The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> Strafio wrote:
> Little bits of matter gradually found ways to join together to make
> bigger bits of matter. :-)
> Nothing's added or taken away, just re-arranged.
>
> But WHERE did the matter come from?
> WHERE?
>
> That's my point.
WE DON'T F****** KNOW YET!!!!!!!!!!
But we are trying, trying to answer this question, instead of blindly accepting the bible.
Can you not understand this simple reasoning?
We don't understand the big bang fully yet, but we are trying. The matter had to come from *somewhere* and string theory is attempting to answer that question. It's far more forward thinking than accepting "In the beginning God created" like the rest of your religions sheeple.
> Strafio wrote:
> Little bits of matter gradually found ways to join together to make
> bigger bits of matter. :-)
> Nothing's added or taken away, just re-arranged.
>
> But WHERE did the matter come from?
> WHERE?
>
> That's my point.
WE DON'T F****** KNOW YET!!!!!!!!!!
But we are trying, trying to answer this question, instead of blindly accepting the bible.
Can you not understand this simple reasoning?
We don't understand the big bang fully yet, but we are trying. The matter had to come from *somewhere* and string theory is attempting to answer that question. It's far more forward thinking than accepting "In the beginning God created" like the rest of your religions sheeple.
tphi wrote:
> I also love the fact that he has yet to acknowledge his mistake, and
> is continuing on hoping I'll forget about it.
Thankyou for pointing out my mistake, but see I accept my mistakes, yet you still don't want to budge over the whole evolution theory..
> I also love the fact that he has yet to acknowledge his mistake, and
> is continuing on hoping I'll forget about it.
Thankyou for pointing out my mistake, but see I accept my mistakes, yet you still don't want to budge over the whole evolution theory..
Strafio wrote:
> Little bits of matter gradually found ways to join together to make
> bigger bits of matter. :-)
> Nothing's added or taken away, just re-arranged.
But WHERE did the matter come from? WHERE?
That's my point.
> Little bits of matter gradually found ways to join together to make
> bigger bits of matter. :-)
> Nothing's added or taken away, just re-arranged.
But WHERE did the matter come from? WHERE?
That's my point.
Anysway, I can't think of anything right now that might convince you that there is truth outside the Bible, but I'll be back! :-)
In the meantime I'll leave you and Light to spend some "quality" time together.
But think about it...
Are you seeing ALL of the elephant?
Is all of the elephant there to be seen?
Can you really rule out other possibilties when there is no real evidence to prove any other theories wrong, merely your own judgement...
... the judgement you formed because you read the Bible first...
think about it! :-)
In the meantime I'll leave you and Light to spend some "quality" time together.
But think about it...
Are you seeing ALL of the elephant?
Is all of the elephant there to be seen?
Can you really rule out other possibilties when there is no real evidence to prove any other theories wrong, merely your own judgement...
... the judgement you formed because you read the Bible first...
think about it! :-)
tphi wrote:
>
> How childish of me. I really shouldn't sink to his level.
Oh I dunno; it's good to show that he's not even very good at being childish. All in all, he's a fairly inadequate human being who's 'faith' will melt like butter under the sunlight when he leaves his young teenaged years and has to face the realities of life.
>
> How childish of me. I really shouldn't sink to his level.
Oh I dunno; it's good to show that he's not even very good at being childish. All in all, he's a fairly inadequate human being who's 'faith' will melt like butter under the sunlight when he leaves his young teenaged years and has to face the realities of life.
Strafio wrote:
> 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 also love the fact that he has yet to acknowledge his mistake, and is continuing on hoping I'll forget about it.
Yoo hoo Forest Fan, I know you're reading this. Shame your too much of a coward to admit you're wrong. And even if you do admit it now, you've already ignored this for days.
How childish of me. I really shouldn't sink to his level.
> 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 also love the fact that he has yet to acknowledge his mistake, and is continuing on hoping I'll forget about it.
Yoo hoo Forest Fan, I know you're reading this. Shame your too much of a coward to admit you're wrong. And even if you do admit it now, you've already ignored this for days.
How childish of me. I really shouldn't sink to his level.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Just to add to this, the theory that all matter evolved from nothing,
> requires much, much, much more faith.
:-)
Not from nothing. :-)
Little bits of matter gradually found ways to join together to make bigger bits of matter. :-)
Nothing's added or taken away, just re-arranged.
Beautiful science. :-)
> Just to add to this, the theory that all matter evolved from nothing,
> requires much, much, much more faith.
:-)
Not from nothing. :-)
Little bits of matter gradually found ways to join together to make bigger bits of matter. :-)
Nothing's added or taken away, just re-arranged.
Beautiful science. :-)
Forest Fan wrote:
> Just to add to this, the theory that all matter evolved from nothing,
> requires much, much, much more faith.
No, I tend to think the scientific studies and such are pretty sufficient for me. No need for faith here, Forest.
> Just to add to this, the theory that all matter evolved from nothing,
> requires much, much, much more faith.
No, I tend to think the scientific studies and such are pretty sufficient for me. No need for faith here, Forest.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Just to add to this, the theory that all matter evolved from nothing,
> requires much, much, much more faith.
It does? Not for me it doesn't.
[edit] And we don't understand the big bang fully yet, but we are trying. The matter had to come from *somewhere* and string theory is attempting to answer that question. It's far more forward thinking than accepting "In the beginning God created" like a good little sheeple.
> Just to add to this, the theory that all matter evolved from nothing,
> requires much, much, much more faith.
It does? Not for me it doesn't.
[edit] And we don't understand the big bang fully yet, but we are trying. The matter had to come from *somewhere* and string theory is attempting to answer that question. It's far more forward thinking than accepting "In the beginning God created" like a good little sheeple.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Just to add to this, the theory that all matter evolved from nothing,
> requires much, much, much more faith.
It does? Not for me it doesn't.
> Just to add to this, the theory that all matter evolved from nothing,
> requires much, much, much more faith.
It does? Not for me it doesn't.
Page: