Oh Jesus not the ole Elephant is like this is like that bullshit. Really? Tia, do you have anything new? Do you have any idea at all how old and worn out all this shit is? I have an idea… Why don’t begin by producing the fucking ELEPHANT. Just put it right here _____________________.
1 Like
@Tia_Thompson That is an old tale, but I ask you, was that directed towards me or should you follow it yourself? Have you read the entire bible without interference, relying on just your opinion and judgement? Have you learned about evolution, genetics, or abiogenesis via the same methodology? Have you learned the history of astronomy and how peering at the sky has unlocked great mysteries? Or have you just hung onto just one part? What have you learned since you matured into an adult?
That video relies on a con game, practiced by almost every pastor and apologist. They start out stating many simple facts we all agree on, then they introduce an unsupported assertion. In the example of this video, all of a sudden it is god who holds all the answers.
I will offer my counter to the opinion that (if there is a god) that it has all the answers. The bible is supposed to be the word of god, written by men. But how come is has a lot just flat out wrong? Would not a god desiring to impart important messages edit it in the form of re-guiding the scribes?
I suggest you do not respond to this question, because it leads directly into a trap. If you state that “god works in mysterious ways”, then you do not know the nature of your god, and can not state with any assurance any of it’s qualities, including the capacity to love. And if you state that you know the nature of your god, then my question is “why do innocent children suffer horribly and die from cancer?”
I was a theist once, and pretty hard-core. I left organized religion because it seemed more of a social event and a waste of time when I wanted a closer communion with my god. I searched for over 35 years before my self-education forced me accept that I did not, and could not believe in the christian god.
1 Like
Wonders? It’s all down to basic biology, with them mutations and hereditary traits, and the odd mutations settling down in a place where there were no clovers from before, and then being able to dominate the place. When I was a kid, we had a patch on our lawn with an abundance of four-leaf clovers. I also found lots of five- and six-leaf clovers. Even the occasional seven-leaf clovers. I pressed quite a few of them, and put them between glass plates for display. After I reached adulthood, they were disposed of in necessary inventory-cullings related to moving, etc.
In short, I’m not particularly impressed.
3 Likes
Perhaps not, but I am! Did you ever find out why that particular patch had so many unusual mutations?
The odds are supposed to be one in 250,000,000.
Actually, it wasn’t particularly directed at anyone. It is how I feel. I have read the entire Bible. I may have read it late in the game, but I did read it. And then I read it again. And again. And each time, at each different point in my life something else was significant. As I learn new things about evolution, genetics, and life I read something new.
I am in a state of learning. When someone says they know it all, (you mentioned unlocking great mysteries by examining the sky, I’m not speaking of you)it makes me somewhat apprehensive.
What I like about that video about a very old poem is that it is true. There we’re six wise men with their earnest evaluation of truth based on the part they were touching. When they were shown another part of the elephant, they evaluated it based on what they already believed the truth was.
Similarly, I believe everyone holds their own piece to a puzzle we are all trying to put together. The difficult thing about this beautiful adventure is that we all need each other’s pieces to see the full picture.
I know, I know it is not the best analogy and some might not like the analogy of the elephant either. Some might not even understand it.
Jesus wasn’t the elephant. He would have been more accurately equated with the little boy.
The elephant is the truth.
Consider for one moment the golden rule that was highlighted in Bible as the greatest of all rules. (Matthew 22:36-40)
We have thousands of handy memes today that link the world’s various ideologies together by this one law. I keep using this one, because I like the layout, but any of the thousands would suffice.
But, how easy do you think it would have been for someone in the first century AD to do this? One of y’all pointed out that most of the ancient world was illiterate.
One would have had to otherwise critically examine all these worldwide ideologies in all their varying languages to locate a unifying factor in them.
To have such a thing laid out so plainly for us now is a gift afforded to this generation like no other. And yet…it has been right there in the Bible–in it’s unifying form (the greatest of all commandments)for all to read whenever we see fit.
Then they were not wise men but idiots. When one examines any subject or object only the most gullible and stupid reach the conclusion they have discovered the “truth”. Smart and wise people will state that they have learned some facts.
1 Like
I would add that there are people who dedicate their professional lives to comprehensively understanding and contributing to a particular area of knowledge of the natural world, or at least what we know on a subject thus far.
In my view, consulting the findings and consensuses of these people on a given subject is a far more accurate (and expedient) way of learning the current state of fact and reality than pooling the “pieces” of knowledge of people outside that field.
(This even applies to morality and ethics, since the morally questionable “golden” rule has been mentioned.)
IIRC, the religious way of explaining and interpreting the world was humankind’s first attempt at science. It is, and should be, supplanted by modern methods of inquiry and explanation, in my opinion.
2 Likes
So what came first, the golden rule or the bible?
Humans are a social species we need each other to survive and prosper. And in our early prehistoric interactions humans quickly learned that if you wronged another, you usually got fucked over later on.
All of this is common sense on what is required for people to live together without waging war in each other.
Once again, you are confusing reciprocal altruism (just like love) as coming from some divine being instead of being what it truly is, coming from inside a person.
3 Likes
Like I said, I was just a kid, and all I did was collecting something that was considered rare oddities. I had all but forgotten about it until I saw your posting. I have never had any incentive or deep desire to figure that out.
The odds are supposed to be one in 250,000,000.
Where do you have those numbers from? Is it based om science or is it just a number you or someone else have pulled out of your/their arses? Even rare events happens once in a while (ref. the law of large numbers) - people win big money on lotteries every week, but the chances of YOU winning are minuscule.
2 Likes
Yes, I picked that out of a collection of pictures Google search provided.
1 Like
@David_Killens funny. I was going to ask what you thought the odds were that two people picking seven leaf clovers would pick the same forum to chat on. Ha! No need.
And your point being what? Taking your number at face value (assuming someone actually counted enough clovers to determine those odds), the odds of winning the powerball lottery is supposedly a similar number, 1 in 292,201,338. Yet, people win that lottery all the time. Yes, the chances of YOU winning it are slim, but the chances of SOME winner in a large crowd of people playing it is much higher, and there is even an expectation that there will be a winner. Once you understand this concept, the mystery of the N-leaf clovers (where N > 3) is demystified.
1 Like
They are not wonders. They occur naturally and all the time. I demonstrated that to you with FACTS and EVIDENCE.
4 Likes
Five seconds on Google suggests it is more like 1/10,000.
You’re off by 4+ orders of magnitude; a breath taking large amount of error.
In fact the number you provided was much closer to the square of the probability; in other words, it’s close to the probability of picking two random clovers and having it turn out that somehow both of them have 4 leafs.