a simple answer to a complex question

this is a post i should have written a long time ago... i guess it is a daunting task, so i have been hesitant to delve into it.

the Bible is a simple answer to a complex question.

there... i said it... i've touched on the subject before, but never approached it so directly... i have addressed atheists' arguments in three parts: "That's so stupid", "Evolution", and "Nonsense"... but none of this gets to the root of the basic issue, which is "why doesn't the Bible specifically address scientific fact?"

what a silly question... but it's only silly because it fails to address the basic needs of the text, as written... simply put, if the first chapter of the Book of Genesis were to address all of creation in a scientific manner, it alone would comprise the majority of space in the world's largest library... we, as humans, would need to have invented the internet before the wheel simply to contain the wealth of information required to adequately describe the smallest portion of such a massive concept as the beginning of creation... and that's only Chapter One, verses one and two.

another library set aside by itself would be needed to contain the volumes of information which is required to explain verses three through five... the astrophysics alone would have its own wing.

verses six through ten would only need a small annex... i mean, that's only the cooling of the earth, the creation of an atmosphere, and continental plate tectonics... you know... simple stuff.

eleven through thirteen is the beginning of life... the beginning of biology should be a simple thing... only a few thousand tomes would probably be necessary... of course, there already exist entire libraries which house evolution, but these verses only cover plant life... we could probably pare it down to only the most necessary books... we don't want to get silly and over-do things.

verses fourteen through nineteen are more astrophysics... some discussion of time and the theory of relativity should be included at this point... maybe a smallish wing to an annex of the previous library.

more evolution, this time into the animal kingdom, for verses twenty through twenty-five... sure, it's more complex, but the basics were covered in an earlier library... we're getting fewer and more concise volumes... maybe just a room off an annex of a wing of a library.

verses twenty-six through thirty-one are primarily focused on mankind... as this is intensely personal to the audience being reached, this might require some additional material... maybe histories, discussions of genomes, exactly what is mitochondrial DNA and how it affects evolutionary mutations... you know... details.

we'll place that in its own library... no need in having extraneous information in there about the evolution of the sperm whale... or why it was named that unfortunate name... no, we need to focus this library on one thing; us.

because, after all... isn't this what the Bible was written for?... let the dolphins write their own books.

---

Edit:
some suggestions for reading material:
1: "In the beginning" - Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe by Simon Singh
3: "Let there be light" - The Birth & Death of the Sun by George Gamow
4: "Separated the light from the darkness" - Astrophysics by Wolfgang Kundt
6: "A vault between waters" - An Ocean Of Air: A Natural History Of The Atmosphere by Gabrielle Walker
9: "Let dry ground appear" - Plate Tectonics by Wolfgang Frisch, M. Meschede, Ronald C. Blakey
11: "Seed bearing plants and trees" - Origin of Land Plants by Linda E. Graham
14: "Lights in the vault of the sky" - Origin of the Moon. New Concept: Geochemistry and Dynamics by Erik M Galimov, Anton M Krivtsov
16: "He also made the stars" - The Formation of Stars by Steven W. Stahler, Francesco Palla
20: "Waters teem with living creatures" - Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer
25: "All the creatures that move along the ground" - The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins

wash your bowl

A monk told Joshu, “I have just entered the monastery. Please teach me.”
Joshu asked, “Have you eaten your rice porridge?
The monk replied, “I have eaten.”
Joshu said, “Then you had better wash your bowl.”
At that moment the monk was enlightened.

too often, we enter situations with preconceived notions of how things are... how things should be... we have so much knowledge about the world, we often fail to actually learn anything new.

wash your bowl.

the Joshu speaking to the monk, in the story above, makes a very profound statement about the student... many people who hear this story fail to find enlightenment, as the monk did... they hear the words, and they think about the bowl... but they don't realize Joshu was answering an unasked question.

the monk, in his first statement, asked a question in the form of a demand... "Please teach me," as gentle and pleading as it sounds, is a demand... Joshu has no obligations to teach him... but the demand, when examined, is a request... the monk should have said, "Will you teach me, please?"... Joshu, being more skilled, recognized this for the question it was.

so, how does one answer such a question?... Joshu could have said, "Yes, I will teach you," and begun extolling the virtues of zen and monastic life... but that would be futile... the monk, Joshu knows, comes to the monastery with life experiences... he was not hatched from a giant egg, like Robin Williams, fully formed and no experience... life, no matter how simple, is a harsh teacher... lessons have been learned... with experience comes some form of wisdom, whether right or wrong... with each day, we make assumptions based on our previous days' experiences... they color our expectations of future days... they color our experience of the present.

wash your bowl.

to answer the monk's question, Joshu begins with a lesson... and the lesson begins with a question, "Have you eaten your rice porridge?"... on the surface, this is a nonsensical question, having nothing to do with the education of the monk... but it sets up a precedence... he wishes to be taught... but has he finished what he started?... has he completed his education, and is he willing to begin learning again?... the porridge is a metaphor for life's lessons.

to which, the monk assures Joshu that he has eaten his porridge... at this point he, like so many, is thinking of his meal and the bowl.

Joshu then finishes his instruction by instructing him to "wash your bowl"... but what does he mean?... and how was he enlightened?

first, understand that, in Joshu's lesson, the monk is the bowl... the rice porridge, being his life experiences, has been consumed... it has made him what he is... the monk, like his bowl, is dirty, fouled by the life he has lived... the crevices of his soul are tainted by the experiences he has gathered as his daily meal... he, like his bowl, needs to be cleaned, refreshed... if the bowl is not clean, it will taint anything you place into it... you need a clean bowl if you wish to eat something unspoiled by the previous meal... likewise, the monk needs refreshed.

he needs to clean himself of his own life experiences... to learn something new, without being poisoned by previous experience, you must remove all trace of those experiences... you must taste the new experiences without them being soiled by anything outside of what it is.

wash your bowl.

like the monk, we are all guilty of not washing our bowl... we come to a feast of knowledge with bowls overflowing with the residue of past meals... often, the residue is so thick, we can hardly place another morsel into our bowl... new experiences flow into and out of our bowls, each reminiscent of the one before.

i have gotten fairly esoteric with this, so i'll speak plainly... when you fry food in oil, the oil retains some of the flavor of the food being fried... if you first fry fish, then fry chicken, your chicken will taste faintly of fish... if you continue to reuse this oil, it will quickly become spoiled... but the oil cannot be spoiled by itself... it is turned rancid by the flavors previously passing through it.

so it goes with our lives... our daily lives flavor our conceptions, and expectations, of the world... each day flavors the next... and the next... and every day after that.

wash your bowl.

it is attributed to Socrates the paradoxical "I know that I do not know"... what he is saying is similar to the enlightenment the monk found... first, you must understand that you do not have all of the answers... then, you must cleanse yourself of preconceived notions before you can begin to understand anything, great or small... even before you can "wash your bowl", you must first understand that it must be washed.

and thus, he was enlightened.

how do you #selfie your soul?

STOP SKINNY SHAMING!
seriously, this nonsense has to stop... people keep writing articles about how it's "Fat-Shaming" whenever someone posts a picture of themselves looking skinny, fit, or just good... apparently, this makes fat people feel bad about themselves.

honestly, maybe they should feel bad... seriously... being fit is being healthy... "i can be fat and healthy," says the offended... sure you can... you can smoke cigarettes and not get cancer... you can sky-dive and always have your parachute open... Evel Knievel can jump over the Grand Canyon and not plummet to his doom.

but let's be real about statistics for a moment... if you have excess body weight, you (statistically) will have higher triglycerides, cholesterol, etc... you are (statistically) at a higher risk for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc... your mortality rate (again, statistics) goes up.

for those who haven't made the connection:

• if you're fat, not fit, you're going to die sooner... if you're fit, you live longer.
• hell, if you're fit, you feel better.
• you can walk up stairs without having to sit down half-way up.
• sex is even better (and who doesn't want that?).
• on that note, excess body fat obstructs the base of the penis... that's right... the fit, skinny guy has a longer penis.
• skinny women receive greater penetration during sex... no thunder-thighs to get in the way.
• more sexual positions!... if you're fit, you can have sex in those damnable small bathtubs... (trust me, two whales mating in a puddle isn't pretty... don't Google that!)
• if you're fit, you can wear a greater variety of clothes... not because you look good in them, but because they make your size... the Big And Tall shop is a misnomer... tall has very little to do with it... it should be called, to paraphrase Gabriel Iglesias, "Big and Damn!"
• if you're fit, your children are more likely to be fit... that's right, if you live longer, so will they!

but, no... people have to get pissed of whenever someone else feels good about themselves.

like this turd... she gets all holier-than-thou about a lady who is internet-famous for her butt... she takes "selfies" of her own tush... along comes this lady who calls it "objectification of women"... so, a woman feels good about herself, takes a picture of her butt (which she obviously worked hard to get), posts it online because she's proud of it, and somehow she's objectifying herself.

let me get this straight... if i, as a guy, put on a tie, get a haircut, spruce myself up and decide "damn, I look good", the moment i share a photo of myself, i've objectified men?... because that's what you're saying women are doing... "damn, I look good"... *click*... *post*... objectification.

what... the... hell.

back to the "turd"... here's some of her bitching:

Someone needs to say it: Ladies, get a grip. Face selfies are one thing; butt selfies are another.

And yet, the problem with butt selfies and all manner of obsession with the female backside is old as time: It’s the objectification of women.

It’s great for Ms. Selter to promote #hardwork and #cleaneating, among other healthy lifestyle choices. It would be even better for someone to come along and remind us that we are cutting ourselves short when we focus purely on the physical.

if you can't take photos of yourself, what are you allowed to take pictures of?... you go to the gym, lose weight, feel great... take a photo of the car you drove to the gym?... won't that offend people with older model cars?... or, worse yet, no car?... that lady who had three kids, looks great, and challenges others to do the same; somehow she should take photos of something else?... what, her vagina for giving birth?... would that cause labia-envy?... the lady who showed off her six-pack abs just days after giving birth; should she take photos of her college degree?... or would that offend the illiterate?

i'd just like to know something... how in the hell do you take a selfie of your soul?

---

source:
The Case Against Butt Selfies, by Erin VargoErin Vargo | TUE. MARCH 25 | Acculturated
Mom Angers World After Showing Off 6-Pack 3 Days After Giving Birth by Ericka Sóuter December 2, 2013
'Hot Facebook Mom' Still Wants To Know: 'What's Your Excuse?' The Huffington Post | by Cavan Sieczkowski 03/07/2014