> create a universe like ours.
Which God - Allah? Buddha? Chuck Norris?
> monkey_man wrote:
> But your all powerful overseer does, right?
>
> Yep, absolutely. Only someone as large and magnificent as God, could
> create a universe like ours.
Which God - Allah? Buddha? Chuck Norris?
monkey_man wrote:
> But your all powerful overseer does, right?
Yep, absolutely. Only someone as large and magnificent as God, could create a universe like ours.
> But your all powerful overseer does, right?
Yep, absolutely. Only someone as large and magnificent as God, could create a universe like ours.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> monkey_man wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But it doesn't explain the very existence of these cells.
>
> But your all powerful overseer does, right?
>
> "In the beginning, " yada yada yada. Conclusive scientific
> proof non? [/sarcasm]
Hey look, you're writing words! And you're a man! You may just as well have written the Bible!
> monkey_man wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But it doesn't explain the very existence of these cells.
>
> But your all powerful overseer does, right?
>
> "In the beginning, " yada yada yada. Conclusive scientific
> proof non? [/sarcasm]
Hey look, you're writing words! And you're a man! You may just as well have written the Bible!
monkey_man wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But it doesn't explain the very existence of these cells.
>
> But your all powerful overseer does, right?
"In the beginning, " yada yada yada. Conclusive scientific proof non? [/sarcasm]
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But it doesn't explain the very existence of these cells.
>
> But your all powerful overseer does, right?
"In the beginning, " yada yada yada. Conclusive scientific proof non? [/sarcasm]
Forest Fan wrote:
> But it doesn't explain the very existence of these cells.
But your all powerful overseer does, right?
> But it doesn't explain the very existence of these cells.
But your all powerful overseer does, right?
But it doesn't explain the very existence of these cells.
Page: