The version I've seen has 6 of them, and without anachronisms such as fire hoses.

One of them felt an ear and thought that the beast was a fan

One of them felt a tusk and thought that the beast was a spear

One of them felt the trunk and thought that the beast was a snake

One of them felt a body side and thought that the beast was a wall

One of them felt a leg and thought that the beast was a tree trunk

One of them felt the tail and thought that the beast was a rope

To me, this story shows that perception is not as straightforward as one might think, and that seemingly contradictory perceptions may be a result of seeing different parts of a problem. Here's some links:

http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/..._elephant.html

http://www.kheper.auz.com/realities/.../Buddhist.html

I think what Matt is trying to say is that there is no reason the blind men should wander around the elephant (God), feeling bits and pieces of it and trying to figure out what it is, because God has clearly spoken to humanity and revealed his nature, his characteristics, his commands, etc. Thus, unlike the parable, we humans have no excuse for possessing all these variant conceptions of God. God is a "talking elephant" and all we have to do is listen in order to get a clear picture of him.

Of course, humans all throughout history have claimed to be in direct communication with God, and they very often come to completely different understandings of God nonetheless. So Matt's point seems to fizzle, IMHO.

I think the sad thing is that Matt actually thinks that he made a point. He didn't make a point and he didn't say anything at all which is even remotely meaningful.

What a splendid ambassador for Christianity!

Sastan

The Elephant parable is Buddhist:


Rig Veda 1.164.46 - They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.


Udana 68-69 - "Monks, the wanderers of other sects are blind and eyeless. They don't know what is beneficial and what is harmful. They don't know what is the Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma. Not knowing what is beneficial and what is harmful, not knowing what is Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma, they live arguing, quarreling, and disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth, saying, 'The Dhamma is like this, it's not like that. The Dhamma's not like that, it's like this.'

"Once, in this same Savatthi, there was a certain king who said to a certain man, 'Gather together all the people in Savatthi who have been blind from birth.'"

"'As you say, your majesty,' the man replied and, rounding up all the people in Savatthi who had been blind from birth, he went to the king and on arrival said, 'Your majesty, the people in Savatthi who have been blind from birth have been gathered together.'

"'Very well then, show the blind people an elephant.'

"'As you say, your majesty,' the man replied and he showed the blind people an elephant. To some of the blind people he showed the head of the elephant, saying, 'This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.' To some of them he showed an ear of the elephant, saying, 'This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.' To some of them he showed a tusk...the trunk...the body...a foot...the hindquarters...the tail...the tuft at the end of the tail, saying, 'This, blind people, is what an elephant is like.'

"Then, having shown the blind people the elephant, the man went to the king and on arrival said, 'Your majesty, the blind people have seen the elephant. May your majesty do what you think it is now time to do.'

"Then the king went to the blind people and on arrival asked them, 'Blind people, have you seen the elephant?'

"'Yes, your majesty. We have seen the elephant.'

"'Now tell me, blind people, what the elephant is like.'

"The blind people who had been shown the head of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a water jar.'

"Those who had been shown the ear of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a winnowing basket.'
"Those who had been shown the tusk of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like an iron rod.'
"Those who had been shown the trunk of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like the pole of a plow.'
"Those who had been shown the body of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a granary.'
"Those who had been shown the foot of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a post.'
"Those who had been shown the hindquarters of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a mortar.'
"Those who had been shown the tail of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a pestle.'
"Those who had been shown the tuft at the end of the tail of the elephant replied, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a broom.'

"Saying, 'The elephant is like this, it's not like that. The elephant's not like that, it's like this,' they struck one another with their fists. That gratified the king.

"In the same way, monks, the wanderers of other sects are blind and eyeless. They don't know what is beneficial and what is harmful. They don't know what is the Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma. Not knowing what is beneficial and what is harmful, not knowing what is Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma, they live arguing, quarreling, and disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth, saying, 'The Dhamma is like this, it's not like that. The Dhamma's not like that, it's like this.'"

Sastan,

Having read your other topics and now this, I don't know whether you're a raving lunatic fundie wanker with a bit of knowledge or a sensible human being who was being a bit sarcastic or playing the troll.

This was a bloody good read though, it's nice to know just where the parable came from.

I'd still love Matt to come and explain just how in particular it is fallacious.

Go here to find out more about Sastan.

Follow Pantera's Links

Sastan

Waning Moon Conrad - I'd still love Matt to come and explain just how in particular it is fallacious.

Don't you already know? This matt appears to be a Biblical literalist, and if he's unable to accept that there are metaphorical interpretations possible of his own scriptures, how would it be possible for him to accept that other religions do not depend on literal interpretations?

If a talking elephant claimed to have one head AND three heads, a certain amount of scientific groping would still be in order.

You all are correct. Just visited a Christian website called karmatograce. It uses this parable. Hindus declare that God is unknowable and therefore like the elephant's parts all paths are equally true. But christians through Christ has certain knowledge of the attributes and nature of God.

Hey Sastan, are you a Christian, or are you an atheist or other non-Xtian parodying CrossTianity? The round-earth article of yours (which I like intensely and is a favourite subject of mine, see here) strikes me as a great slur on Christianity and the Bible.

I don't know, so let me know so I can form a just attitude. As for me, I'm an atheist. Thanks in advance.

http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/home.html