Using .04 percent to reject the 99.06 percent

How much is .04 percent?

Trick question.

Before I 'splain, I add, this is a discussion about the Bible and touches on religion, It's also not about religion. It's about people, judging, society and being giant flaming hemorrhoids.

It's about using a less than one percent to represent a whole. .04 percent prezackly.

USING .04% TO REPRESENT 100%

So then, I draw your attention to this article.

11 Bible verses that turn Christians into Atheists - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2016/04/11-bible-verses-that-turn-christians-into-atheists/

These are a few isolated passages. The verse system, created in 1551, has about 31,100 (plus or minus depending on your translation). To judge that entire work based on less than a dozen verses is a disservice.

However, these passages are disturbing.


As an evangelic pentecostal preacher and a person who wants to be more like the man we call Jesus the Christ, I say, "Some of these passages do bother me a lot, especially when taken in full context. I cannot explain them."

TRUST NOT IN CHARIOTS

A good question is: If we know the Bible has things like this and errors, then how can we trust any of it?

Because humans are built to trust. We must trust. We have to trust. Even the most ardent atheist (and some of my friends are such) has to trust.

If you do not trust, then you must go through the world in a constant state of amazement. You go to sleep, trusting that you will wake later. You get into a vehicle trusting that you will arrive safely. You go to a doctor and get treatment for maladies, trusting the doctor knows what he is doing. Or, you trust in naturopathic remedies or holistic remedies or the most woo factor of all, homeopathic rememdies.

Doctors fail. People die. Fatal allergic reactions to everything happen.

Yet. We trust.

What we're after here is a threshold. How much of it has to be bullshit before we refuse to trust.

Now, we invite Satan into this discussion. Yes. Math looms like the slasher in a horror flick staring down the nubile wench in lingerie.

PUTTING SOME CONTEXT ON THIS

To accurately state how much .04 percent is pretty easy in math (if you understand math, which I do not). 

Adding context can change that .04 percent a LOT. Let's get contextual.

"All 50 states have now set .08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) as the legal limit for driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while impaired (DWI). For commercial drivers, a BAC of .04% can result in a DUI or DWI conviction nationwide." www.dmv.org/automotive-law/dui.php

Yowza. Yowza. Yowza.

More context (and more math than I can do) - "An average fatal concentration for humans was estimated as 546 ppm hydrogen cyanide after a 10-minute exposure (DOA 1976, as cited in Ballantyne 1988)." and "An average fatal dose of 1.52 mg/kg cyanide for humans has been calculated from case report studies of intentional or accidental poisonings (EPA 1987a)."  https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp8-c3.pdf

Can you get cyanide poisoning from apple seeds? Yes, but... https://www.wired.com/2016/09/heres-many-apple-cores-take-poison/

Short this circuit. Amounts matter. Concentrations matter. The particular item being discussed matters. What is the threshold?

JUDGE AND BE JUDGED

Those who take the 11 passages and find that's enough to reject Christianity are taking .04 percent of the Bible to judge the rest.

Is that fair?

To those who judge the Bible based on those passages, I say "and if I judge you based on three minutes of conversation with you, would I have an accurate picture of who you are?"

If I took .04 percent of your life and used it to form an opinion of you, is that fair?

Take .04 percent of anything. How much do you really know about it?

DISTILLED BEYOND THE ESSENCE

M. posted a while back that W. took one of her arguments, distilled it, simplified it and reduced it to the point where his comment was completely erroneous.

Arg. Too complicated.

In other words, W. took M's statement and turned it into gibberish.

It's been done before. "Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first person she meets and them teams up with three strangers to kill again." Any idea what that sentence summarizes?

Here ya go - http://jimromenesko.com/2012/10/26/wizard-of-oz-synopsis-is-going-to-follow-writer-to-the-grave/.

Taking .04 percent and using it to represent the other 99.96 percent is an error on the order of multiple magnitudes. Any decent researcher will tell you that is a bad place to stake a firm opinion and decision.

LOST IN TRANSLATION

While I can't explain those 11 verses, I can say this: Ancient Hebrew is a major language which scholars have to guess at. There is more than .04 percent of the Bible where we simply do not know what the words mean.

There is no completely accurate Ancient Hebrew - any other language dictionary out there.

Complicating matters, much is lost in translation. Anyone who works with more than one language will tell you this. I read an article about several modern languages which have words for which there is no direct English equivalent. Surely the same must be found in Ancient Hebrew.

Consider the word "gay." Use the word "gay" in a sentence today and it means a person with a same-gender sexual attraction. Use it in a sentence from 1964 and it meant a happy person. Use it in a sentence from 1975 and you have to guess at the context. "He is a gay person." Ehhh, what do you mean?

We guess based on context.

An educated guess by a scholar steeped in learning and lore is still a guess.

What if we guessed wrong?

CONTEXT MATTERS

Some people who read the Bible say you have to understand it in context. In other words, pulling a line or two leaves out too much. Troo dat. The Book of Proverbs is an exception. For most of the Bible, you need the entire passage to get the sense of it.

Taking that .04 percent is and using it to represent the entire Bible is like taking 11 lines at random from any large work of literature and using that represent the whole.

Take your favorite book. Has to be at least 200 pages. Go to pages 3, 47, 95, 102 and the last page. Take a line from the middle of each page. Does that do a good job of explaining the entire book?

I'M SORRY, DAVE. I'M AFRAID I CAN'T DO THAT

Some who read, believe and follow the Bible say it is God's word direct as handed down to man and must be accepted literally. Never mind the parables are specifically NOT meant to be taken as literal fact.

Some believe it is a complete work of fiction. Never mind archeological accounts now back up parts of the historical records in the Bible.

Some believe it is a work of fiction and a historical account. Separating fact from fiction is quite a challenge.

Some believe it is inspired by a Divine Being but cannot be taken literally all the time and it has errors. This strikes me as accurate.

Why?

Show me one thing God has handed to man, which man has kept perfect, intact and sacrosanct. Show me ANYTHING man has handled which has remained inviolate.

NO 100 PERCENT TRANSLATION

\We have ancient Hebrew texts and we do not have a complete understanding of that language as I note above. So how can today's translations be exact and perfect? Some say the KJV corrected any errors. Every KJV apologist I've come across will not understand all of the KJV terminology and syntax. They have the ability to learn to understand, but chosoe not to.

If you won't understand something, are you truly a reliable source about its authenticity?

Some of Solomon's writings have words which appear once. The best Bible scholars admit we don't know what these words mean. There's not enough context to get the word defined.

In the New Testament we have Ancient Aramaic, Greek and Latin Vulgate. We have a much greater understanding of those languages. So is the NT correctly translated?

Here's Galatians 3:24 in Latin - itaque lex pedagogus noster fuit in Christo ut ex fide iustificemur.

Here's Galatians 3:24 KJV Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

NKJV - Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

JUST to monkeywrench this, here's the entire chapter in The Living Bible, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3&version=TLB

The word here is "pedagogus." It means either a slave responsible for assisting a child with school work or a teacher and not a slave. Pretty critical difference. One is owned and property being subject to the whims of the owner and the other is an instructor not subject to any arbitrary whims of an owner.

The meaning in this one is pretty critical. Which is it? How do you know which is correct? I can argue it either way and each way has a very different meaning.

FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS

Suspend your disbelief for a moment. Posit God exists. So, if the Bible we have today has all these errors, how can God allow this to happen?

So what's the deal here? If God is really running the show, how can He allow His word to be changed? Why does He allow errors?

Perhaps the answer is all around us today. God does let people have their own way, even when it is wrong. We are not automatons. Posit God handed down all of creation and made humankind stewards. How's that working out? Made a right mess of things not the least of which is nuclear bombs dropped on Japan.

Perhaps the answer is God is getting ready to smite humankind once again because we've made such a mess of things. 2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Perhaps the answer is, we just don't know and cannot know, at least in this existence. We cannot understand our fellow humans, much less anything else. That does not stop us from trying. It certainly does not stop us from trying to be better.

REVISING THE WORD

The Muslims and the Mormons both say God sent down a later work that corrected the errors, explained and expounded on His true word. Evidence says the current Koran corresponds "closely" with the oldest versions we have today. "Closely" is not exact. The Book of Mormon has also been modified.

The "Bible" as used by Protestants today is a massively cut-back, trimmed, edited and abridged version. The Catholics have an expanded version. Western Orthodox adds more. Eastern Orthodox adds even more. (They are excellent reads, as are the Dead Sea Scrolls if you like history).

The Bible itself says there's a lot more out there. The Book of Enoch. The Book of the Kings of Israel.  The Book of Jasher. The Epistle to the Laodiceans. Get you some.

What about the Gospel of Barnabas? The Gospel of Mary? The Gospel of Thomas?

The urge to tinker and improve is impossible to overcome. The Councils of Nicea. The Councils of Jamnia. The Protestant Reformation. The "New World Translation" of the Bible by the Jehovah Witnesses has undergone several revisions.

I asked a former pastor why all these were cut out of the Bible. His reply was "That was done by people who know a lot more than you or I." [insert eye roll here] I'm always willing to accept an honest "I don't know," which that was most emphatically not!

BRINGING IT HOME

A lot of this sounds like Christian Apologetics. It's not, really.

Rather, it's an observation on human nature.

All of us are more than willing to take .04% or less and use that to pass judgment on the whole. We're willing to take .04% or less and use that to create an unshakeable opinion about the remaining 99.06%. We're a bunch of flaming hemorrhoids.

Is that really fair?

Imagine someone seeing half of one of your shoelaces and using that to describe everything about you. Fair?

Yet, that's exactly what we do. Why?

We seek order from chaos. We demand straight lines and understanding. We willingly extrapolate from the most meager details to arrive at our preconceived notion of reality.

To massacre a quote from the Bible, "Lead me not into temptation for I already know the way."

Violence is absolutely necessary

You live because of violence. You exist because of violence.

Without violence, within a few days, a week, maximum two weeks, you'd be dead.

Literally.

The vegans among us decry the violence that produced the meat that was part of my breakfast today. The vegetarians are a bit less strident, but they too say animals should not be used for food.

History is replete with vegetarians, nearly all of whom were that way because of moral issues. Here's a short account of Benjamin Franklin's vegetarian ways. He later resumed eating meat.

Nothing wrong with being vegan or vegetarian.

POINTING OUT YOUR HYPOCRISY

However, if your motive for not consuming flesh is because you object to the slaughter of animals because they can "think" then SCIENCE! is rapidly proving you to be a hypocrite.

Plants talk to each other. “The evidence that plants release volatiles when damaged by herbivores is as sure as something in science can be,” said Martin Heil, an ecologist at the Mexican research institute Cinvestav Irapuato. “The evidence that plants can somehow perceive these volatiles and respond with a defense response is also very good.”

At least some plants can learn. " She did it again, week after week, and after 28 days, these plants still “remembered” what they’d learned. That’s a long time to store a memory. Bees, she noted, forget what they’ve discovered in a couple of days."

Trees share as well as communicate. In this case, some will say it's the fungus that does the sharing. So? Ask any reputable doctor about the symbiosis taking place in your digestive tract right now. Without the microbes in your guts, you'd likely die.

And, since the target of the Rant Du Jour is the granola crowd, masticate this. Trees recognize and extend special care to their offspring. "So we set about an experiment, and we grew mother trees with kin and stranger's seedlings. And it turns out they do recognize their kin. Mother trees colonize their kin with bigger mycorrhizal networks. They send them more carbon below ground. They even reduce their own root competition to make elbow room for their kids. When mother trees are injured or dying, they also send messages of wisdom on to the next generation of seedlings." This comes from a TED Talk in general and more specifically from TreeHugger.com.

ALIEN INTELLIGENCE

So, are plants intelligent? Define intelligence.

Established: Plants can, do and will react to external forces and can adapt and learn.

What else is necessary for intellect? Self-awareness? Emotional reaction? Some other factor?

Intelligence has to be defined in human terms. Has to be. We have no other terms in which to put it. You can imagine life from a dog's perspective, but you cannot know for certain.

The problem is any attempt to define intelligence necessarily comes pre-loaded with prejudice. As humans, we can only view things from a human perspective. A very limited perspective at that. Our ability to see is abysmal. When the full length of the light spectrum is considered, we're effectively blind. "But by most estimates, we're can see about 0.0035% of the electromagnetic spectrum." We can only imagine what the Mantis Shrimp sees.

Popular Mechanics (go figger) has several excellent articles on alien life and why it could be next to impossible for us to identify it.

COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM

Never mind

She watched from the highest point on the castle, if it could truly be called a castle, until the entourage disappeared around a bend.

She pulled the poorly-tanned hides closer to herself, a bare defense against the shilling win that rocked through the crags and even less support against the gaping invisible wound that she knew would never heal.

Never mind she knew this day was coming.

Never mind she believed it needed to happen.

Never mind she'd done much the same herself those 20 years ago.

Never mind that within her own home, she had a look at the white-hot pain.

This was personal. This time it was her experience.

That last glimpse of her daughter disappearing below the rise was the last time she'd see the young woman. Ever.

The daughter was now gone forever. Riding off to be a part of her new husband's family.

She turned and went back into what was once a home and now was just an organized rock pile.

•••

Today, Susan, emergency backup daughter Savannah and I toured Mercer University. They toured. I tagged along because I was invited (and would pick up the tab for lunch). The day had to come.

This is the first concrete step by my reckoning that my daughter is on her way to true independence. She'll soon be gone.

Yes, she'll come home, unlike the daughter of the medieval lady above.

It will never be quite the same.

She'll always have her own home to go to, even if it is literally next door. Her home could be on the other side of the planet. My adopted community has natives that live everywhere these days.

I want this to happen.

I don't want this to happen.

Yeah, parents around the world experience the same thing every day. Some of them, like the lady above, never see their children again. Never hear their voice, see pictures or know if they ever have grandchildren.

But that is them. This is me.

Product review - Viking motorcycle bag

If you ride you know that storage space is at a premium. Saddle bags can hold a lot, but if you really want to maximize storage, get saddle bags and biker luggage.

When Viking Bags contacted me about doing a product review, I jumped on it. They sent the Viking Large Studded Leather Motorcycle Sissy Bar Bag. It's listed as a medium bag. If this is medium, some families could live in the large ones.

TECH SPECS

The website description says lockable. It's not by my definition. Lock means something that opens with a key or a combination dial. The only way I can see to lock the bag down is by strapping cables across it.

The bag. The studs are chrome. Bad lighting makes them look black

The specs say 3247.5 cubic inches of storage. If that doesn't mean anything to you, the pictures here should. They are taken with a standard yardstick to give you perspective. If you need exact measurements - 16.5" x 19" x 7"  and the top roll bag is 13" x 9".

It comes with mounting hardware and, YAY!, a rain bag to stretch over it for riding in rough weather. If you don't ride in the rain, you don't ride. The website has a PDF with mounting instructions and an installation video.

You can probably get by without a luggage rack on the back, but that means the bottom of the bag is sitting on the rear fender. You can mount it to the front of the sissy bar if you don't have a passenger or on the back if you want someone to ride with you.

Top roll bag on its side. Attachment loops shown.

If you mount it to the front side, you will need something to sit between you and the bags if you want to lean back. The studs and buckles will get annoying really fast.
Both come with handy carry handles. It also includes a detachable shoulder sling. That's something ALL bike luggage should have.

SPACE

The interior of the big bag has a zipper on the liner. I don't understand why. You might be able to slide a few papers in there. It's definitely not a false back for hiding important stuff. The top tube has a Velcro seal for the interior liner. Again, why? Not much room for anything but very thin items.

Interior view. Can't explain central zipper.

The inside has a big mesh web on the front and two smaller mesh holder areas on each side. Your stuff can be held very securely.

The sides of the big bag open out for maximum storage. Zip them up to make it as compact as possible.

The main bag has pockets, four on the outside and one pocket with a top access into a pouch on the inside of the big bag.

The top roll bag is detachable.

You can pack enough in here for a decent stay at most any rally.

CONSTRUCTION

The zippers are plastic. You will need to tuck the edges in when zipping them up.

The website calls the construction Viking leather and Cordura. The Viking leather is a man-made material, not dead animal hide. The material does feel very durable.

The top tube and the main bag have lightweight plastic insert shells. This bag will not fold down.

The sewing appears to be good enough. If you bought "diamond plate" leather gear, then know this sewing job is much better.

Strategic points are reinforced with heavy canvas straps.

APPEARANCE

When Viking asked me to review their stuff, I specifically picked the bag with the chrome studs because biker.

It looks good. It feels good. It feels durable.

My chief concern is my daughter will see it and take it away. She'll use it as her book backpack when she heads off to college in the fall.

BUY OR NOT

If you need luggage, this is a buy. In case you're worried about plunking down your hard-earned cash, don't be. "We believe in great customer service – even when you don’t like something and want to return it. Our return policy is fast and easy but there are still some ground rules to follow." Get the list of return rules, which are simple, here. https://www.vikingbags.com/return-policy.htm

You can see the full list of bags here https://www.vikingbags.com/motorcycle-sissy-bar-bags.htm. This is the one I got: https://www.vikingbags.com/cruiser-leather-studded-motorcycle-sissy-bar-bag.htm.

About that press conference

The POTUS-elect is taking considerable heat over what he did at the most recent press conference.

Not here to argue whether or not the attacks are justified. Am here to say Trump has only brought completely into the open what's been going on for more than 200 years.

As one of the "common taters" on NPR said yesterday, Trump's relationship with the press is directly proportional to how favorably the individual outlet reports on him.

Pardon or don't the next bit of language, but No Shit, Sherlock. That's the way it works, the way it has worked and the way it will continue to work where the POTUS is concerned. You want to get up close and personal with any POTUS, you better be on his good side.

Didja ever see Obama appear on a Brietbart show? Didja ever see him sit down for a long talk with Alex Jones? Nope. How many times did Obama hit the studio with Rush Limbaugh? Aaight then, how often did Hillary Clinton sit down for a chat with Pat Buchanan?

With whom did Obama siddown and talk? Media outlets that were friendly toward him. Check the history. You'll see this throughout. Arsenio Hall made no bones about not having Bush on his show after Clinton made an appearance.

Pay attention. This is The Way of Washington. Trump just makes it so obvious that everyone can finally see it.

Understand this. The press and the government have never gotten along. Witness the negative side of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson's mixed bag of comments about the press. "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper," he wrote in 1807. "Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day."

And

"Our printers raven on the agonies of their victims, as wolves do on the blood of the lamb," he wrote to fellow Virginian and future president James Monroe in 1811. Five years later, he wrote: "I rarely think them [newspapers] worth reading, and almost never worth notice."

There were some halcyon days in the relationship, like during Kennedy's reign when his philandering was overlooked. Even there, the Prez and the media were like a pair Titans warily circling each other and waiting for one to show the slightest sign of weakness.

Where was the bitching when Obama did the same thing? Where was the outrage when Bush II did it? Why didn't people scream and shout when Clinton was doing it? Bush I got away with it. Hellfire, Ronnie Raygun called the press "sonsabitches" and people laughed. Oh. I found it!

Here's a fact that you can find it you look hard enough: Presidential press conferences are staged. The prez & staff pick out reporters ahead of time. Their questions are answered. If you are not one of the pre-selected, you can shout your question, but it won't be answered.

Here's another fact you can find if you look hard enough: If you want to join the Presidential junkets and get on the plane, you better behave, which means reporting what he says and NOT asking the hard questions. You start getting into hardball journalism and you don't get invited to press conferences, you don't get an invite to tag along on trips and so on. In short, play nice. If you don't, all of a sudden you're the fat kid at recess whom no one picks for the kickball team.

Scream and holler about Trump and how he treats the media all you wanna. He is doing the same thing Obama and all the previous presidents did. He's just obvious about it. He's ripped the rose-colored glasses off the face of so many.

There is one thing different about that conference, One thing that was buried amidst the invective. One thing that should stand out, but won't.

Trump didn't have a pre-selected list of reporters. He took questions from whoever.

Obama never did that in a press conference.

Welcome to reality. If the truth hurts, yer living wrong.

This ain't writing advice: it's about the mechanics

Up front - writing advice sucks. Period. With the exception of advice once given by the late Kirt Vonnegut:

Don't listen to people telling you how to write. Go write.

So, writing is one thing. Mechanics is quite another. Some people say it is one and the same, but not to me. YMMV.

So here's your lesson in writing mechanics, which this sentence violates.

Do not use contractions.

Yeah, we use 'em in speech, our writing and everyday conversation. Contractions are almost second nature for many of us word slingers.

Don't do it. (See, done dood it again).

Why? Non-native English readers. Contractions make the words harder to read and leads to confusion on their part. You may say whyinhell should I be worried about what non native English speakers can and cannot read. Aside from the fact that a majority of the world is NOT a native English speaker, there is another reason.

But that reason falls into writing advice, so I shall not explain.

Try eliminating contractions from your writing.

I am betting you will see a difference.

In search of the roots of evil

This is not about religion, but it discusses religion.

The Bible says love of money is a root of evil. It's that "love" and "a" part that most people leave out. Nonetheless, money may not make the world go round and it may not buy happiness, but try living without money and see how well you fare.

So the pursuit of money is a reason (please note I stated "a") I write. The other reasons I write are irrelevant to this post.

So among the things I've written are the following books. For reasons of money, Evan Jacobs tracks how well the following books are doing on Amazon. He wants money for the full report.

Why someone would pay for a report to know how well their book is selling — well, they have too much money and need to send some to me.

My books, according to Mr. Jacobs, bounce up and down in the ranks more than a female porn star on a trampoline. The highest any book ever got, as I remember is somewhere in the low hundred thousands. For some reason, I think one book broke into 50K ranks, but I'm probably mistaken.

Anyway, this list tracks books on Kindle. I don't get ebook readers I tried one. I found it more annoying than listening to a presidential speech.

Another reason I don't like ebooks is listed below. Despite a half-million point jump in the ranks, I ain't seen a penny from an ebook sale. Amazon apparently lets Kindle readers "borrow" an ebook. I have no idea if anyone is "borrowing" any of these books. For all I know, Mr. Jacobs is making up the rankings just like Congress makes up the federal budget.

I do know I ain't getting many reviews.

I ain't selling any hard copies either.

But really, that's OK. These are books I wrote for my own edification. If someone gets one and reads it, cool. If not, still cool. If someone reads one of these books and it helps 'em  become a better person, well, can't ask for more.

Ennyhoo, here's the rankings.

Hello Ben,

Here is the activity summary for your books for the past 7 days.

Old Testament Jesus #827,094 in Kindle (▲ 457,958)

A Christian minister's take on... #2,148,817 in Kindle (▼ 17,785)

FORSAKEN #2,686,281 in Kindle (▼ 603)

My Mountain Won't Move #2,725,848 in Kindle (▲ 2,130)

Lessons I learned in State Prison #3,463,787 in Kindle (▼ 15,066)

Regards,
Evan Jacobs, Founder
Authorgraph

P.S. You can unsubscribe or change the frequency of these emails on your account page

In search of rational thinking

Running a newspaper is often too much fun. The most fun part is getting the demands to publish stuff from the fringe element. My all-time favorite so far is stuff from the United States Grand Jury Foreman. That's all I get for identification. In one of the first missives, the GJF "ordered" all newspapers in the United States to publish his manifesto.

I wrote back and suggested he carefully review the First Amendment.

The next manifesto I got was a "request to publish" the information.

Of course, I did not.

Now I get one that's Georgia-based. Here ya go-

GEORGIA DESPERATELY NEEDS A PROHIBITION AMENDMENT.

More and more the good people of Georgia need to back a Prohibition Amendment to stop the escalating deaths and crimes of various kinds since the people were foolishly led to legalize alcoholic drinks placing the making of money above the safety of the people, especially the children. Crime, especially murder, attends the use and sale of alcoholic drinks. The anti-Christian atmosphere in the federal government, the democrat and republican parties, and the news media perhaps has helped alcoholic drinks to take rule over the nation. The people should return to placing a perimeter of life around each child that can not be penetrated by any evil force on earth.

The attempted robbery of a store in Jasper and the robbery at the Waffle House attest to the fall of our towns to crime. Cherokee County inundated in alcoholic drinks outlet stores has almost a crime a day. Alcoholic government officials need to drop their addiction to alcohol and their defense of it. They need to place human lives first and stop the addiction of children. Merchants need to place their love for their neighbors and children first over their greed for money.

Billy Joe Xxxxxx

Georgia Prohibition   

So, I replied-

Been thinking on this for a while. I have some questions:

Given the failure of prohibition of all kinds, how would you enforce this? Can you do it without raising taxes?

Where in the Bible did Jesus use secular authority to enforce sacred edicts? Where did Jesus force religion and its edicts on anyone?

Give the following passages, how is secularly enforced prohibition Biblical? 

Isaiah 1:22
‎1 Timothy 5:24

Proverbs 31:6 

Proverbs 31:7

John 2:1-11

Ecclesiastes 9:7

Psalm 104:14-15

I am aware of the passages wherein it says strong drink is not for rulers and the other passages that warn against being drunk. The issue there is drinking too much. Also know Romans 14:21. I point you to 1 Corinthians 10:27 in response.

I may be wrong about this, please correct me if so, but Jesus led by example. The Bible speaks a lot about leading by example. I can't find any passages that say we should create secular law to enforce religious requirements. How is prohibition leading by example?

Ben

And I got a reply. I trust you are savvy enough to deconstruct this one.

James Xxxxxx' address:Jim Xxxxxx<Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@hotmail.com>, Bill Xxxxxxx's address: Bill Xxxxxxx <xxxxxxxxxxx@yahoo.com>,

Rick Xxxx's address: Rick Xxxx <xxxxxxxxxxx@aol.com>

Prohibition is for the protection of people and for the guidance of children who deserve to live and inherit the nation. If we love people enough, Prohibition is common sense.

According to more expert people in the Prohibition Party, Prohibition did not fail. They can give you statistics to back them up. You can contact Bill Bledsoe of Florida, James Hedges of Pennsylvania, and Rick Knox of Georgia who is running for Secretary of State for Georgia. They convinced me that the opinion that Prohibition failed was not true. There were a lot of top politicians and business people who were addicts to alcohol. They failed Prohibition. Prohibition did not fail. They had the skill and talent to manipulate propaganda and use mind control. They had control of the newsmedia and the glamorous addicts and talented script writers of Hollywood and could shift people's thinking the way they wanted to do it.

One of the myths that come from the people that hated Prohibition was that it caused crime because of the gang wars. But look at Chicago today that leads in deaths and murders. 762 murders in 12 months in AD 2016. This is just one city. The cities simply are not safe for women and children. People addicted to alcohol and just greedy never think of women and children. Their deaths have no meaning. 10,265 men, women, and children were killed in AD 2015 by DUI. 290,000 were injured. These enormous numbers are not as sensational as two bootlegging gangs blazing away with Tommy Guns. The gang clashes happen at one time and are frightening to look at and experience. But the alcohol deaths are spread over the whole nation and happen throughout the year. They are not all seen at one time and are not as scary to us although they kill many times more than the St. Valentine's Day massacre. A terrorist attack at one time that kills maybe about 30 like the one in Turkey is more frightening than the death of 10, 265 people killed by DUI to us.

Enforcing and taxing would take careful study by experts so as to prevent causing unjust damage to anybody.

Jesus came into the world to bring truth to men. He respected the sovereignty of every individual and did not abuse or use his power to violate another person's sovereignty. He respected those in authority over him and advised that people should respect that authority. Roman law and soldiers protected the roads of the empire from bandits and enabled safe travel for people and the movement of vital goods. The Roman Empire roads were the safest in the world. Bandits were quickly dealt with and punished often cruelly. Jesus and his apostles carried a sword. Peter cut off a man's ear when they came to arrest Jesus.

There is no telling how often Peter used his sword to chase off bandits. If Christ allowed Peter to defend the Apostles can we not do the same to the women and children of the nation. Are we to keep abandoning them to be slaughtered by those people that have no love for them? Prohibition is a type of political sword with which we defend our friends, families, and neighbors from those debased and drunken people that have no love for them and who do not care if they die. One of the great seductions controlling the American people today is that we love vice ridden celebrities more than less attractive and humble sober neighbors and family members.

Jesus was not of the secular world which he admitted. He made himself equal to his countrymen. He took authority over gravity, storms, diseases, and demons, and death itself when he raised Lazerus from the grave.

The Bible does not condemn what we put in our mouths but only what comes out of it. Prohibition is Peter's sword that protects us from what comes out of the mouth and mind of the drinker of alcohol. When 10, 265 people are killed by the alcohol user in one year, then the need for Prohibition is seen to protect people and stop the slaughter.

Thanks,

Billy Joe Xxxxxx

You may be too stupid if...

... you need a social media website to control what you see.

... you can't tell the difference between real news and satire.

... you scream about fake news while daily ingesting metric tons of it because it fits your preconceived notions of the truth.

... you won't believe mainstream middle-of-the-road media that correctly quotes real people using their real names and real titles but swear that media which uses "sources close to the situation", "anonymous sources," "speaking on condition of anonymity" and "reliable sources" are absolutely true.

If you are one of these people and you are now offended, well, chew on this: Reality is under no obligation to conform itself to your expectations.

Yassee, Facebooger is going to start tagging websites and stories because some people are too stupid and will not think for themselves. I see this as a prelude to actually blocking such sites.

FB is positioning itself as your mental nanny. Apparently this is necessary because some of you are stupid. You need someone to reign in what little brain you have. You need someone to pen you tightly in a corral and manage what you're allowed to see because "The social media giant was sharply criticized after the Nov. 8 election, as false stories were blamed for adding confusion to a dynamic campaign season. Since then, fake news and conspiracy theories were also identified as a motivating factor in a man's assault on a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C."

In short, the overlords have determined you need to be kept on a leash.

The greatest and worst thing about you being restrained? You'll never notice it.

The hidden messages

One of the be-damned blessings of social media sights (correct words thankyouverymuchforasking) is the ability to block someone and stuff.

A blessing because you get to block ad hominem, which I do not tolerate on my pages. Attack the argument all you want, we'll rock that. Go after the person, then Bye Felicia!

A blessing because you get to stop the flood of nonsense.

A blessing because you get to control what comes in.

A curse because too many people use to just eliminate anything and anyone who even mildly disagree with their Weltanschauung. That's sad. If you surround yourself only with people who are carbon copies of yourself, then you are essentially in Plato's Cave.

A curse because you will (not may, but WILL), miss important things.

A curse because you are limiting yourself, not those around you.

RIDING THAT FENCE LIKE A BOSS

This ability to block, deny, reject, screen, hide or whatever is not 100 percent.

It can still show up in your feeds.

A friend copies & pastes. You may do this.

This is where I'm straddling that electrified bobwar fence. Just can't decide if I support C&P to share information that's blocked.

The best way to 'splain is to give you an example. Take Facebooger.

THE BRICK WALL ON THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY

You block Phread on FB. This means you don't want to see his stuff and you don't want him to see your stuff. All in all you're just another brick in the wall. (and you sang that, didn't you?)

Ignatious is your friend. Ignatious is Phread's friend.

Ignatious takes one of your comments and copies & pastes it so Phread can see it.

Phread can then comment, but you'll never see it. Well, you can see it if Phread does another C&P.

You blocked Phread to keep this from happening.

Does Ignatious have the right to share your comments with Phread? Without looking into the minutiae of the law, I say yes, he does.

Should Ignatious share your comments with Phread? I say no. Again, if you wanted Phread to see it, you'd unblock him.

And yet, when Ignatious shares your comments, Phread may learn something useful. That I support.

As me bud PH observed just a bit ago, "These convo's start looking funny with pieces missing."

They sure do. Sometimes it amuses me immensely.  Sometimes it makes me very sad.

When someone blocks me, I think it is hilariously depressing. I laugh at the person who blocked me. Then I am sad because I got blocked. When I block someone I have the same reaction. I'm downtrodden because that the person couldn't stay rational and I'm giddy because I drove someone around the bend.

THE SOLUTION

Like prit near everything else in life, I do have a solution.

#Humanup

You ain't gotta like it. But you can show respect and try to understand.

To those I've blocked, if you read this, you're welcome to ask me why you are blocked. I'll explain and give you a chance to rebut. If I made a mistake, I'll own up and unblock. If my reasons are justified, well, I believe in second chances too.

Handing your eyes back to you

Socrates, the guy behind the Socratic method of learning, was executed by the government at the time because he was pissing people off. He drank hemlock, according to the stories, but it was still a legal execution. Or, as so many people like to call it, murder.

Actual assassination attempt aside, a lot of people take tremendous offense at my questions.

I don't get that.

A lot of people won't answer my questions. Instead, they roll their eyes, engage in evasions and change the subject. My favorite evasion is "You can't understand."

That may be the truth. In some situations, it absolutely is a truth. If you are a parent, can you explain to someone else what being a parent is like? Nope. They must experience it. No one can tell you what being a new mom or dad is like. But once you experience it, no one has to tell you. So yeah, if you're not a parent, you can't understand.

It's still an evasion.

Why? What good does that do?

These people who love to DER (dramatic eye roll) also love to complain about people who don't understand.

Yeah.



Then come the questions which can be answered, but people won't. They roll their eyes. They evade. They dismiss. Persist and they start hurling insults.

EHB says, "That's because an eye roll doesn't require that the recipient take a year of college level political science and philosophy to understand. 'You're interrogating this from the wrong perspective' does."

To which I replied, perhaps I don't know enough to ask the proper questions.

Could be.

GRINDING YOUR GEARS

So let me grind your gears a minnet. Here are some simple (simple to me anyway questions). Yes or no answers is all that's needed.

Can a person change gender?

Can a person be attracted to members of the same gender?

Can a person be attracted to men and women?

Can an adult make decisions for himself? (Use of him is gender neutral herein because I don't feel like typing a long string of pronouns each time.)

Does a person have the right to try to be happy, as long as he doesn't harm anyone?

Does an adult have the right to change himself?

My friends on the <- and the -> will probably answer some of these questions differently. However, they should all say the answer to the last two questions is yes.

NOT SO SIMPLE QUESTIONS

These are still yes & no anwer questions. However, few people will be satisfied with a yes or no.

If you agree to the try to be happy premise and change premise then –

Can a person change the gender he is attracted to?

There's one that'll spark argument.

If a person has the right to change himself (you all said yes), then does a person have the right to try to change which gender he is attracted to? (and dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put!)

The answer has to be yes. Otherwise you are not being honest in your earlier answers. (For the record, I don't care who you are attracted to. If you're happy, nuf said. If you are not happy, try to change things without harming someone.)

And this is why I don't understand the furor surrounding programs that try to change who a person is sexually attracted to. Make straight people gay. May gay people straight. Whatever. If the program is voluntary and the person is an adult and signs up to try to change, then why do you care? If the person does not want to change, why do you care?

If the person wants to be happy, then do they have the right to try to change?

How can you tell someone they can't change, if they are not harming anyone?