Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to Having nipples is all the proof I need
hey its good
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 26, 2004 at 6:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Okay everyone
I am going to just write a whole post to deal with most of what is being said here.
And Amdg, only I get to call the old man 'old man'. "but sometimes it rolls down hill.." How rude!!! I'm not sure if I want to play with you any more.
( I was once told I need to use these stupid things to show when I was joking because some people do not get jokes unless you point them out to them)
posted by
kooka_lives
on May 26, 2004 at 4:44 PM
| link to this | reply
yeah, but sometimes it rolls down hill..
posted by
AnCatubh
on May 26, 2004 at 2:22 PM
| link to this | reply
I'M THE GOOD WINE
sort of like a a medium vintage.
I've bowed to the wisdom of the years of those older than I. I've discovered they have insights through experience that younger do not. Priests who have amazed me with their viewpoints disparate from the church they are a part of, yet informed and educated.
I've lived -- the time has gone by quickly it seems -- sheesh.
Oh yeah, about evolutionand God.\
I've expressed the concept of God at the Universe as an Organism.
It's an entire intermeshing where one is the other and the other is the one.
God is Evolution and Evolution is God.
God is us and we are God.
And thank you for complimenting ol Kooka in that manner.
The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 26, 2004 at 12:36 PM
| link to this | reply
westwend- something's contradictory here,old man
'it's[evolution] a part of God- God evolves'
Is God a part of evolution or is evolution part of God? If he's apart of evolution than he's no creator. He's just part of the soup.
Certainly, nothing is static. I ardently believe in God and the bible as His Word and I wouldn't let other believers' view of a static universe change what I believe. People who tend to do that usually don't think about things too deeply. Kooka does. He's (in my view) the most intelligent blogger in this category, maybe the others. At least, he expresses himself well and asks profound questions. Most of the stuff on here is bilge. A big fat judgment, I know, but there it is.
Anyway, I'm having a hard time believing that you, Kooka, are a nonbeliever because many believers are idiots and so are their ideas. So are a lot of atheists. Take a look around this network.
And westwend, I mean' old man' is the most genial sense. I have great respect for the wisdom of years.
posted by
AnCatubh
on May 26, 2004 at 12:17 PM
| link to this | reply
amdg
evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God.
That's for sure.
I think it's a part of God -- God evolves, everything evolves.
Nothing is static, girl.
It's the perfect scnario.
Other scenarios, being static, turn all but the most ardent believers off.
It's hard to latch onto a certain vision. Certain portrayals (ideas) of God seem unreal. When that happens, people think of that as God and want nothing to do with it.
I can relate a dozen stories about people who truly believe in certain things that others find it impossible to believe in.
There was an occasion where I sat next to a woman who related her experience seeing a vision somewhere in Romania or thereabouts, a site of pilgrimages of millions of people who go there to see the vision. To her, that vision was as real as the food she was eating at the time of her relating the story. As for me, I couldn't believe it (although I didn't tell her), and there are those who would tell her she'd had a "hallucination of excitement".
What is real to one person is an hallucination to another.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 26, 2004 at 10:54 AM
| link to this | reply
And why does evolution necessarily have to exclude God?
So we're primates. So what? How does this disprove the existence of God?
posted by
AnCatubh
on May 26, 2004 at 10:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Damn, now I'm responsible for kooka's soul, too?
Mine is enough. You're not an atheist because some people don't have logical ideas about God. That's absurd. You are because you choose to be.
posted by
AnCatubh
on May 26, 2004 at 10:18 AM
| link to this | reply
westwend --- if this doesn't say it all
" It's because of your religious views that we have atheists. "....no kidding. The sometimes irrational views of many have driven some people away from faith.
posted by
gomedome
on May 26, 2004 at 8:15 AM
| link to this | reply
And I'm not going to try to convert this kid here. He's got an excellent mind and great thought processes.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 26, 2004 at 7:47 AM
| link to this | reply
Great comments.
People, we're mammals. We have too much in common with other mammals not to be.
We're primates. We have too much in common with them not to be.
Particularly in our social structure.
All you have to do is compare.
Excuse me for going on my own crusade here, but I really do believe that we have to accept Evolution as a natural demonstrable process. Once we do that, we can recognize the Beast in each of us.
We've got to stop making God into something that God is not.
It's because of your religious views that we have atheists.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 26, 2004 at 7:45 AM
| link to this | reply
missed the point
sorry you've missed the point. Texts (the bible included) should never be read, interpreted or commented on without considering their CONTEXT.
Without an appreciation of context (personal, historical, social, political, spiritual etc etc)and a understanding of the impact that your own context has on interpretation; you can't possibly hope to effectively analyse.
You have failed to consider the CONTEXT of the early Bible-Who wrote it, when, where and why????
According to your organisation of thoughts, "God created Man in his own image..." and evolutiion has been proven, therefore God must look like an Ape!
Nah, sorry I don't agree...this isn't some religious freak speaking, I'm actually an athiest. But the Bible is a great book and should be treated as such (just as any great text)
by the way...I don't agree with organised religion either, but its got more to do with dogma than nipples...
posted by
faavil_blogs
on May 26, 2004 at 5:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Chaos to your mind- Order to God's
You are starting with the premise that it's all random chaos and proceed from there. You have already accepted there's no God. How do you know fingerprints are random? What about them says,"There can't be a God!" How do curious things as totally unique fingerprints get randomly created out of chaos. Your first principles aren't something you seem to want to question at all. God's non existence is a forgone conclusion with you.
Also, let me remind you that I do not reject a basic idea of evolution.
posted by
AnCatubh
on May 25, 2004 at 11:53 PM
| link to this | reply
dude, you will not to see
posted by
AnCatubh
on May 25, 2004 at 11:41 PM
| link to this | reply
amdg
The fingerprint thing really fits more into the idea of evolution. Fingerprints are random and just are. they have to real purpose. We have figured out how to use them. There is no logic or order to them. They are created through chaos, which is the driving force of nature, not of God.
So having fingerprints is yet another great example to help prove that God did not create man.
Thank you for helping to make this point.
posted by
kooka_lives
on May 25, 2004 at 8:07 PM
| link to this | reply
I did make one mistake
The old man is right, all male mammals do have nipples. I just have never really looked hard enough to see them. Otherwise I have yet to see anyone find any real flaw in my logic
amdg, your first point helps to back up the evolution idea. Although it does not fit that there are no mammals now where the male is the milk producer if your idea that talks about Adam having done it. It makes a lot more sense that evolution leaves in a lot of unneeded parts. I'll follow up on the rest later ( I'm a little short on time and I want to reply to a few others real quick.)
Ariala, thank you so much for really backing up my idea by pointing other unneeded body parts. In fact I had already used all of those in an old post here to help me point out about the same idea I am doing here using nipples. It makes no sense for God to have created us as we are. A lot of our body is useless it seems, as well as the fact that we do not use all of our brain. It would make no sense to create soemthing which has so many little things that are not needed. You would never make a car like that because it would just be wasteful
Tamara, this is not thinking ahead. It is being wasteful. And are you saying that God knew Adam and Eve would go agianst him? That makes God into a real hypocrite in the first palce then. (Although I have already been thinking of doing a post about how if God already knows everything about the future, then anything we do is pointless, but that will all wait for the post.). But then if God had it all planned out, then why did he not create Eve right away, and then there are other texts that have Adam with Lilith first, which really says God was not planning things out. if God was expecting the best from Adam and Eve, they would have no need for any sexual organs. If he already knew what was going to happen, then he is a hypocrite and the whole idea of him giving them Eden, just so he could take it away when they went against him paints him to be one jerk of a father figure (Which I have often said in the past).
And I would have to say that God does not have a devotion to pleasure. The Bible makes it very clear that sex is not about pleasure but about reproduction. If there was a God and he did give us those areas to create pleasure it sounds to me like he was doing it to test us. If we get pleasure from those things then we are doing it wrong. The idea of order often preached through the teaching of the Bible would not have any physically pleasure to it, because that kind of pleasrue if chaotic (Just look at the involuntray muscle movements that are part of an orgasim). The path of God wanting us to have physical pleasure does not work with the ideas that are preached. If anything he is turtoreing us there.
I gotta take a break now and get other stuff done. I may reply more here, or I may just do a new post. Depends on what time I have.
posted by
kooka_lives
on May 25, 2004 at 5:11 PM
| link to this | reply
having fingerprints is all the proof <em>I</em> need
No two are alike. Like our souls, they are completely unique to us. God is real, dude.
posted by
AnCatubh
on May 25, 2004 at 12:15 PM
| link to this | reply
guy! all male mammals have nipples -- your problem is all you have is those hermit crabs -- next time find the nearest male dog (a chocolate labe would be ideal) -- he has nipples all over his underside -- ten to twelve.
It's a mammalian characteristic. All have nipples in the womb -- hormones make the difference in whether they develop into full blown mammary glands or are just a non-usable feature.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 25, 2004 at 6:38 AM
| link to this | reply
#1 definition for Hedonist, per dictionary.com:
Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.
Perhaps you disagree, but I would God has a definite devotion to pleasure.
posted by
Tamara99
on May 25, 2004 at 3:16 AM
| link to this | reply
T99-that occured to me, too.
That part about pleasure but I thought it would be lost on kooka 'cuz he already said that didn't do it for him. I don't think hedonist is the right word, though. God is Beauty. Not something beautiful, Beauty itself. Everything from him shares in that or basks in reflected glory, if you will.
posted by
AnCatubh
on May 25, 2004 at 2:41 AM
| link to this | reply
My male cat has nipples, and he's not a primate.
Not that I'm a creationist, but you make these statements as if the creator of the universe can't plan ahead. God can figure out physics, chemistry, astronomy, laws of gravity - all of which are about balance, but the idea of 'balancing' mankind is somehow unique?
Why would pleasure be an afterthought? Men's nipples and women's clitorises have NO other biological function other than pleasure.....the story of the fall does NOT indicate that god made any after-market redesigns, so there's no reason to believe that these functions did not exist in the garden of Eden.
God is a hedonist. It's time someone other than pagans recognized this. He created tens of millions of sunsets with no other purpose than beauty. He created wine and sex and drugs, music and art, the grace of birds, the thundering power of oceans, lightning, volcanoes and avalanches, and did so with a flourish.
--T99
posted by
Tamara99
on May 25, 2004 at 2:34 AM
| link to this | reply
I think once upon a time men fed their young
Then they figured a way out of it and the women were left holding the , er, jugs. Sounds like DEvolution to me...Maybe God gave him nipples for something to play with 'til Eve came along...
Seriously, men can lactate if given hormones. Girls and boys have small amounts of milk when they're infants. Something occurs to me as I'm writing this ? Perhaps Adam
was designed to feed his offspring and his nipples became useless are a result of the fall. Now he toils for his food and hence is away from his children. It's always struck me as less than desirable and somewhat unnatural that fathers have to be away from their children to provide for them. Children need their fathers for so much more than just food. A father's relationship with his children is the one human relationship that seems so fraught with an inherent uncertainty. It's almost as though it were meant to be something else but we just don't have it right. Whaddya think?
posted by
AnCatubh
on May 25, 2004 at 2:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
I'll post to my blog about this very intriguing matter.
posted by
telemachus
on May 24, 2004 at 8:46 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka, there are other body parts that mankind has found no explanations
for...appendix, spleen, yet others have later discovered medical reasons for both. I imagine the nipple is for looks.
I really don't know, but that's a lame argument against the existence of God.
posted by
Ariala
on May 24, 2004 at 6:47 PM
| link to this | reply
well
I am not big on having my nipples played with.
I should not be surprised that the comments had taken such a turn on this one.
So my dears, can either of you give me a logical reason as to why us men have nipples?
posted by
kooka_lives
on May 24, 2004 at 6:43 PM
| link to this | reply
hehehe, Ariala......and I have to concur.
posted by
Wildwoman_Laloba
on May 24, 2004 at 6:21 PM
| link to this | reply
The men I know like the creative things I do to their nipples.
posted by
Ariala
on May 24, 2004 at 6:09 PM
| link to this | reply