Comments by "Ginny Jolly" (@ginnyjollykidd) on "ReligionForBreakfast" channel.

I took"Camel through the/an eye of the/a needle" literally when I heard it as a child. I also tried to make it a quantum camel before I knew what quantum was.
38
If I can pivot a computer hutch across my carpeted floor, people in ancient times could move mountains-worth of stone.
9
I'm a non - Jew, but I know the miracle story, at least in highlights. My take on this is that the Jews were able to reclaim and rededicate and re - consecrate their temple. That they could reestablish their temple and go on living their culture instead of losing it to conquest. To me, that is the miracle: the strength of Jewish culture.
7
We already trust a lot of hardware technology, even down to needles that draw blood and monitors of vital signs. Automatic defibrillators are trusted to tell what kind of EKG a heart attack victim has in order to advise whether they have a shockable rhythm or not. Anything that we use to get information on biologic entities is a trusted form of AI. Micro tools used in microsurgery give views of blood vessels and tissues too small to see. We use a lot of technology already that is voice-controlled or smart seeking, like the little square corners in your camera in portrait seeking out recognizable faces. Sometimes it will tell you when somebody has their eyes closed. (Tho in my case, my eyes are actually open but squinting.) I went to a direct buying site for glasses, and I virtually tried a pair on. Instead of viewing them on a snapshot picture, the site was like your camera taking in moving scenery. Wherever I turned,the virtual glasses followed my face at the proper angle. This is a form of AI as well. Isn't one of the largest, most prolific AI the Internet? It makes decisions all the time. In Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, "“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – – that's all.”
6
@omarlittle-hales8237 Cows can't digest cellulose. Mammals can't break it down. What chewing the cud is for is to get a second pass at the nutrients in the grass. To absorb the nutrients they missed when they first ate the grass. Cows and other livestock pass cellulose and lignin just like humans do. It might have as much to do with gut health as bulk fiber (dark green leafy veggies, e.g.) does for us. It makes food pass well through the gut. Which brings up another point. Humans have no rumen like cows, goats, and sheep. Nor do we have a big appendix like rabbits do to store grass they ate. These organs are for breakdown of nutrients in plants. But we have no comparable organs to get the most from our food. I'd like to see some research on this, but I'll bet that vegetarian/vegan eating —while perhaps noble —does not save much energy compared to the raising of livestock for human consumption. Humans must eat more vegetarian bulk than a person eating an omnivorous diet because we don't get a second pass at the food. I think our best bet is to learn how our digestion works and learn to be satisfied with less food. I'm learning to modify my diet for diabetes, and after a month now I've already felt a difference. Not so much a greater energy as satisfaction with the recommended serving size of each food I eat. I'm quite amazed. Eat for your own reasons and needs. I eat for my reasons and needs.
5
Not catch 22. It's circular reasoning, or begging the question.
3
I read a story once of a farmer with prize-winning corn shared his seed corn with his neighbors. Why? Because corn is fertilized by airborne pollen of other corn. The more good corn his neighbors produced, the more likely his own crops would stay excellent. Is this not a physical example of whatever good you send out it will come back a hundred-fold?
2
Your videos are quite well - done: I enjoy them and learn a lot. But the background music on this one gets in the way of your discourse and it's disconcerting to me. It's almost like a strobe.
2
Physicalists? Well, in order to interact with people and things in our outer existence, anything extraterrestrial must themselves take a physical manifestation. Otherwise the experience could only be experienced by an individual and not many at once. For something to be validated in a society, a consensus of experience must be established. So I guess I'm a Physicalist in a way, too.
2
Follow the money; follow the power.
2
How can people in as limited an environment as Earth control the transmigration of any one person, much less the Dalai Lama?
1
I believe extramission doesn't have to do with physical seeing but with spiritual contact between two people rather than physical sight. I think these philosophers have a point, but not about physical sight. That's my conjecture and opinion, not to be taken as theory or even hypothesis by anyone else.
1
I would like to know what people had against Thomas? Is it because he dared to question Jesus' return? Is it a different Thomas's from the Apostle?
1
This makes certain parts of the Bible make more sense. Like Judas falling headlong from a high place. Could he have flown? Shed his Earth suit and become the celestial being he was? Or dissolved as if in a Star Trek transporter?
1
We evolved to have fine motor control between our fingers (the greatest part to our thumb and forefinger) which is similarly subtly refined to manipulate a paintbrush or dexterously move a Vise Grip. Create calligraphy or write in cursive (a quickly vanishing art and tool). We make tools and techniques for our five fingers, including dancing with all fingers on each hand. The armature and control was already there. But like Wolfgang Mozart, we wove our infinite creativity into it to use that armature in so many ways.
1
Works for me. Trying to find truth is very difficult and requires a lot of testing and evaluation. I did wonder if the fragment writing showed grammar of the time or not. For example, once in English history it was common to say "four and twenty," whereas now we say "twenty - four" here for the same number 24. Who knows what it will be in two centuries? Two dodec or 20 base 12? Or even subject (S) , verb (V) , and object (O) order. American and British English go SVO. German is mostly SOV. IIUC, Japanese is OVS. In Latin and Romance languages, conjugations lead to a separate verb for each form of pronouns: In English, I love You love He, she, or it loves We love You (plural) love They love. In Latin, respectively: Amo Amas Amat Amamus Amatis Amant And Latin has a completely different set of words for the same verb in past tense, future tense, past perfect tense, future perfect ("I will have done that), Vocative ("O Dave!"), the subjunctive or hypothetical ("If I were to do that, then...."), and others. What, then, were the grammar and syntax of the time? Edit: it was not just one set of conjugations like above that Latin had. Conjugation was the act of parsing out verbs for pronouns. But it also meant a group of verbs to which this same method was used: Those words using - o, - as, - at, - amus, - atis, - ant were for the first conjugation (group). The second conjugation had words that used different endings. There are at least five or six conjugations, and nouns also had groups and endings, called declensions. All of these must be considered when trying to forge a document. Personally, I think it's too much trouble to do for a fleeting moment of fame.
1
If technology is a product of a limited source code, say, of a price scanner in a grocery store, then everything should work consistently and perfectly. Yet it doesn't. You could argue it's not maintained right, but even if it is maintained right, and even if the customer scans everything right, there are times when the scanner doesn't work. And the upper shelf for grocery holding doesn't work. And the carousel, which is built to recognize the weight of the groceries, doesn't recognize small packages like Kool-aid. Or even heavier groceries. These events happen randomly in a way that users cannot predict, something the users don't associate with AI. and no matter how much an AI is created to be like a human being, it, in the end, is a difference machine. We humans have the ability to go beyond the logic of a collection of integrated circuits and logic imposed by software—the commands given to it to make those circuits work. Truly, we each are more complex—more a black box than AI is.
1
Art reflects human condition. Art depicting the Black Plague shows people in misery and pain and suffering and tortuous conditions. I noticed the picture of the eagle killing the serpent, and that image is on the current Mexican flag. How does a country constantly defeated think of itself as a conquerer in a culture of defeatism? In this alone I can conclude that Aztecs were, in some instances, the winners of wars.
1
Getting to altered states without chemicals is also evident in Whirling Dervishes, as they use their whirling to induce an altered state.
1
"Intromission" is rightly called a theory because its mechanism has been observed, repeated, and proven to be true by scientific study. Science Theory requires an explanation to be observed, consistent with observed science related to it, repeatable, and predict further scientific principles that are subsequently found and proved to be true. We in science do not call them laws. Theory is the strongest term and closest to scientific "law" you can get. Why not? Because our scientific understanding is always changing, and we must check our established scientific model against this new evidence. If our model doesn't fit, we must modify it to be consistent with newly-uncovered facts as well as continue to be consistent with all the facts and observations we've made of since the beginning of science. Anything else is hypothesis and conjecture.
1
Makes sense.
1
As I got older, and I felt I wasn't getting answers from Methodism, I checked out other religions and different Christian sects. What I got as the main tenets were "Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself." and I felt these religions were good for people to follow. (I was still looking.) As I looked, I realized my basic beliefs were strong. Others feared questioning their religion. For example: my Mom in Sunday school asked if Steven (who was preaching Jesus' word fervently and was crucified for it) had kept his mouth shut, he would have lived longer? This made sense to me as a teen, but Mom said in her class her fellows gasped and acted like the Bible never should be questioned. But that's silly. If you look up the story, you can see Mom's point of view might be sensible, but on the other hand Stephen was so moved by Jesus' word that he felt he could not help himself. But you have to consider such questions if you want to know where spiritual truth lies. This is why there are so many religious treatises and apologia. And Jewish texts are full of commentary and interpretation. If you look behind the texts and rituals and find your religion doesn't break down, it can still give you something. If it is found wanting, it's time to move on to a religion that will minister to your spiritual needs.
1
@csnoot in that case, I would come armed with information about Saint Nicholas and his deeds that helped people. Some are like legends, but it seems some were more verifiable. Then I'd point out that what we learn here is how to help people out of compassion for others. It's fun to "play with" the concept of the Coca - Cola Santa, and that's okay. Santa Claus is Coming to Town and It's A Wonderful Life played back to back is fine to do. There's a lot of cinematic history there, too. It doesn't have to be thrown out completely. If you want to eat "Santa's cookies," it's fine. If you want to keep the magic of the experience, that's fine, too.
1
Does this have anything to do with the renaming of Jacob as Israel? Was this due to scribes espousing their interpretation of their kingdom's origins, say as opposed to the origins of the other kingdom? Maybe clarifying the name ascribed to the same patriarch for both kingdoms?
1
Referring to The Chronicles of Narnia, particularly in The Last Battle, The character Susan Pevensie is called "no longer a friend of Narnia." She is described as liking the trappings (and trap ings) of the material world in contrast to the spiritual world C. S. Lewis describes Narnia as. Could Susan be one of those who "went away from us?" Narnia, through and through, is a Christian allegory, but I always thought Susan got the short end of the stick. My friend and I have each written a kind of apologia. I always thought Aslan never gave up on Susan. And in each of our pieces, we allow in Susan a glimmer of light that calls her back to divine paradise, and she is delighted and eagerly wants to return.
1
Then there is the Methodist belief I grew up with in which love and the beatitudes played a large part and the religion I joined as an adult: Eckankar. I see no conflict between them. When I joined Eckankar, I was asking questions that my religion couldn't answer. I tried to find those answers in Methodism, but I had no results. The tools of spiritual discovery I found in Eckankar answered a lot of these questions by encouraging quiet contemplation and chanting HU (pronounced "hue"). Eckankar seemed like the right next step that made sense to me.
1
Thus taking control of people's destinies out of the Clergy's hands.
1
@brownsugar6231 Whomever Paul disguised himself in front of, he didn't have to disguise himself in front of Romans because he himself was a Roman Citizen, something he disclosed in his letters to the churches
1
I would like to know why Christians hold the cross as a sacred symbol. And also the crucifix, where an image of Jesus is put upon the cross.
1
"What could this man do if he were angry?" I dunno, turn over tables and chase out money changers and merchants? He didn't do that by thaumaturgy according to the gospel.
1
This is off topic somewhat, but talking of the raising of the dead, I didn't know what the writers meant: a literal physical raising of all people in history that ever lived? Yuck! Besides, how do you bring them all up? Since the dead, including the embalmed, have become morsels for decomposing little beasties, and they died and became food themselves and so on, how are you going to raise the bodies? I never found out in my United Methodist Church. I never gave it much credence as it seems absurd. Pretty much my understanding of Christianity is that Jesus said, "Neither can they say, 'Lo here!' or 'Lo there!' For behold! The kingdom of God is within you!" So I really can't believe that physical bodies will be taken from the Earth and be people. I rather believe that Soul wears a body on Earth and sheds the "Earth suit" as a friend of mine calls it and goes to Heavenly places as one's true self.
1