by Satanus 21 Replies latest watchtower bible
Crumpet
Well, *clears throat, loosens collar, puts on bible scholar hat (the one w the pheasant feather in it)* there is no mention of a 'gay kind' in the bible. However, since new light shows that god created subkinds, within other kinds, it may well be that later on, he made subsubkinds within the subkinds. Were some of those subsubkinds gay? Since noone can argue that they do not exist, who are we to say no?
S taking off the silly hat
satanus - you look much better without the silly hat!
I reckon I must be a subsubkind then. Thanks for letting me know.
Btw, crumpy, do you have the vids of those dolphins making love? I'll skip on the manitees.
S
tetra - that feels like a Douglas Adams reference... is it?
he he, yes, of course. i have this image of all these manatees having gay menage e trois and then flying away into the atmosphere singing that... does that officially make me sick in the head? ts
I have them on DVD - its series one of the L Word about episode 10 I think from memory. the manatees pretty much are dolphins aren;t they.
Are you one of those creeps who watches nature programmes and gets off on animals mating and loiters around stables in the hope of catching a big stallion at it with a mare?
(If so great - I've found a soul mate!)
Technically the meaning "domestic animals" is only gathered in Genesis 1:25 (here reflecting the priestly taxonomy) from the distinction of the Hebrew term behema from chayath-ha-'arets, "beast of the earth": the qualification -ha-'arets ("of the earth," also 9:10) or -ha-sadeh ("of the field[s]," e.g. 2:20; 3:14) is what suggests the meaning "wild" for the latter, and the overall distinction. Sometimes the simple opposition of behema and chaya seems to equally suggest domestic vs. wild animals (7:14,21; 8:1; Leviticus 5:2; 11:2; 25:7). In other (presumably earlier) contexts behema can be qualified the same way ("of the earth" or "of the fields") and refer to wild animals just as chaya (e.g. Deuteronomy 28:26; 1 Samuel 17:44). So it's a pretty fluctuating distinction in the lexicon, but of course the distinction itself is evidence (if needed) that the creation stories presuppose no scientific knowledge of the actual history of the relationship between mankind and (other) animals.
It is possible that the animals were referred to by the writer in the sense of what animals were considered 'domesticated' by the author's time. It does not necessarily indicate that they were domesticated from the start, any more than it is necessary that a literal sword was blocking the entrance of the garden.
Since the early chapters of Genesis appear to be based on earlier Sumerian tales, it doesn't seem to matter a great deal either way.
Nark
Thanks for the background.
Crumpet
Well, i did grow up on a farm. Naturally, i saw some animals in action. One time, it was my job to take one of our cows to visit a bull on another farm which was several miles away. The poor cow must have been tired and shagged out after that long day. But actually, i'm kind of a late bloomer, what w my suppressive early influences. So far, human 'kind' action has pretty well kept my attention. Still, as a nature lover, those vids sound interesting.
S
How interesting Satanus - suppression had the reverse effect on me and I was obsessed with sex and any reference to it from about 9 or 10, this continued until my early 30's...
until my early 30's...
Um, *notes crumpet's age near the avatar* Bless your liberal heart, my child. I'm off to work, for a bit.
S
Ps, there might be some rebound effect w me, too.
