BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME.

"Begin at the beginning,and go on till you come to the end: then stop." (Lewis Carroll, 1832-1896)

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked."Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat."I don't know," Alice answered."Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

"So long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"

My Photo
Name:
Location: Australia

I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. Like Arthur Dent from "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", if you do not have a Babel Fish in your ear this blog will be completely unintelligible to you and will read something like this: "boggle, google, snoggle, slurp, slurp, dingleberry to the power of 10". Fortunately, those who have had the Babel Fish inserted in their ear, will understood this blog perfectly. If you are familiar with this technology, you will know that the Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation. It excretes energy in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said; or in this case, what was read. The Babel Fish, thanks to scientific research, reverses the problem defined by its namesake in the Tower of Babel, where a deity was supposedly inspired to confuse the human race by making them unable to understand each other.

"DIFFICILE EST SATURAM NON SCRIBERE"

Beepbeepitsme has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts.

Subscribe to BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Homosexuality is Natural



From : ~ Birds and Bees may be Gay:

The birds and the bees may be gay, according to the world's first museum exhibition about homosexuality among animals.

With documentation of gay or lesbian behavior among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural."

"We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear -- homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature," an exhibit statement said.

Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled "Against Nature," told Reuters: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them."

Greek philosopher Aristotle noted apparent homosexual behavior among hyenas 2,300 years ago but evidence of animal homosexuality has often been ignored by researchers, perhaps because of distaste, lack of interest or fear or ridicule.

Bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, are among extremes in having sex with either males or females, apparently as part of social bonding. "Bonobos are bisexuals, all of them," Soeli said.

Still, it is unclear why homosexuality survives since it seems a genetic dead-end.

Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by having homosexual contact. That in turn can help their chances of later mating with females, he said.

And a study of homosexual men in Italy suggested that their mothers and sisters had more offspring. "The same genes that give homosexuality in men could give higher fertility among women," he said

Nature: ~ "Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical universe, material world or material universe. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general."

So if a behaviour is observed and demonstrated in the natural world it is considered natural. Homosexuality is oberved in the natural world and is therefore natural.

Link

28 Comments:

Anonymous ted said...

On the lighter side, here's a Ricky Gervais take on a particular book concerning this very subject...:)

17/10/06 1:07 pm  
Blogger Daniel said...

That's it then! I'm changing my name to Myron, getting an earring installed (which ear is it supposed to be in?), shaving my legs and getting rid of my beard (I might need waxing work done elsewhere), reading Pointers for Attracting Lovely Men, practising talking in a lilting tenor voice, buying tight bum-squasher pants and white shoes, trying to perfect a wiggle when I walk, etc.

That done, I'm bursting out of the cupboard to capture that which I've been missing out on all these years. Thanks Beep! You've saved me!

P.S. Beep, why couldn't your name be Bwyan?

17/10/06 1:59 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: ted, That's hilarious. I will add that to the post. :)

17/10/06 2:07 pm  
Anonymous ted said...

Thought you'd like it Beep, thanks...:-)

I seem to have lost the transcript of the article from your post though. I tried clearing my cookies and everything, but to no avail...:-(

17/10/06 3:07 pm  
Blogger Admin said...

Islam, is it really how the media portrays it? Is it really all about terrorism and extremism? Here is your chance to find out! Visit our blog--> http://thejourney2islam-team.blogspot.com/

18/10/06 7:03 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE admin: My question to you is quite simple. Do you believe that religious law should be the rule of government?

18/10/06 8:52 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE ted: "I seem to have lost the transcript of the article from your post though."

Which one?

18/10/06 11:12 am  
Blogger Stardust1954 said...

Beepbeep...I see "admin" found you too. He must be making the rounds.

18/10/06 1:02 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: stardust

I like the way their version of religious freedom is the freedom to agree. (said with just a hint of sarcasm)

18/10/06 1:16 pm  
Anonymous ted said...

I can't see any text between the pic and the vid. The only text I can see is the title, the link for the Chinstrap penguins, and Link at the bottom of the post. The transcipt you had there has disappeared, but i think it's Firefox. It views perfectly in IE...

18/10/06 3:26 pm  
Blogger Arthur_Vandelay said...

My question to you is quite simple. Do you believe that religious law should be the rule of government?

My question to admin is this: Do you believe that by comment-spamming, people are going to take your ideas in good faith?

18/10/06 3:34 pm  
Anonymous PJ said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

18/10/06 3:49 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Thnaks PJ.

Are they viewing correctly now?

They seem to be working from this end.

18/10/06 4:42 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE ted: There was no text at all?

That seems weird. The text is viewable here.

Can you view the text in the article now?

18/10/06 4:44 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE arthur:

I am almost sure that I will not get a straight answer from him.

18/10/06 5:40 pm  
Anonymous ted said...

Well like i said, it's only Mozilla Firefox that's the problem. Internet Explorer works a treat. I've done all the same things to both (cleared my cookies, checked my privacy setting and allowed your site as a "trusted site") and I get the same result. Strange and weird indeed. There's no updates available for Mozilla at the moment, so who knows...:(

18/10/06 6:12 pm  
Blogger AngloAmerican said...

I can think of some more “natural” things too. Incest, cannibalism, infanticide, eating shit, stealing, rape, torture…Surely the natural argument isn’t a good one. Humans should rise above animal behaviour or face serious consequences. Humans are not bound by nature and are prone to excess. The best argument is that it causes no harm therefore it is ok. Homosexuality may be harmless but time will tell.

22/10/06 4:18 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE anglo

That something exists or doesn't exist in nature is not an argument for or against homosexuality.

Heterosexuality occurs in nature, and no one suggests that because it does, that heterosexuality is inherently good or bad.

Because a range of sexual behaviours exists in the animal kingdom, this does suggest that that range of behaviours are beneficial simply because of their continued existence.

If a behaviour was of no benefit in nature, it would stand to reason that it would NOT be observed or demonstrated in nature.

The suggestion that fecundity in related groups of the population is the payoff for homosexuality existing in the genetically related population, is a possible scenaro.

22/10/06 7:14 pm  
Blogger under_the_mercy said...

Re: beep:

"If a behaviour was of no benefit in nature, it would stand to reason that it would NOT be observed or demonstrated in nature."

Unless nature happened to be flawed, or fallen.

23/10/06 4:12 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE under:

For the sake of argument:

The bible doesn't state that anything except mankind "was fallen." Theoretically, adam and eve fell from grace when they disobeyed god and ate of the fruit of knowledge.

The snake did not "fall from grace", as not being a human, he never had grace in the first place.

He was supposedly punished for his trouble by being made to crawl on his belly for the rest of his days.

This doesn't seem to have been much of a punishment as he already did that in the first place. (Unless you want to claim that he had legs before he caused the trouble, and god amputated them afterwards.)

The fall described in Genesis 3: 14-15 is the fall of man. Not the fall of the natural world; not the fall of the animal kingdom.

The rest of the natural world, went on doing whatever it was they did and for some of them, that included homosexual sex.

(It goes without saying that I don't believe that humans fell from grace either.)

But, animals did NOT fall from grace according to the bible, and animals continue to demonstrate homosexual behaviours.

As god supposedly made all the animals, he made them so that they exhibited homosexual behaviours.

If homosexual behaviours were not of benefit in nature, he would not have made them that way.

Humans are part of the natural world. Even if you want to claim that the only reason that human beings exhibit homosexual behaviours is because of the fall, this doesn't explain why god created other living things with homosexual habits.

And if you want to claim that later on god was unhappy with all the homosexual animals and man, so therefore he killed them all off in the flood, (except for a chosen few); it still doesn't explain why animals continue to this day to exhibit homosexual behaviours.

Animals have never been offered grace. There is nothing for them to fall from. Therefore they must be as god wanted them to be, homosexual behaviours included.

So, back to my original statement:

"If a behaviour was of no benefit in nature, it would stand to reason that it would NOT be observed or demonstrated in nature."

23/10/06 8:50 am  
Blogger under_the_mercy said...

Gen 3:17

"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: CURSED IS THE GROUND for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"


Gen 1:29-30

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food:
and to EVERY beast of the earth, and to EVERY bird of the heavens, and to EVERYTHING that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given EVERY GREEN HERB FOR FOOD: and it was so."

So then according to the bible, the ground was cursed, and as animals no longer eat "every green herb for food" they are no longer in their original condition.

25/10/06 7:38 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE under:

RE: "Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: CURSED IS THE GROUND for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"

The ground did not remain cursed, nor was all of the ground cursed but I will get to that in a moment.

Ok, so you suppose that a god exists that made everything.

The snake's supposed punishment for causing trouble was to crawl on his belly in the dust, and that people would try to kill him.

Eve's supposed punishment was to have pain in childbirth and to obey her husband.

Adam's supposed punishment for listening to his wife (chortle) and for disobeying was that he would have to work to provide food for his family.

Now, what do I notice about all these supposed punishments? The snake already crawled through the dust unless god created him with legs in the first place and then amputated them.

Sensible people would always have been wary of snakes and probably killed them on sight because many of them are poisonous.

Women have always experienced pain in childbirth. It is quite difficult to push out an 8lb baby out of a relatively small aperture.

Men, who created religions, have always wanted their wives to obey them and what better way to try and dominate women than to make up the excuse, "god said so."

Luckily for me, and many other people, appeals to authority have very little value and that includes especially appeals to any supposed supernatural authority.

Men have probably always tilled the soil and grown crops, hunted and killed animals in order to feed their families. (Certainly these things were done according to the time period in which the old testament was written.) So, that doesn't seem like much of a punishment to me either.

What this all suggest to me is that the people who dreamed up genesis, retrofitted the circumstances of their lives into a magical story which involved a god.

Now, let's get to the "cursing" part. There is quite a bit of cursing done in the bible.

Firstly, in Genesis 3:14 god supposedly "curses" the snake so that it crawls on its belly. Not much of a curse really.

Secondly, in Genesis 3:17 god's punishment for adam is to "curse" the ground in the "garden of eden" so that it won't provide food for them.

So, adam and eve are expelled from the garden of eden and adam is made to work the soil to provide food. This isn't much of a "curse" either, unless you believe that a place like the garden of eden existed which I don't.

Thirdly, in Genesis 4:12 god supposedly "curses" Cain for killing Abel. ("When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." )

Now, this demonstrates that not ALL the ground was cursed in the first place. Other people could apparently quite happily work the ground and grow crops etc, but not Cain.

It certainly isn't much of a curse if NO ONE was able to work the ground to gain food as to curse Cain would seem redundant if all the ground was cursed in the first place.

So, this specifically demonstrates that not all the ground was cursed. What it also demonstrates is that the meaning of "curse" is not consistent, so it is impossible to know specifically what "cursing the ground" would have entailed.

That is, the repercussions of such a supposed act are not qualified. You wish to interpret it to mean that the earth grew homosexual animals as a result. That is a bit of a stretch as far as I am concerned. But anyway, more will be made clear in a moment.

Fourthly, God supposedly killed off all of Adam's and Eve's children, who had all bred with each other like incestuous rabbits, and killed off ALL the animals excepting a pair of each species which were "unclean" and and seven pairs of every "clean" species.

(Which kind of makes you wonder what the criterion was for separating "clean" from "unclean", but nevermind, I am sure Noah measured their inside pants measurement or something.)

So, Noah supposedly gets all the animals off the ark, which god instructed him to save, and only Noah and his family are left out of the human population.

Noah then stokes up the barbie, and has a fry-up sacrifice to thank god for not drowning him and his family. I am not too sure which animals were sacrificed, but it couldn't have been the "unclean ones" as apparently god only likes nice animals to be cooked up for him.

So, Noah must have bumped off a few of the "clean" animals and performed the usual barbaric blood sacrifice. Now, god was very pleased with the smell of burning animal flesh, so he said to Noah, Genesis 8:21, "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."

What's this? God promising to never agaun curse the ground? That must mean that the ground was no longer cursed.

So, if god cursed the ground in the first place, it is no longer cursed.

The naughty animals and naughty humans had all been killed off, and the ground is no longer cursed. Hip Hip Hooray!

Consequently, the plants and animals which grew and reproduced after the flood are not cursed either.

So, you can't blame the "cursed ground" for animals exhibiting homosexual behaviours after the flood, as god got rid of all the naughty animals and all the naughty people and promised to never curse the ground again.

Which leaves us with the inevitable reality, animals exhibit homosexual behaviours because it is natural for them to do so.

25/10/06 5:12 pm  
Blogger under_the_mercy said...

This is a discussion on weather or not the BIBLE says that only man fell. As 90% of your arguments are based upon the assumption that the bible is untrue, 90% of your arguments are irrelevant. For example:

“Men have probably always tilled the soil and grown crops, hunted and killed animals in order to feed their families…So, that doesn't seem like much of a punishment to me either.”

I will, however, address the other 10% and the faulty logic.

RE: “Secondly, in Genesis 3:17 god's punishment for adam is to "curse" the ground in the "garden of eden" so that it won't provide food for them.”

If God “cursed” the ground in the “garden of Eden” so that it would not provide food for
them then why does the rest of Gen. 3:17 say “in toil SHALT THOU EAT OF IT all the
days of thy life;”

RE: “Thirdly, in Genesis 4:12 god supposedly "curses" Cain for killing Abel. ("When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." ) Now, this demonstrates that not ALL the ground was cursed in the first place. Other people could apparently quite happily work the ground and grow crops etc, but not Cain.”

No, it demonstrates that it was not all cursed to the degree that it would not yield crops.
For Cain the ground would not yield crops, but for everyone else it would provided they
worked hard. As to man working the ground “quite happily” it says in Gen. 18-19a:

“Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the
field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground”

Doesn’t sound to “happy” to me.

RE: “You wish to interpret it to mean that the earth grew homosexual animals as a result. That is a bit of a stretch as far as I am concerned.”

No, I am not interpreting it in any way, if you remember my first post on this subject I was simply making what I considered an interesting observation. I also consider that it would be quite a stretch to interpret homosexual animals as a result; I do however consider it a possibility.

RE: “(Which kind of makes you wonder what the criterion was for separating "clean" from "unclean", but nevermind, I am sure Noah measured their inside pants measurement or something.)”

This is simply a form of ridicule without point.

RE: “What's this? God promising to never agaun curse the ground? That must mean that the ground was no longer cursed.”

If I slap someone, then promise never to do it again, does the first slap disappear? Since when does promising never to do a thing again mean that all previous effects of it are gone?

RE: “The naughty animals and naughty humans had all been killed off, and the ground is no longer cursed. Hip Hip Hooray! Consequently, the plants and animals which grew and reproduced after the flood are not cursed either.”

Where does the bible make any distinction of “naughty” animals and “good” animals? As
to man, though the “evil” ones had been killed off, the sin nature remained.

Heb. 11:7 “By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved
with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned
the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.”

Noah was saved by FAITH, not works. If Noah was perfect, then he would not have been saved by faith.

Wow! I think this is my longest comment ever.

27/10/06 3:04 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE under:

"As 90% of your arguments are based upon the assumption that the bible is untrue, 90% of your arguments are irrelevant. For example: “Men have probably always tilled the soil and grown crops, hunted and killed animals in order to feed their families…So, that doesn't seem like much of a punishment to me either.”

So, you think that people should only be allowed to comment on books if they agree with what the book says? (I have to stop myself from laughing loudly at this stage.)

So according to this assumption, you cannot comment on any book which talks about evolution because you don't agree with what is written there.

Based on this assumption, you can never read and comment negatively on any book. In other words, everyone has to believe everything in every book they read before they can comment on it.

It is evidential through archeology and anthropology that mankind has tilled the soil and grown crops for thousands of years, so, I fail to see how that is a false assumption.

RE: "If God “cursed” the ground in the “garden of Eden” so that it would not provide food for
them then why does the rest of Gen. 3:17 say “in toil SHALT THOU EAT OF IT all the
days of thy life;”

It could have specifically referred to adam and eve, but as we know that people need food in order to survive, and that adam and eve supposedly went on to populate the world, then it is likely that adam and eve did not starve to death and the curse did not stop them from providing food for their families.

If god was supposedly cross with them for disobeying him, god was no longer going to provide the garden of eden as a food source for them.

If you accept that a god exists who cursed the ground, then the god could not have been refering to the whole planet, as adam and eve would have died of starvation and their children would not have been able to exist and breed like incestuous rabbits.

So, the cursing of the ground meant what? That they would have to work the ground to provide food. It meant that god would no longer supply all their needs in the garden of eden.

There is nothing in the bible which implies that by god cursing the ground, he created homosexual animals. So once again you delight in a false correlative.

You need to qualify what god meant by "cursed" and as there is no consistency in the use of the word "curse" in the bible, I think you like to make your own interpretation.

You want to pretend that you know the mind of god, and that when god cursed the ground after the fall, that the curse meant that the ground would grow homosexual animals. There is NO evidence of this. This is purely you making things up.

RE: “Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the
field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground”

So, the claim is that mankind had to work the ground in order to provide food. Mankind worked the ground anyway. Which has more evidence? My claim or yours?

RE: "No, I am not interpreting it in any way, if you remember my first post on this subject I was simply making what I considered an interesting observation."

It was not stated as an "interesting observation." It was stated like this: "So then according to the bible, the ground was cursed, and as animals no longer eat "every green herb for food" they are no longer in their original condition." This was your argument for homosexual animals.


RE: I also consider that it would be quite a stretch to interpret homosexual animals as a result; I do however consider it a possibility."

God cursing the earth which then went on to produce homosexual animals is a possibility if you assume that jumping up and down on one leg and turning around 3 times will make the sun disappear behind the clouds.

In other words, it is a possibility if your assumptions are based in faith and not reason.

RE : clean and unclean animals

Clean and unclean animals are refered to in the bible. Are you saying there is no point in the bible refering to them?

Hip hip horray! You might be coming out of the depths of superstitious mumbo jumbo.

If you believe in the bible and its references to jewish law, the assumption is that god would have prefered the bloodly, barbaric sacrifice of clean animals over unclean ones.

In fact, god thought it smelled great! God loves a dead animal barbie apparently. But for you to know what constitutes clean and unclean, you would need to know jewish law, which you obviously do not.

The bible makes a distinction between clean and unclean animals. The distinction must have seemed important, if you believe in the bible, because Noah supposedly only collected 2 pairs of each unclean animal and 7 pairs of each clean animal.

This is based on jewish law about what was allowed to be eaten and what wasn't, and what was considered a worthy sacrifice and what wasn't.

RE naughty animals = animals which demonstrate behaviours of which you do not approve (like homosexuality)

Remember, it is your assumption that because of god cursing the ground that not only humans became sinful, but also plants and animals.

If god flooded the earth and removed the sinful animals, plants and humans, there was no reason for the punishment of a cursed ground to remain.

Water has religiously been seen as the means to remove evil and to create purity, which is why baptism also uses this magical mumbo jumbo of water cleansing away evil.

If you believe that god flooded the earth, then the flooding of the earth with water cleansed it. No need for the supposed curse to remain.

RE noah

I made no claim that noah existed. But the bible does, and I am able to refer to the bible as a source to be used against itself. In the same way that anyone can use the arguments in any book against itself.

But then if noah existed, he would probably believe in hopping up and down on one leg to make the sun disappear.

Or more likely, he would have believed that killing and burning animals would send a pleasing aroma to his god's invisible nostrils.

That kind of non-thinking called faith, is not an attractive option as far as I am concerned.

27/10/06 2:13 pm  
Blogger under_the_mercy said...

RE: beep:

RE: “So, you think that people should only be allowed to comment on books if they agree with what the book says? (I have to stop myself from laughing loudly at this stage.)”

Not at all, but this is a discussion on what the BIBLE, I repeat what the BIBLE says on whether only man was affected by sin, therefore you cannot prove your point by saying that the bible is untrue in THIS discussion.


RE: “It is evidential through archeology and anthropology that mankind has tilled the soil and grown crops for thousands of years, so, I fail to see how that is a false assumption.”

It is not a false assumption, in fact the bible agrees with that idea, but that is not what you said in the first place. Here is your original quote (the one I said went against the bible).

“Men have probably always tilled the soil and grown crops, hunted and killed animals in order to feed their families”

“thousands of years” and “always” are quite different, I must ask you to be honest in the future about what you have said, it is basically impossible to have a discussion with someone who is constantly changing their position and wont acknowledge it.

RE: “It could have specifically referred to adam and eve, but as we know that people need food in order to survive, and that adam and eve supposedly went on to populate the world, then it is likely that adam and eve did not starve to death and the curse did not stop them from providing food for their families.”

Again you have changed your position.

RE: “So, the cursing of the ground meant what? That they would have to work the ground to provide food. It meant that god would no longer supply all their needs in the garden of eden.”

Exactly correct.

RE: “There is nothing in the bible which implies that by god cursing the ground, he created homosexual animals. So once again you delight in a false correlative.”

“You want to pretend that you know the mind of god, and that when god cursed the ground after the fall, that the curse meant that the ground would grow homosexual animals. There is NO evidence of this. This is purely you making things up.”

Really, I ask that you please actually READ my posts before replying to them, In my last post I said:

“I also consider that it would be quite a stretch to interpret homosexual animals as a result; I do however consider it a possibility.”

A possibility and no more. My point was that nature is not how it was according to the bible.


You need to qualify what god meant by "cursed" and as there is no consistency in the use of the word "curse" in the bible, I think you like to make your own interpretation.

The bible says that God cursed the ground and as a result man would have to work the ground with his sweat to produce food (Gen. 3:17-19). I think this makes it quite obvious what “curse” means in this context.

RE: “Clean and unclean animals are refered to in the bible. Are you saying there is no point in the bible refering to them?”

No, I am referring to your idea of “naughty” animals. You said that all the “naughty” animals had been killed off. As you also mentioned that BOTH clean and unclean animals were brought onto the ark you were not referring to clean and unclean. I was not either, but asking where you got the idea of “naughty” animals. This is another instance of you changing your position.

RE: “If you believe that god flooded the earth, then the flooding of the earth with water cleansed it. No need for the supposed curse to remain.”

Please show me where the bible says that all sin and its effects were washed away with the flood, I seem to remember many accounts of sin after the flood.


RE: “I made no claim that noah existed. But the bible does, and I am able to refer to the bible as a source to be used against itself. In the same way that anyone can use the arguments in any book against itself.”

I did not say that you claimed that he did, so lets not get touchy here. I simply pointed out that according to the bible Noah was saved by faith, not works therefore all sin was NOT gone after the flood.

28/10/06 6:38 am  
Blogger under_the_mercy said...

In the interest of cutting down length and meaningless discussion consider the following.

In the end my whole position simply comes down to one point:

According to the Bible nature is not how it was created.



There is nothing you can do that can refute this as:

1. the Bible says that all animals were created as plant eating exclusively.
2. they are obviously not now.


I rest my case.

28/10/06 6:39 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE under:

RE: "In the end my whole position simply comes down to one point: According to the Bible nature is not how it was created."

I know the bible says that a god exists who created life from dirt.

RE: "There is nothing you can do that can refute this as:

1. the Bible says that all animals were created as plant eating exclusively.
2. they are obviously not now."

The bible says that all animals that god created ONLY ate plants?

Genesis 1:29-30
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

It doesn't state that all the animals ate ONLY or EXCLUSIVELY green plants. It states that everything that has the breath of life in it—can eat every green plant for food.

Maybe the fruit on the tree was green. I wonder if adam and eve had belly aches afterwards?

28/10/06 11:38 am  
Blogger 日月神教-任我行 said...

成人遊戲,免費成人影片,成人光碟,情色遊戲,情色a片,情色網,性愛自拍,美女寫真,亂倫,戀愛ING,免費視訊聊天,視訊聊天,成人短片,美女交友,美女遊戲,18禁,三級片,美女,成人圖片區,avdvd,色情遊戲,情色貼圖,女優,偷拍,情色視訊,愛情小說,85cc成人片,成人貼圖站,成人論壇,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,免費a片,視訊美女,視訊做愛,免費視訊,伊莉討論區,sogo論壇,台灣論壇,plus論壇,維克斯論壇,情色論壇,性感影片,正妹,走光,色遊戲,情色自拍,kk俱樂部,好玩遊戲,免費遊戲,貼圖區,好玩遊戲區,中部人聊天室,情色視訊聊天室,聊天室ut,自拍,後宮電影院,85cc,免費影片,a片

21/5/10 4:34 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home