flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > start a new religion, possible?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
religion is so human...

i'm not so human, but more spiritual, then, i don't think like you, prayer human.

pray is not only pray.

eating good fod to respect your body is liek a religion, trying to touch the mysteries of coding is some wisdom.

then, you can go to hell without me and with your dear book.
Post 09 Aug 2008, 19:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
1.
Shahada wrote:
...my religion is not Judaism

OK.
I accept this statement as a FACT.
2.
Shahada wrote:
There is only one true religion...

OK, I disagree, but, for purpose of clarification, as a hypothetical statement, let us consider that Intel and AMD cpu's are identical, they are not, but, for purpose of discussion, let's agree to accept the premise.
3. Let us ask then, this question: IS Shahada's religion, the "one TRUE religion"? I suppose, for purpose of this discussion, we should respond, YES. YES, Shahada's religion, which is NOT Judaism, is the ONLY true religion.
Ok, then, by definition,
JUDAISM MUST represent fables, fiction, and imagination, NOT directives from "GOD", but rather, creations from Homo sapiens:
Shahada wrote:
...the rest are devised by humans.

Then, it is necessary only to respond to this silly statement:
Quote:
...Christianity and Islam are not derivatives of it.
where "it" refers to Judaism.
Holy Cow, Shahada. Which planet are you from????
Adam, ADAM????, are you referring to the Garden of Eden ADAM, Shahada????
OOPS.
Where does that story originate Shahada???? Surely you comprehend the FACT, that AMD cpu came AFTER Intel, and employs the SAME instruction set, to ensure compatibility? The AMD architecture, Shahada, is DERIVED from the Intel design, a design, in my opinion, singularly unINTELligent.

Listen to me now, Shahada: AMD MUST NOT CLAIM to be the originator of this instruction set, for that simply is UNTRUE.

The story of Adam, like all the other stories from the Torah, which appear in the ghastly Quran, or at least that portion of the Quran which was not consumed by the goat, WAS WRITTEN BY THE JEWS, OF THE JEWS, and FOR THE JEWS, TO EXPLAIN the history of the planet earth. Islam comes into the picture about 1500 years, at least, AFTER the story of Adam has been introduced, BY THE JEWS, Shahada, not by the Quran, and certainly not by the ILLITERATE Camel driver, Mohammed, or anyone of his umpteen wives and adolescent concubines. Along with all the riches from the caravans, which Mohammed pilfered, he also stole the history, as taught to him, by the followers of Arius, who lived along his route.
What about all the peculiar dietary rules of the Muslims and Jews, Shahada??? Mere coincidence???? What, Shahada, you disagree with me, that it was the Christian followers of Arius, murdered in the fourth century, because of his insistence that Judaism's central tenet of monotheism must be obeyed, and likewise, Arius' recalcitrant insistence on repudiating the pagan notions of the Triune God, (notions which were introduced by those opposed to the idea of requiring obedience to ALL of the Jewish rituals, laws, ceremonies, and traditions, upon which JESUS himself, as a Jewish rabbi, would have insisted,) yes, the followers of Arius who considered Jesus a mere prophet, not a divinity,--the followers of Arius whose underlying beliefs led to the creation of the religion which we call today, Islam? Do you understand, Shahada, that the Camel driver, Mohammed, aka Camel THIEF, (pedophile, and homosexual) was traveling back and forth between Mecca/Medina, and Constantinople, famed terminus of the Chinese Silk route, along the very place, in today's Syria, Turkey, Jordan, etc, where Arius' followers were dominant? Islam does not come from the air. It is derived from both Judaism and Christianity--two traditions well acquainted with murder, rape, and incest, traits which some folks, sadly attribute only to Islam.
Sad
Post 09 Aug 2008, 21:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Shahada



Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 77
Shahada
Your post is too low to deserve an answer, but for those who happens to read such abomination and lies:
1. Judaism is a combination of truth and fabrication.
2. There are similarities not because the religions are derived one from another, but because they are all derived from the same Source: GOD. The differences are caused by the corruption of GOD's word.
3. Arius hasn't been murdered, and he didn't consider Jesus 'a mere prophet', but considered Christ a divinity subordinate to the Father. He was just one of the various voices in the Alexandrine subtle theological disputes, and was as far from what you erroneously call Judaism as the rest of them.
4. You have no idea about Islam.
Turn to GOD, O people, offer repentance and seek His forgiveness


Last edited by Shahada on 10 Aug 2008, 08:17; edited 1 time in total
Post 09 Aug 2008, 23:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Whether we are discussing a new cpu architecture, or the benefits of introducing yet another silly religion, we had better know something about the existing products, and their deficiencies.
One of the problems with all religions, is DOCTRINE. This is also known as "THE TRUTH". Unfortunately, most humans are not inerrant. Most humans make mistakes. Some humans, including me, make LOTS of mistakes. When those mistakes are passed along, from one generation to another, eventually a contradiction arises, between "The Truth", and reality. How should one resolve such a contradiction?

Historically, such contradictions were resolved through warfare. These days, we endeavor to do battle with the pen, rather than the sword, to iron out these differences of opinion, and attempt to clarify issues, regarding certain historical events, by procuring EVIDENCE, as opposed to simply reciting DOGMA.
You, Shahada, have suggested here, in this thread, that ALL OTHER RELIGIONS, save your own cpu architecture, AMD, I suppose, ARE FALSE. You further wrote that HUMANS, not God, created "ALL" other religions, save Islam, your own faith, and you indicated that these OTHER religions, but not your own, were concocted by man, as fables and fairy tales. But, then, when I challenged your notion that the story of Adam originated with the Quran, when, in fact, it originated with the Torah, AT LEAST 1500 years prior to the first edition of the Quran, you introduced a MODIFICATION of your earlier DOGMA:
Shahada wrote:
Judaism is a combination of truth and fabrication.

Well, which is it, Shahada? You can't have it both ways. You cannot write that AMD is the creator of the INTEL architecture, can you? If you want to come to the FASM forum and suggest that Islam is the only true religion, and all others are figments of human imagination, you will get no argument from me, (about all the others) but, if you then turn around and repudiate Shahada himself: "the rest are devised by humans", then I must humbly ask whether you are genuinely sincere? How can ANY component of Judaism be "truth"? That is utterly impossible, if your allegation is correct, as I believe it is: "all others are simply human fabrications". Are you simply writing something in an unserious fashion, mere gibberish, nonsense, or, are you truly as confused as your writing indicates? Judaism CAN NOT, by definition, be BOTH a fabrication, a human invention, i.e. UNTRUE, AND ALSO represent the TRUTH. That's a logical impossibility. Though I agree with you, that it is treacherous quicksand to walk into the trap of suggesting that Judaism DOES possess elements of Truth, for then, one MUST repudiate the former statement that ALL other religions, save Islam, are fabrications, still, despite the quicksand, it is better to argue that Judaism contains SOME truth, else, the whole of the Quran is rubbish, for it is ALL derived, ultimately, from Judaism.

With regard to Arius, I appreciate your criticisms of my inadequate summary. Arius taught that Jesus was NOT EQUAL to God:
he wrote:
If the Father had begotten the Son, he who had been begotten had a beginning, and therefore there must have been a time when the Son did not exist.
Post 10 Aug 2008, 01:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
The Easter bunny told me Santa Claus doesn't exist but I didn't believe her.
Post 10 Aug 2008, 02:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Shahada



Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 77
Shahada
This is my last post in this GODless thread.
I didn't say all religions except Islam are invented by humans, I clearly stated some religions are alteration of GOD's Word. Judaism is in this category. The Jews keep a part of GOD's Word, but replace the other with their own fabrications and misleading. GOD sent Prophets to make known His Word, Prophets who established communities of believers. But people altered or forgotten GOD's Word until GOD sent His Message.
May GOD keep us on the right path!
Post 10 Aug 2008, 09:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Shahada wrote:
Religion is not for joke,..., if you not have respect for yourself have at least respect for religion.

then Shahada wrote:
There is only one true religion, ..., the rest are devised by humans.
which, to me, at least, suggests that Shahada believes that HIS religion, i.e. Islam, is TRUE, hence, all others FALSE, yet, despite the FACT (at least, according to Shahada) that ALL other religions are FALSE, Shahada insists that we should pay "respect" for ALL religions.
WHY?
Why should FASM forumers respect something that Shahada himself, has identified as FALSE?
I believe, perhaps I am in error, that Shahada INTENDED to write, in that first quote above:
"ISLAM is not for joke,..., if you do not have respect for yourself have at least respect for ISLAM." Whether or not he intended to write that, he certainly THOUGHT that.
So, Shahada, allow me to write, frankly: I intensely dislike, AND DISRESPECT ALL religions, PARTICULARLY Islam, and its progenitors, Judaism and Christianity.
Yes, Shahada, ALL religions, but particularly ISLAM, represent a "joke", i.e. nonsense, FAKE, Dishonest, UNTRUE, Scams.
Shahada wrote:
...keep us away from delusion and ignorance!
Do you comprehend the meaning of "delusion", Shahada?
A delusion is a FIXED, FALSE belief.
All religions represent delusions. There is nothing true about any of them. They are all confabulations.
"Ignorance"?
Is there anything MORE ignorant, than to profess an opinion about subject A, and then, immediately, offer a repudiation of this same opinion regarding the same subject A?
Ten hours after expressing his opinion that among all religions, only Islam was true, and all others false, Shahada wrote:
...Judaism is a combination of truth and fabrication....

Oh, really. Partly true, partly false. Hmm.
Yeah, that's kind of like my programming: Mainly bugs and nonsense, and once in a while some few elements pass through FASM without killing the whole computer.
How does one, Shahada, determine WHICH elements of Judaism are True, and WHICH are False???
What kind of religion has both TRUTH and FALSEHOOD incorporated within it?
If "God" created the religion, according to Shahada, then, how can mere humans, mere mortals, not supernatural beings, distinguish between the TRUTH and the FALSEHOOD embedded within Judaism?
Since "God" is perfect, and omniscient, why wouldn't "he" clean up the mess called Judaism, and eliminate the falsehoods from it? In other words, how does "God" benefit from providing humans with a religion containing falsehoods?
How could Judaism contain ANY truth, if "ISLAM is the only ONE TRUE RELIGION"?
Does Buddhism contain a mixture of Truth and Falsehoods?
What about Hinduism?
How about the Zoroastrians, who provided many of Judaism's myths? Is Zoroastrianism partly correct, and partly incorrect, also?
Shahada wrote:
...I didn't say all religions except Islam are invented by humans,

Question
Post 10 Aug 2008, 10:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
tom tobias wrote:
which, to me, at least, suggests that Shahada believes that HIS religion, i.e. Islam, is TRUE, hence, all others FALSE, yet, despite the FACT (at least, according to Shahada) that ALL other religions are FALSE, Shahada insists that we should pay "respect" for ALL religions.
WHY?
Why should FASM forumers respect something that Shahada himself, has identified as FALSE?
You have a problem understanding tom. He did say that they are not 100% FALSE. Also it clearly shows you don't know what respect means. But of course you somehow imply respect = knowledge?

Please I am not trying to defend Shahada here. In fact, I don't even have that much "respect" for religions (but I do understand them). I was speaking in GENERAL.

I am not "unbeliever" but also try to find arguments for religions (or against them).
Post 10 Aug 2008, 14:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Shahada wrote:
GOD is nearer to you than your jugular vein, if you can't see GOD, you are blind. You are like those who have mental retard and can't understand things because they don't have the mental capacity. Pray GOD will show His mercy on you. Nothing can be without GOD, all things have their being from GOD. GOD is the Sustainer, the Mercyfull.
GOD was discovered (or rather, refined) by Albert Hofmann, and costs about $20/pop in Denmark.

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 10 Aug 2008, 15:43
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
You have a problem understanding tom. He did say that they are not 100% FALSE.
You are absolutely correct. I do have great difficulty understanding Shahada:
Shahada wrote:
There is only one true religion, the religion revealed by GOD, the rest are devised by humans.

I don't remember reading something about 98% correct, or 27.8% TRUE. What I read had nothing to do with percentage of correctness. I read a BOOLEAN construct: YES, or NO. True or False.
Islam: YES, TRUE
All others: NO., FALSE
I did not read anything from Shahada to indicate an analogue process associated with determining validity or invalidity, truth or falsehood, legitimate or illegitimate. Based on what I have read, Shahada believes that:

A. Only Islam is correct, i.e. TRUE, all other religions are WRONG, i.e. FALSE.
B. All others, but not Islam, represent mere creations of homo sapiens, hence their falseness is reasonable, logical, and understandable.
C. Alone among all religions, Islam is unique because it was created by "GOD", whereas, all others were created by man.

I think Shahada's contribution to the forum has been underappreciated, for he has provided clarity, to my way of thinking, on the sticky issue of how Islam views the world we inhabit.....I have no clue where GreyWolf came up with the notion that Shahada repudiated his own argument, by suggesting that all other religions, (save only Islam,) while imperfect, are not 100% false. Perhaps I misunderstood Shahada's original quote--"The rest are devised by humans"--sure sounds to my ears like a definitive Boolean state. Islam: TRUE = 1, all others FALSE = 0.

Maybe, if Shahada did in fact contradict himself, somewhere in this thread, (I am a bit blind now, as I prepare for my transition to the wheelchair decade,) I simply didn't observe it, else, perhaps "Shahada" represents two different people, both using the same login ID, and one of the Shahadas wrote something to that effect, which I neglected to read accurately. I will welcome your rejoinder, pointing out my error, by quoting Shahada. Where is the passage in this thread which repudiates my understanding of Shahada's Boolean construct? Where does Shahada write that ALL other religions are only PARTLY wrong, i.e. PARTLY created by GOD, hence correct, only PARTLY created by humans, therefore with some parts FALSE, (but only SOME, not all, parts false)? It then becomes interesting to establish how one can distinguish the supernatural, omniscient power's contribution to the religion, from the imperfect, frail, human's component of the dogma. To answer that question, one would first have to establish which criteria could be employed to adequately assay the religion, in order to filter out the human inspired writing, leaving as remainder, only the divinely inspired writing.

I liked it better when Islam was in a purely Boolean condition....
Smile
Post 10 Aug 2008, 19:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
why people always like to argue about the "name" instead of the "meaning"

if the meaning of "islam, hinduism, judaism, christian" is "abcdefg"
and i create a new religion with different name but same meaning,
then why should i be condemned?

religion, from my point of view is path to get nearer to the ultimate one God. if one couldn't agree, that is their own problem.

there are many path to get near to God, God (focus on meaning rather than the name). the situation is like, you wanna go a new city but without a map, so you asking around, maybe u get lost first, but later you find your way.

prophet for me is an example, guide, but not the sole model in order to live on earth and get near to God. (they are map).

the more you walk around trying to find the way to a point, the more roads you know if you try it without map.

yeah, i should start one as soon as possible Smile
Post 10 Aug 2008, 21:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
tom tobias wrote:
I don't remember reading something about 98% correct, or 27.8% TRUE. What I read had nothing to do with percentage of correctness. I read a BOOLEAN construct: YES, or NO. True or False.
Islam: YES, TRUE
All others: NO., FALSE
Actually, let's say that someone writes a book about physics. Then some spooky guy copies 50% of it, and messes up the other 50%.

You can say that the second book is FALSE, but you see, it is not all false. Wink



also I agree with sleepsleep Smile
Post 10 Aug 2008, 22:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
When I was younger I wanted to start the Energy religion with the energy itself as our God. Look at the very interesting properties energy has that normally it is attributed to any god, it is everywhere and takes care of all of us evenly. Additionally mass is steady energy so we are all sons of God.

I could extend the idea even more but now I'm not that crazy nor have enough time for it Razz
Post 10 Aug 2008, 22:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Loco wrote:
I wanted to start the Energy religion with the energy itself as our God.
That sounds to me like one of my favorite old time religions: Zoroastrianism. It is a comfortable, old fashioned dogma, well suited to old fogies like me, who still think about cpu architecture in terms of the Z-80, and it was founded by Zarathustra.
sleepsleep wrote:
...religion, from my point of view is path to get nearer to the ultimate one God...
umm. well, I don't think it is a question of agreement, versus disagreement, but rather, one of definition.
What about Thoreau? In other words, I wish to challenge you to explain why proximity to "GOD" should be a priority, rather than gaining proximity to an understanding of science, art, medicine, music, thermodynamics or gymnastics? You focus on ONE "God" as though he/she/it had anthropomorphic traits. What about the many religions that believe in multiple Gods, not just Christianity, but also Hinduism, and various naturalist religions?
sleepsleep wrote:
in order to live on earth and get near to God.

Well, again, in my opinion, too ill defined, too much ambiguity. Do you mean that you seek to establish a religion (also = find an existing or former religion) in order to gain proximity to God HERE ON EARTH?, or, rather, in the "afterlife"???
sleepsleep wrote:
...prophet for me is an example, guide, but not the sole model in order to live...
Well, sure, but what is a prophet but a self proclaimed messenger of God. The Catholic Church has a Pope, who claims to have a unique relationship with God--a special skill different from all ordinary people. Many people throughout history have claimed to represent divine masters. None of them are objectively documented, as having extraordinary faculties. The many stories about the various prophets are just that: fables, designed to entertain in an era before television and football and internet....People needed something to amuse themselves at night. They told stories. Fish stories. I caught a fish this big: <-----()>, oh, yeah, well I got a bigger one than you: <===(0)>
Now sleepsleep wants to start another religion, WHY? To accomplish what? Religion, by definition, is a set of beliefs based upon FAITH, rather than reason. Why would anyone, in an era of faxes, and jpeg, and YOUTube hope to persuade people based on the methods of 5000 years ago, sitting around a fire at night, trying to avoid being killed and eaten, swapping fish stories with the guy sitting next to you looking to the East, as you scan the West looking out for bad guys....
The_Grey_ Beast wrote:
...it is not all false....
Maybe we simply disagree on this point because of my inflexibility: To me, the notion is not whether abc text in "sacred" book 1 corresponds precisely to abc text in "sacred" book 2, it is rather whether a "sacred" book has been authored by divine forces, either directly, or indirectly, via humans. If the "sacred" book has been authored by "God", then, it, by definition, CAN NOT HAVE ANY FLAWS. NOT EVEN ONE ERROR. ZERO. It is ALL correct, else, it was not authored by a supernatural force possesing omniscience. Mere humans cannot claim that a divine force has erred. That's like a frog telling a monkey that he has made a mistake. Of course simple, sloppy, bumbling, nervous, anxious, error prone morons representing the human species can absolutely NOT inform a supernatural omnipotent deity that he/she/it erred. Obviously, there can be NO MISTAKES, in any tome authored by "God". The presence of errors, then, indicates, obviously, that the "sacred" book in question, WAS authored not by "God", but by humans. Every religion, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, claims to possess "the truth", documented in writing, originating with one or more "holy" humans, often gifted, often possessing skills beyond the ordinary. These "sacred" texts then are conveyed from one generation to the next, as though legitimate, bona fide, when all they really consist of, is a collection of fish stories. Why does sleepsleep want to perpetuate that tradition? Religion, as a method of delivering TRUTH, is a hoax. Even science, with its adherence to evidence based decision making, is subject to revision, and rejection, as new evidence emerges with successive research. Religions however do not countenance CHANGE. Religion seeks to PREVENT change, and compel, on pain of death, adherence to the false tenets of that particular religion. Religion demands abstinence from scientific methods, and imposition of FAITH, in lieu of questioning. I do not share sleepsleep's enthusiasm for commencing, or joining, any religion.
Post 11 Aug 2008, 00:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Loser



Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Gliese 581 d
Loser
tom tobias wrote:
then, it, by definition, CAN NOT HAVE ANY FLAWS. NOT EVEN ONE ERROR. ZERO. It is ALL correct, else, it was not authored by a supernatural force possesing omniscience. Mere humans cannot claim that a divine force has erred. That's like a frog telling a monkey that he has made a mistake.
I'm glad to see that you've, finally, written the correct "cannot" for once! Laughing

sleepsleep wrote:
religion, from my point of view is path to get nearer to the ultimate one God.
I hate to point out the obvious, but who says you can make the presumption that there is a god? On the contrary, I think we, rational men, should start with no such presumption. There may or may not be a god, and we should let CONCRETE, VERIFIABLE evidence speak for itself. Sadly, we all know the bloody truth - there is NO evidence at all. Even worse, as I pointed out in another thread, a wise man on this board has already proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, that there is NO god. Mad


Let me end my message by quoting another wise man on this board: "These asinine pseudo philosophical debates are always a big waste of time." Wink
Post 11 Aug 2008, 03:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:
Let me end my message by quoting another wise man on this board: "These asinine pseudo philosophical debates are always a big waste of time."

they are not time wasting, if written something could make them feel good, they already gain something Smile

Quote:
I hate to point out the obvious, but who says you can make the presumption that there is a god?

if assume there is a God could make me feel better, why not? (so like many others).
if assume there is no God could make you feel better, basically, nobody care Smile

Quote:
I think we, rational men, should start with no such presumption.

i believe, rational people will choose what that make them feel better, good.

Quote:
Sadly, we all know the bloody truth - there is NO evidence at all

most of them time, even without evidence, people would choose to believe.
same as the contrary, people will deny to believe even if you presented them with evidence.

the question here is not about evidence, but the willingness and acceptancy of that particular individual.

mind openess is the key, the more you willing to leave for what you hold, the more new thing will coming in.

Quote:
I wish to challenge you to explain why proximity to "GOD" should be a priority, rather than gaining proximity to an understanding of science, art, medicine, music, thermodynamics or gymnastics?

they are all equally important, it is like why you didn't use MASM, NASM, but choose to use FASM? we choose what that make us feel good, better Smile

Quote:
Do you mean that you seek to establish a religion (also = find an existing or former religion) in order to gain proximity to God HERE ON EARTH?, or, rather, in the "afterlife"???

like i mentioned before, religion is a path (in my opinion), there are many paths out there, and thanks to the one God(focus on meaning rather than name), i was given the understanding on one of its path.


Quote:
Well, sure, but what is a prophet but a self proclaimed messenger of God. The Catholic Church has a Pope, who claims to have a unique relationship with God--a special skill different from all ordinary people. Many people throughout history have claimed to represent divine masters. None of them are objectively documented, as having extraordinary faculties

actually, who cares? that is their problem, if religions are road (tao), then the prophets are maps. (some of the maps might got short-cut, some might not, thats all Smile )

Quote:
Now sleepsleep wants to start another religion, WHY? To accomplish what? Religion, by definition, is a set of beliefs based upon FAITH, rather than reason. Why would anyone, in an era of faxes, and jpeg, and YOUTube hope to persuade people based on the methods of 5000 years ago

why?, just to present another path Smile it shouldn't be too hard to understand, i found a way (tao), and i wish to share with others what i found.

Quote:
we simply disagree on this point because of my inflexibility

how bout just try, try a little bit to accept and just see how it ends up. leaving what you hold for a while, then look around, you might notice something new. Wink
Post 11 Aug 2008, 08:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
sleepsleep wrote:
...look around, you might notice something new.

Always good advice, thank you. Here's my reply:
first
second
third
and, saving the best for last, a Pin Yin version, so that the whole world can learn about the Dao (= path), Dao De Jing: ~~= path to enlightenment.
the first paragraph is sensational:

dao ke dao, fei chang dao;
ming ke ming, fei chang ming.
wu, ming tian di zhi shi;
you, ming wan wu zhi mu.

Without the accents, this incomplete PinYin is, of course, impossible to decipher, one must have the Hanzi, which means, I may be compelled by sleepsleep to install the proper fonts on my computer, horrors. (I hate change, like all fanatical zealots, convinced that my way is the TRUTH, and all other roads are false.)

Anyway, here's an English version: (There are a dozen translations, and now, we learn, that sleepsleep is going to make a NEW English translation, hurrah!!!!)

Here is Byrn's version:

The way that can be told of is hardly an eternal, absolute, unvarying one;
the name that can be coded and given is no absolute name.
Heaven and earth sprang from something else: the bright nameless;
the named is but the said mother that rears the ten thousand creatures of heaven and earth, each after its kind.

Here is Blakney's version of the same text:

There are ways but the Way is uncharted;
There are names but not nature in words:
Nameless indeed is the source of creation
But things have a mother and she has a name.


WOW!

Here is Mitchell's translation:

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.


And there are another dozen versions, but for FASM forumers, here is the main point:
The original text, found on ancient Silk rolls, dated from ~~200 BCE, (unearthed in the late 1990's from a village, called MaWangTui, is fundamentally unchanged from current versions. These texts, of course, are written in Hanzi. Now comes the problem. How does one translate those characters into:
a. PinYin (I am unaware of ANY correct PinYin (including accent marks) version of this important masterpiece)
b. English
c. PuTongHua, i.e. "chinese". It must be remembered, that the language widely spoken, and understood 2500 years ago, was much closer to the language which we call Hakka, or which is called today, in China, KeJiaHua. In general, Chinese characters have retained much of their meaning, throughout history, but some characters, particularly involved with philosophy, such as are employed in Dao De Jing, have a different meaning, or at least, a different nuance, compared with their usage today.
The situation is further clouded by the dramatic simplification of characters in 1949, so that the ancient characters are no longer used in China, but are still used in TaiWan. Since the character simplification has eroded some of the subtler qualities of the ideogram, then, one can expect a comparable simplification of the resultant translation.
This is an important topic, and on this road, I bid sleepsleep good journey.
Smile
Post 11 Aug 2008, 10:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
tom tobias wrote:
then, it, by definition, CAN NOT HAVE ANY FLAWS. NOT EVEN ONE ERROR. ZERO. It is ALL correct, else, it was not authored by a supernatural force possesing omniscience. Mere humans cannot claim that a divine force has erred. That's like a frog telling a monkey that he has made a mistake.
You forgot that humans twist everything. It doesn't mean they completely made up everything, but they do twist them somewhat. Wink

Loser wrote:
I hate to point out the obvious, but who says you can make the presumption that there is a god? On the contrary, I think we, rational men, should start with no such presumption.
Careful here. God may be "illogical", but He/She/It be perfectly rational. There is a difference between these two.

For example (not God example), if we create a virtual world, and the people in there think it's real, then they create a virtual world, and the people within within think it's real, and so on... Then it's perfectly RATIONAL to think that we, are also in a virtual world. After all, everyone "virtual" and "virtual virtual" thinks the same. Why would we be special?

Loser wrote:
There may or may not be a god, and we should let CONCRETE, VERIFIABLE evidence speak for itself.
There is no such thing as evidence. Only the majority's perception that reach a consensus. If we are in a virtual world, then any of our "evidence" is completely false, even though it does "work". Remember, something that "works" doesn't have anything to do with KNOWLEDGE.

Practical applications and knowledge are two separate things.

Loser wrote:
Even worse, as I pointed out in another thread, a wise man on this board has already proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, that there is NO god. Mad
Maybe a non-loving God. Wink

But it's really hard to both let your children be FREE and love them (protect) them at the same time. If you protect them continuously, they are not free. If you don't, they get in trouble. It's hard to balance it.

Loser wrote:
"These asinine pseudo philosophical debates are always a big waste of time." Wink
Laughing agreed.
Post 11 Aug 2008, 11:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Loser



Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Gliese 581 d
Loser
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
For example (not God example), if we create a virtual world, and the people in there think it's real, then they create a virtual world, and the people within within think it's real, and so on... Then it's perfectly RATIONAL to think that we, are also in a virtual world. After all, everyone "virtual" and "virtual virtual" thinks the same. Why would we be special?
Wow! You're very smart! You realize that we're all living in a VR world! That's exactly why everything in the microscopic world is QUANTIZED - the clock cycle of the supercomputer generating our VR world gives rise to the Planck time! Wink

Well, seriously, I guess you watch too many sci-fi movies like The Thirteenth Floor & eXistenZ! Laughing

The_Grey_Beast wrote:
Maybe a non-loving God. But it's really hard to both let your children be FREE and love them (protect) them at the same time. If you protect them continuously, they are not free. If you don't, they get in trouble. It's hard to balance it.
Oops ... In the other thread, I completely missed your point - I thought you were having a hard time with your kids or something like that, and I didn't realize you were trying to respond to the proof given by the wise man. Sorry. Embarassed
Post 12 Aug 2008, 11:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Loser wrote:
Wow! You're very smart! You realize that we're all living in a VR world! That's exactly why everything in the microscopic world is QUANTIZED - the clock cycle of the supercomputer generating our VR world gives rise to the Planck time! Wink

Well, seriously, I guess you watch too many sci-fi movies like The Thirteenth Floor & eXistenZ! Laughing
First idea was from matrix actually Razz

and i actually use that "comparison" because I KNOW what a virtual world is capable of since I'm a programmer, remember? Wink

This isn't a proof for God!!! it's just to mention that rationality is a much broader definition that logic alone Wink

Loser wrote:
Oops ... In the other thread, I completely missed your point - I thought you were having a hard time with your kids or something like that, and I didn't realize you were trying to respond to the proof given by the wise man. Sorry. Embarassed
actually it was meant to be an analogy to God, not to that wise man's proof Wink
Post 12 Aug 2008, 13:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.