Sexual Deviation in the Animal Kingdom

[Satori]

This is pretty cool.

This week I watched a show on the Discovery Channel, it was called "Out in Nature", maybe you saw it. Anyway, I felt it was worth talking about, for those that didn't see it. The purpose of the show was to discuss the homosexual practices that have been verified to take place now in *hundreds* of animal species.


It's interesting to note that the first people to discover homosexuality in animals were not inclined to share what they knew, because they would face ridicule and possibly worse from the then religious authorities. So the people who lived a century ago were unnecessarily ignorant of such things. Eventually, when researches did write about this, they covered their behinds by writing commentary about it like "These animals are commiting a sin against nature and against god, and are disobeying the doctrine of the church." Incredible, isn't it? We've come so far in such a short time that we can now laugh about this, and I think that's quite cool. Well, some of us can laugh about it anyway, many people are still too ignorant and misguided to see the humour in that unforunately.

The most amazing thing (and the reason I'm writing this at all) is the sexual behaviour of the great bonobo ape. This creature is regarded as the closest living relative to human, sharing over 98% of our dna in common with them. Not only do we look like them, we have *amazingly* similar behaviour patterns as well. Here's a pic of this beautiful animal:

http://www.ucsc.edu/oncampus/currents/97-04-28/ape.htm

Anyway, bonobos, incredibly, are FAR more sexual than even us perverse humans. Their societies are like 24/7 non-stop orgies with everyone have sex with everyone else. Gay sex, sex with youngsters (both ways), incest of every kind, even 3-somes. This goes on literally non-stop. I couldn't believe my eyes. Interestingly (and not coincidentily I'm sure, considering how closely we are related), the bonobo is also one of the few animals other than humans which have been observed having sex in the missionary position.

So it would seem that our propensity for sexual deviation is in our genes, and is shared with our closet biological relatives. But I'm sure the deluded, and particularly the creationists (the most deluded of the deluded in my book) will not understand this, they will undoubtedly reject it fully in favour of their whacky and unsubstantiated mythologies. Ignorance is like that, it requires that some effort be put into it. Good luck with that, as our understanding of ourselves and our universe continues to progress as it has been for the last few hundred years, ignorance, like that demonstrated by creationists and religious folks, will become exponentially harder to maintain.

[Satori]

Someone said in another thread something about "god" disapproving of anything but heterosexual behaviour. Sad, obviously ignorant, and amusing as that is, there is a lesson to be learned from it:

Why would a god, who presumably doesn't like homosexual behaviour, create animals (and humans) who take part in such behaviour because they are instinctually inclined to do so?

Seems like god is again creating something it doesn't like, and then blaming the creation for what is an act of it's own will.

Christian mythology is so extremely ridiculous. No wonder so many of you have to negate reality and delude yourselves with all sorts of absurd rhetoric just to have a hope at maintaining your precious faith (ignorance). But it's not like you don't have a very good incentive to do this. With the demands placed on you by your theological belief systems, you are in a postion where you have to cling to this nonsense as if your life literally depended on it. For this reason, I feel a great deal of compassion for you, and one day I hope you'll find a way out of this trap so that you can open your mind a little and for once in your life be absolutely FREE to interpret reality in the way that makes the most sense to you, instead of being coerced and obligated to uphold a seriously whacky, inconsistent, archic, and *completely* unsubstantiated theory of reality that is best left in the dark ages of ignorance and fear from which it was derived.

in loving reason,

Satori

[LeiLani]

Satori:

Why would a god, who presumably doesn't like homosexual behaviour, create animals (and humans) who take part in such behaviour because they are instinctually inclined to do so?

The Biblical answer is that God did not create homosexuality (or polygamy, or pedophelia), but that God created a desire for healthy heterosexual relationships which, after the Fall, degenerated into some desiring homosexual (and polygamous, and pedophile) relationships.


Seems like god is again creating something it doesn't like, and then blaming the creation for what is an act of it's own will.

More like God making something good, then humans coming around and messing it up with our own twisted additions.


Christian mythology is so extremely ridiculous. No wonder so many of you have to negate reality and delude yourselves with all sorts of absurd rhetoric just to have a hope at maintaining your precious faith (ignorance). But it's not like you don't have a very good incentive to do this. With the demands placed on you by your theological belief systems, you are in a postion where you have to cling to this nonsense as if your life literally depended on it.

I could say exactly the same to you. Would you care to back up those assertions? For one, you called Christianity mythology. Can you prove that Christ did not exist, or if you agree that he did, as even most skeptics will admit, that he was not who he said he was? Can you give one example where I or any other credible Christian have deluded ourselves with absurd rhetoric? I used to be a skeptic, and I can assure you that I was not deluded when I became a Christian. I was ignorant before I was saved, not after.


For this reason, I feel a great deal of compassion for you, and one day I hope you'll find a way out of this trap so that you can open your mind a little and for once in your life be absolutely FREE to interpret reality in the way that makes the most sense to you, instead of being coerced and obligated to uphold a seriously whacky, inconsistent, archic, and *completely* unsubstantiated theory of reality that is best left in the dark ages of ignorance and fear from which it was derived.

I have a great deal of compassion and pity for you, and one day I hope you will open your mind and heart to Christ. He does not want us to have a blind faith, but a logical one. He has called us to love him with all our heart, soul, and mind. The Biblical worldview is the one that makes the most sense, and it is making more and more sense as we learn more about our world. I find the comment about being derived from the dark ages of ignorance and fear very interesting seeing as how it was Christianity that brought Europe out of the Dark Ages.

[John Powell]

LEILANI (To Satori):
For one, you called Christianity mythology. Can you prove that Christ did not exist, or if you agree that he did, as even most skeptics will admit, that he was not who he said he was?


POWELL:
I can try.

In Mark it says:

Mark 2 (KJV):
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

POWELL:
There are some problems with this.

1. Apparently, Abiathar was not the priest who gave David the showbread. It was Ahimelech, Abiathar's father (1 Sam 21).

2. Apparently, Abiathar never was "high priest," but only "Abiathar the priest."

3. Apparently, David did not have any men with him at the time. He lied to Ahimelech about having men to get the showbread.

Perhaps Mark put words into his fictional Jesus without making sure the story he told matched the Old Testament. Surely Jesus, if he really existed, would not have made such a blunder.

Isn't that right, Leilani?

John Powell

[LeiLani]

Hasn't JPHolding already talked about this somewhere? I'm not sure, but I'll look. I haven't done much research about Abiathar and the shewbread, but I'll look up some stuff.

edit- I just saw the thread where you are discussing this. It seems like the people debating it with you are doing a fine job. I really don't want to debate on something that I don't have time to research thoroughly.

[Leroy]

Yesterday @ 06:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=266183#post266183)
Satori:


Seems like god is again creating something it doesn't like, and then blaming the creation for what is an act of it's own will.


Satori

I think you're exactly right! Your hit the "nail on the head" in Genesis it talks about the angels and humans having sexual relations with each other, both of these are created by God, this was partly the reason for the flood. God created us and we have a sinful nature, because we are not prefect, we are not Holy only God is. There was only one thing that God told mankind not to do in the Garden of Eden, and we did it. Thats why God sent His Son Christ to pay for the sins of us all, if we realize and except that we sin, we want what is not good, its are selfish nature, but we are willing to set that aside, he will cover us with Christs saving Blood.

Its natural for the human race to want to justify there evil desires, so they can continue to do them with a clean conscious. But to do that you need to validate most of the other evil desires of other people to place credibility on your own.

Just because you see animals acting in a certain way, does that make it okay in your mind?

What about the tigers that eat there young? Is that an approved of action in your mind. I've seen chickens peck another chicken to death, just because it had a small cut on it, is that an approved social skill in your mind?


Leroy

[Spokoina]

um we were supposed to have dominion over the animal world...

not be animals.

I mean would ya really want to be animals? in every and any way?
lol

[LeiLani]

Spokoina:

um we were supposed to have dominion over the animal world...

not be animals.

I mean would ya really want to be animals? in every and any way?
lol

:thumb: Spokoina! :highfive:

But according to a purely naturalistic worldview, we would be nothing more than highly evolved animals.

[Warcraft3]

Yesterday @ 08:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=266174#post266174)
Satori:


The most amazing thing (and the reason I'm writing this at all) is the sexual behaviour of the great bonobo ape. This creature is regarded as the closest living relative to human, sharing over 98% of our dna in common with them. Not only do we look like them, we have *amazingly* similar behaviour patterns as well.

Doesnt matter one bit, since we arent bonobos. You cant justify or attack the social behavior of humans by comparing us to other societies within nature.

This kind of reasoning is easily stretched to extreme positions on both sides and can be used to justify any behavior.

You are comparing apples and oranges here and your argument can easily be turned against you.

If you want to give a pro-gay argument I suggest you stay clear of this one because it is a very poor and weak argument.



Russ

[PandaBaa]

why are homosexuals always compared with pedofiles when it comes to this sort of discussion? the love between two grown people being compared to the molestation of children is sad excuse for justification, as well as a double standard. if anything is "apples and oranges" it's that.

i actually saw that documentary, it's quite interesting actually. as far as the facts contradicting the word of the christian god... it doens't quite stand out as an arugment, because you can imply that same thinking to everything else they don't allow.

think about it, other than homosexuality, their god prohibits lots of things that people are naturally inclined to do.

the general example is sin. everyone knows what that is. and everyone commits sins al the time. therefore it's part of our nature isn't it? (think of the seven deadly ones... those are natural characteristics of human beings and are somehow deadly and evil.)

anyway, my point is: to them, what's bad is bad. and a lot of things are bad. but it doesn't necessarily have to hold true for the rest of us. so don't let it get to you.

opinion isn't ignorance, but being unable/refusing to see the other perspectives is. in this case, that's where using their own faith to justify the persecution of others comes in... but that's a for a different discussion.

[Jedidiah]

LeiLani,

Several good points here, Leilani!


The Biblical answer is that God did not create homosexuality (or polygamy, or pedophelia), but that God created a desire for healthy heterosexual relationships which, after the Fall, degenerated into some desiring homosexual (and polygamous, and pedophile) relationships.

This whole thing is described very clearly in Romans Chapter One. Perhaps some of you radical critics of Christianity should actually read this. But, then you wouldn't want to know anything about the people you are attacking would you?


I could say exactly the same to you. Would you care to back up those assertions?

Yes, Leilani, it behooves those who wish to knock something to actually show the false nature of our belief. I think, Satori, you have no evidence for what you claim. You stick with one argument that has been rebutted adequately. That is always the way of those crying the Bible is false. Find some nitpicking detail that can be twisted around in your mind by ignoring most of the context and background.


I used to be a skeptic, and I can assure you that I was not deluded when I became a Christian. I was ignorant before I was saved, not after.

[sarcasm=on]Isn't it amazing how so many of us who were so happy in our innocent, and joyful freedom chose to accept the teachings of a book that makes us suffer so? Beyond comprehension is it not?[sarcasm=off

beeman





I have a great deal of compassion and pity for you, and one day I hope you will open your mind and heart to Christ. He does not want us to have a blind faith, but a logical one. He has called us to love him with all our heart, soul, and mind. The Biblical worldview is the one that makes the most sense, and it is making more and more sense as we learn more about our world. I find the comment about being derived from the dark ages of ignorance and fear very interesting seeing as how it was Christianity that brought Europe out of the Dark Ages. [/QUOTE]

[John Powell]

LEILANI:
Hasn't JPHolding already talked about this somewhere?


POWELL:
Yes and we're discussing it right now.


LEILANI:
I'm not sure, but I'll look. I haven't done much research about Abiathar and the shewbread, but I'll look up some stuff.


POWELL:
Good.


LEILANI:
edit- I just saw the thread where you are discussing this. It seems like the people debating it with you are doing a fine job. I really don't want to debate on something that I don't have time to research thoroughly.


POWELL:
Do you think I'm doing a fine job pointing out the problems?

John Powell

[John Powell]

BEEMAN:
You stick with one argument that has been rebutted adequately. That is always the way of those crying the Bible is false.


POWELL:
Do you think the problems with Mark 2:25-26 have been rebutted adequately, Beeman?

If you do, perhaps you'd like to post, in your own words, what you think the solutions are.

John Powell

[LeiLani]

John Powell:

Do you think I'm doing a fine job pointing out the problems?


I think you honestly believe them to be problems, perhaps even in spite of the fact that they have been thoroughly and completely refuted...

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Do you think I'm doing a fine job pointing out the problems?

LEILANI:
I think you honestly believe them to be problems, perhaps even in spite of the fact that they have been thoroughly and completely refuted...


POWELL:
A more truthful claim would probably be that the issue is controversial, under debate, and you prefer to let someone else defend the inerrancy of Mark 2:25-26.

On the other hand, if you personally are aware of how those claims to error have been successfully refuted, perhaps you could post, in your own words in a nutshell, what those successful refutations consist of so I can try to persuade you to believe otherwise.

If you would rather not be persuaded otherwise, I can understand.

John Powell

[Leroy]

lets get it on :popcorn:

[Jedidiah]

John Powell,

POWELL:

Do you think the problems with Mark 2:25-26 have been rebutted adequately, Beeman?

If you do, perhaps you'd like to post, in your own words, what you think the solutions are.



And He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest,

In the time of Abiathar the high priest . . .(short version of the story)

Abiathar was a great great grandson of Eli. During the day that he lived something happened. David did something that would normally be unacceptable.


. . . and he also gave it to those who were with him?"

David having "directed the young men to a certain place," (that is the men who had fled with him) went to Ahimelech the high priest; at Nob for bread.

Ahimelech was killed by Saul and his forces and Abiathar escaped and joined David. Abiathar later became high priest.

Is this terrible different than what you read in the other thread?

beeman

[eccgen]

It seems you are doing a fine job of pointing out your lack of knowledge.
1. Apparently, Abiathar was not the priest who gave David the showbread. It was Ahimelech, Abiathar's father (1 Sam 21).

this is a common and ordinary hebrew literary convention used regularly and should have been easily learned by you.
2. Apparently, Abiathar never was "high priest," but only "Abiathar the priest."

david appointed abiather high priest. If I spoke of president george washington when he was a teenager almost joining the british navy, would you think I was wrong because he was not president until years later?
Apparently, David did not have any men with him at the time. He lied to Ahimelech about having men to get the showbread.


I dunno where you got this one. apparently he had no men with him? Perhaps you are posessed of text I am not aware of. Otherwise it seems an odd objection to raise.

[Queen]

Anyway, bonobos, incredibly, are FAR more sexual than even us perverse humans. Their societies are like 24/7 non-stop orgies with everyone have sex with everyone else. Gay sex, sex with youngsters (both ways), incest of every kind, even 3-somes. This goes on literally non-stop. I couldn't believe my eyes. Interestingly (and not coincidentily I'm sure, considering how closely we are related), the bonobo is also one of the few animals other than humans which have been observed having sex in the missionary position

This is all true, but I have to add that these sexual acts are used as a sort of peace offer, when their are problems.....literally "Make love, not war" prinicpal. Often they just rub their genitals together to make it up with the other one. The Bonobo is 100% bisexual. Males, females have sex with each other in any combination.

I wonder about something: If God did not 'created' homosexuality, but he did create the world, why do animals engage in homosexual relationships/ sex?

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Leroy]

Today @ 07:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=270965#post270965)
Queen:



I wonder about something: If God did not 'created' homosexuality, but he did create the world, why do animals engage in homosexual relationships/ sex?

Queen


Why do you think that everything an animal does is approved by God?

[LeiLani]

[i]Queen:[/i
I wonder about something: If God did not 'created' homosexuality, but he did create the world, why do animals engage in homosexual relationships/ sex?

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

I addressed this in my first post. God did not create homosexuality, and when he created the world, there was no homosexuality, only healthy natural heterosexual relationships. After Adam and Eve sinned, all of creation was cursed, and in some animals and people, the healthy heterosexual preferance was corrupted into a sinful homosexual preferance.

Does that answer your question?

[Joey Joe Jo Jr.]

While common, this line of reasoning is intellectually silly. The basic premise is this: if something appears in nature it is morally right. In this case there may be a slight slant such that if something appears in nature in some kind of close proximity (eg. 98% DNA similarity) then it is morally right.

The laugh-out-loud funny derivation of this is uttered on college campuses countless times daily in the form of "marijuana is natural and should therefore be consumed" to which I consistantly cannot resist replying "as is arsenic".

Along these lines, the original argument can be disspelled simply with every mother's words of wisdom, "If everyone jumped off of a cliff would you?" Look, nature does a LOT of odd things that we feel no need to assume is the will of God. What percentage of DNA do we share in common with lemmings who DO, in fact, jump off of a cliff? Are we to assume this to be the will of God.

Another example. Being the juvenile that I am, I spent at least a half an hour at the zoo a little while back watching this hilarious baboon (which I'm sure shares a large percentage of our DNA) alternate shoving a stick in his butt and his mouth repeatedly. Another act necessarily ordained by a creator?

Romans 9 poses this argument:

"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory."

This verse is really about why God saves some and not others. However, I believe it answers the same question. Why would God give some species over to something that he has deemed "depraved" or "sinful"? The answer: what if God did it to show us how good it is to live right. How much better is human sex within the context of a committed relationship (read: a marriage)? One simply must watch any amount of animal sex to see just how much better God has made it for us--human sex brings with it love, passion and deep intimacy. Animal sex looks boring, practical, mundane and emotionless. Is that really what we're looking for? Not me.

Perhaps that is not the reason why God gives over our DNA neighbors to strange sexual practices. But at least it is a possibility. I can think of a few more.

What if God is trying to show us that sexuality like that is for apes? Perhaps God assumed that we would not emulate the ape community.

What if God were trying to expose the fallibility of evolution-theory? What is the evolutionary benefit of homosexuality, of pedophilia, of incest? Monkies don't know, they don't care, somehow they have broken free of Darwinism, shouldn't we?

No matter what God's real reason, it is simply not inconsistant to believe in a perfect Creator-God and to acknowlege that some of creation is flawed. The orthodox view is simply that God created everything good and flaws entered as the result of sin.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that belief.

[PandaBaa]

Along these lines, the original argument can be disspelled simply with every mother's words of wisdom, "If everyone jumped off of a cliff would you?" Look, nature does a LOT of odd things that we feel no need to assume is the will of God. What percentage of DNA do we share in common with lemmings who DO, in fact, jump off of a cliff? Are we to assume this to be the will of God.

Another example. Being the juvenile that I am, I spent at least a half an hour at the zoo a little while back watching this hilarious baboon (which I'm sure shares a large percentage of our DNA) alternate shoving a stick in his butt and his mouth repeatedly. Another act necessarily ordained by a creator?

that's special.

i don't think the initial point was "it's natural, so we should do it. let's watch a monkey put a stick up his butt... and tell the world to do it because he, this natural being, likes to do it.... apparently very such so." that's just twisting a simple suggestion out of proportion. (another example is bringing up pedophiles and bestiality when discussing homosexuality).

it was more like "why is a relationship between two people so different from the relationships between other beings on this earth?"

an answer may be "because humans are created from the image of god".

then, "why are the relationships between opposite sexes and the relationships between same sexes so different?"

"because god said homosexuality is a sin"

"why is it a sin?"

"because the relationship between a man and a woman is the natural way to do it."

*but homosexuality is natural too.* <-- the point made

well, that's what i got from it anyway.

[Jedidiah]

Panda,

I think your line of reasoning fails somewhere here, and does not represent the actual line taken in the thread. However, I am not willing to go back and reread all the thread to see. I would like to clear up your question a bit though.

Heterosexual relationships are designed by God and are natural for human beings. Homosexuality is condemned by God AND (not because) it is not natural for human beings.

You say, "homosexuality exists outside of human beings." I say, "what is this supposed to have to do with human beings? I said nothing about outside of human beings."


beeman

[eccgen]

All animal behavior examples are moot. Here is why. In order to compare examples of animal behavior to human , you must somehow demonstrate that the motives are equivalent. the animals are engaging in sexual acts with the same gender because they are sexually aroused by same, not for any other reason such as social hierarchy or whatever. I do not think it is possible to demonstrate that adequately.

I would like to also say that all arguments, for any viewpoint, which are based on "natural" are irrelevant. Everything that happens is natural, except for rare instances of supernatural intervention. naturality has absolutely no bearing on questions of morality, they are separate catagories.

[Queen]

I addressed this in my first post. God did not create homosexuality, and when he created the world, there was no homosexuality, only healthy natural heterosexual relationships. After Adam and Eve sinned, all of creation was cursed, and in some animals and people, the healthy heterosexual preferance was corrupted into a sinful homosexual preferance.

Leilani,

Thanks for your answer, but it was sort of a rethorical question....sorry.

I do not believe that heterosexual sex is always healthy. I bumped into some sick heterosexual sex in my life.

What is meant by christians is the sex that can result in children. As a biologist I could descrbe it more precise, but I know it would offend some people here and I don't want to offend anybody. You know. male female....together....Hard to describe it this way :wink:

Anyway, heterosexuals do engage in other forms of sex as well, male and female together. They are both heterosexual, mongamous, but have there own little sexual games that are different from the 'normal healthy sex' as you call it.

I believe homosexual sex is normal and healthy. How can we force a man to have sex with a woman, when he doesn't want her body? Gay men do love women, just not physically. And for gay women it is the same. I love both bodies....male and female and believe me if I say that it feel good and is as healthy as any other form of sex. We are sexual beings.......it is the way nature made us......but that is my opinion and you have every right to see thinsg differently......I respect that.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 03:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271992#post271992)
eccgen:

All animal behavior examples are moot. Here is why. In order to compare examples of animal behavior to human , you must somehow demonstrate that the motives are equivalent. the animals are engaging in sexual acts with the same gender because they are sexually aroused by same, not for any other reason such as social hierarchy or whatever. I do not think it is possible to demonstrate that adequately.

I would like to also say that all arguments, for any viewpoint, which are based on &quot;natural&quot; are irrelevant. Everything that happens is natural, except for rare instances of supernatural intervention. naturality has absolutely no bearing on questions of morality, they are separate catagories.


Excellent!!!! Pearls to you my Shoutbox friend.

[beeblebrox]

Just a couple points of clarification:

1. Bonobos do not have sex with everyone in their group. Mothers avoid incest with their sons. Also daughters run off to other groups when they reach maturity as to avoid procreating with their own fathers. This is instinctual, of course.

2. Lemmings do not commit mass suicide by jumping off cliffs (as Joey Joe says is a fact). This is a myth.

beeble

[Jedidiah]

Queen,

I know this was adressed to Leilani, but I have to jump in here.



I do not believe that heterosexual sex is always healthy. I bumped into some sick heterosexual sex in my life.
I don’t think any Christian ever claimed all heterosexual activity is healthy. Where on earth did you come up with that idea?



Anyway, heterosexuals do engage in other forms of sex as well, male and female together. They are both heterosexual, mongamous, but have there own little sexual games that are different from the 'normal healthy sex' as you call it.
Who ever claimed that all monogamous, heterosexual practices must be aimed at procreation. The Bible says “Rejoice yourself with the wife of your youth.” Sex is aimed at procreation and recreation, all within the sanctity of the marriage. What odd ideas you have of what 'normal healthy sex' consists of.



I believe homosexual sex is normal and healthy.
I question that. It strikes me that you believe that it is acceptable for you to do what feels good to you. This does not make it healthy or normal. It just makes it what you want to do.



How can we force a man to have sex with a woman, when he doesn't want her body?
This is really extreme. I have never read of anyone wanting to force anyone to do anything (in the context of this statement).

You do have a right to think the way you choose to think. But, you should not invent things that Christians said.

beeman

[Jedidiah]

John Powell,

You asked about my take on Mark 2:25-26.

I gave it, what do you have to say?

(translation: "bump")

[LeiLani]

:thumb: Pearls for you! I could not have said it better myself!

[Red Wine]

:thumb: Pearls for you! I could not have said it better myself!

The sad thing is that even when issues are resolved, or seemingly so, some people will just go right on to the next issue, ad infinitum (but not indefinitely..). So in 1 Sam 21 Ahimelech is high priest, Ahiah in 1 Sam 14 and Abiathar Mark 2. So therefore the Bible is false and I can disbelieve it. Not quite so, but you can disbelieve if you want. But let me quote "probably Ahimelech, Abimelech, and Ahiah were names of the same person. As to 2 Sam 8:17 which makes Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, instead of the reverse, as elsewhere, Bertheau, Oehler, and Keil think the line ran thus,'Ahimelech, Abiathar, Ahimelech, so that Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech, while Ahimelech (the 2nd) was the son of Abiathar.' The expression in Mark, "in the days of Abiathar the priest" may denote merely that Abiathar was acting as his father's sagan or substitute. Or since Abiathar was, from his long association with king David, much more famous than his father, his name, although he was not as yet high-priest, may be used here by a kind of historical anticipation".

[jason]

Guppies eat their young.

Does that justify cannabilism in humans ?

If not, then I don't see why stuff like ths works as a justification.

Of course, who expects clear thinking from people who care nothing for right and wrong and simply want their own way.

Jason

[djdavo]

Anyway, bonobos, incredibly, are FAR more sexual than even us perverse humans. Their societies are like 24/7 non-stop orgies with everyone have sex with everyone else. Gay sex, sex with youngsters (both ways), incest of every kind, even 3-somes. This goes on literally non-stop. .

by you logic, incestuous pedophilia is also natural.


natural does not = moral.




POWELL:
I can try.

In Mark it says:

Mark 2 (KJV):
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

POWELL:
There are some problems with this.

1. Apparently, Abiathar was not the priest who gave David the showbread. It was Ahimelech, Abiathar's father (1 Sam 21).

2. Apparently, Abiathar never was "high priest," but only "Abiathar the priest."

3. Apparently, David did not have any men with him at the time. He lied to Ahimelech about having men to get the showbread.

Perhaps Mark put words into his fictional Jesus without making sure the story he told matched the Old Testament. Surely Jesus, if he really existed, would not have made such a blunder.

Isn't that right, Leilani?

John Powell

1 possible solution is abiathar was the equivalent of a "president elect". (or high priest in training,so to speak).


how does that disprove jesus?? that's for another thread, i guess