And when ANOTHER HUMAN PROVIDES that blueprint / plan...

Let's go a little further with your response.
Let's suppose A god supplies that "blueprint / plan" in the form of a religion.

Which god supposedly does that?

Cause you've been trying to give credit to RELIGION in general.
But are ALL religions true???
No. Of course not. They obviously directly contradict each other.

So while we could theologically believe that A god (let's pick the Christian one as an example) could provide a blueprint, WHAT ABOUT THE COUNTLESS OTHER civilizations that then made up their own religion???

Obviously, some human had to create that religion to help control the people.

So at best, your position could present a measly position of pretending that ONE religion's god helped it further the civilization. And even then, you're asking for people to believe in a god, like the Hebrew god for example, that furthered civilization through slavery, genocide, misogyny, etc, etc...
Guh-REAT god you got going on there!


Actually, one phenomenon I have come across is that there are a LOT of heathens out there that are a LOT more familiar with the Christian dogma than the Christians are themselves.
But hey. If you can't prove knowledge, why not just imply its better by calling me "heathen".
I'm sure that will work for some Christians who don't need much of an excuse ...


First of all, this isn't even responding to the section you quoted and pretend to reply to.
I did a couple things that you clearly ignored.

I pointed out:
If a religion is involved in something POSITIVE, give credit to the religion!
If a religion is involved in something NEGATIVE, blame the man and not the religion.
No response from you.

But as to your claim, WHOSE religion is the blueprint.
Up until now, you have been trying to credit RELIGION IN GENERAL.
Like a blueprint, religion has to come from somewhere...
And in the real life example (as well as in the religious analogy), it comes from HUMANS.

But to your approach, YOU believe there is only one architect, right?
So for the Roman empire and the Egyptian empire and for a long list of non-Christian empires, WHO was the architect for those?
Was the Hebrew God handing out a LONG LIST of blueprints to different people, realizing that the followers of those blueprints would just kill each other over them?
Realizing that ONLY ONE blueprint would be supposedly accurate???

Sorry. You just argued yourself into a corner...
Under your position, ALL BUT ONE of those different blueprints would have had to have come from man and not God.
And I argue ALL of them came from man.
The Hebrew (OT) blueprint is too ridiculously flawed.
It's a set of books that reads FROM Hebrews, FOR Hebrews.
The idea of conversion to become a Jew was something that Jesus brought to the religion, completely absent from the Old Testament.
Hebrews were advocated to go out and rape and pillage. Enslave and kill.
Not consistent with a moral god, but consistent with a Hebrew nation wanting to do what was convenient for their own goals of power.


Talking about missing the forest for the trees.
The issue here is WHICH FORCE IS SUPERIOR...
A) Religious adherence...
B) Self-preservation adherence to avoid people with pointy sticks...

PART OF THE POINT is that the Hebrews did not follow the pharoah, so you pointing that out is like insisting the fireman has no business being there by pointing to the five alarm fire as proof.

The Hebrews came down to a situation where they had TWO CONFLICTING forces.
A) If their God was superior, Moses telling them that their God wanted them to go should just mean that they should pack up and leave.
B) If the Pharaoh was superior, the Hebrews would wait until Pharaoh gave them permission to leave.

They chose B...


And they were still skeptical after six plagues???
Uh. NO!

It took 10 plagues to convince Pharaoh.
Nowhere near that to convince the Hebrews.



The Jews later embellished the story, like many superstitious people do.

I would no more validate superstitious nonsense by assuming the fairy tale true of Zeus abducting Europa.
Hey look everybody! It proves Zeus can turn himself into a bull...

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

What ever happened to the Penquins??

__________________
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

__________________
If god made human from dirt, how come there are still dirt around? ~ [obvious_child]

You know what, Archie is right. Evolution is a total scam. ~ [obvious_child]

If the universe were not as it is, it would be different. ~ [Penfold]

A great civilization is not conquered from without, until it destroys itself from within. ~ Durant

Linda screwed the gay out of him.

__________________
I'll keep my guns and my money. You can keep your "Change".

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)

...That's impossible. Harry was obviously bi.

If you buy all of the anthropomorphic BS, then the only conclusion that you could arrive at is Linda screwed the gay out of him.

__________________
I'll keep my guns and my money. You can keep your "Change".

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)

Do you understand how "bisexual" works?

By your logic, if a bisexual man sleeps with a woman and/or shacks up with a woman, that makes him straight???


And we've been over this "anthropomorphic" junk before.
THE EXPERTS acknowledge the reality of the situation.
The DEFINITIONS of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" obviously apply to animals. There is nothing exclusively "human" about those attributes.

And to make matters worse, most people will acknowledge that labeling some animals as "heterosexual" is perfectly understandable. Logical.
But you, in your insistence on denying the obvious, refuse to admit that animals can be heterosexual...

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

The penguin isn't still switch-hitting is he? So, using your anthropomorphism, he must have been cured of his gayness. IT'S A MIRACLE!!!

IMO, a monkey that jerks off does so because it feels good. If he sticks it in a bowl of mashed potatoes or Bonzo's a$$, he still does so because it feels good. No anthropomorphism needed.

__________________
I'll keep my guns and my money. You can keep your "Change".

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)

I keep coming across the same myopia about "bisexuality" that shows people don't comprehend it.
You being the current example.
Just because a person is attracted to both genders doesn't mean that person is incapable of committing, temporarily or permanently, to just one gender.

If a heterosexual man is attracted to both blondes and redheads, does that mean that if he sleeps with a blonde continually, even marrying her...
Does that mean he is no longer attracted to redheads???



If a monkey had a viable female mate present, and he chose the mashed potatoes, THAT would be significant...
THAT is the point.

If a "straight" guy has viable females willing and able, and he chooses to have sex with a guy instead, that says something about his "straightness".

The sad part is that I've already explained most of this to you.
But you obviously don't get it...

And what's worse?
It's not just me.
People who study animals for a living make these observations, and you ignore them just cause you can't cope...
Whatevah...

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

Earth to Found! We're talking about BIRDS, not people here. You've got such a fixation on forcing human traits on the penguins that you forget they're BIRDS.

See above. Monkeys are ANIMALS too, yet you continue to give them human traits.

__________________
I'll keep my guns and my money. You can keep your "Change".

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)

Wow.
I didn't think you would be so incapable of parallel thinking.
Humans are obviously an example.
Translating everything I said to birds works perfectly.


What "human trait" are we actually talking about here...
SEXUAL ATTRACTION???

The real problem (and you're obviously running out of arguing room) is that you seem to think sexual attraction and exclusive sexual involvement with one gender is somehow ONLY a human trait...
... despite the fact that the ACTUAL EXPERTS (not you) fully understand that sexual orientation is something that involves humans and species of animals.

Let's review the definition of "homosexual", shall we?
homosexual: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

Nowhere in there does it say ANYTHING about being exclusively human.

Face it. You're only embarassing yourself by continuing this further...
You are the ONLY person I have ever met who insists that animals cannot be heterosexual, and as such your argument is laughable!

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

Listen Dr. Dolittle, animals don't act human except in Mr Ed and other television/movies.

Sexuality is a HUMAN trait. Sexual attraction in the animal kingdom is something entirely different. Animals don't look at the consequences of their actions. They undertake them for a variety of reasons: it feels good, it's a show of dominance, it's instinctive.

Quite frankly, I find your assertion that humans and animals share the same sexuality to be insulting and at the same time, laughable.

__________________
I'll keep my guns and my money. You can keep your "Change".

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)

1500 species showing homosexual tendencies... guess you showed science huh!!! high five! <

__________________
"I have no desire to tear you down or to condemn you or your faith in Christ. "

"What a joke; It takes nerve for a couple of anti-christian reprobates to start criticizing believers."

"Or to claim to understand the nature or character of Jesus. If you two had a clue about Jesus teachings, you wouldn't be opposing them with every fiber of your beings."

-Archangel

"Disagreeing with you does not make someone anti-Christian, Archangel, it makes them anti-nutjob." - Jo Bennett

Is BREATHING "human"?
Is REPRODUCING "human"?
Is GATHERING FOOD "human"?

The problem with your approach is that you have (for some unknown reason) assumed that heterosexuality and homosexuality are "human".
But the very definitions have no exclusively human condition.
And there are many EXPERTS in the scientific field who recognize that as well.

You are the FIRST person I have ever met who has tried to declare that "heterosexuality" is an exclusively human trait.


< snore >
NOTHING of what you said limits heterosexuality or homosexuality to exclusively human.
Suppose we state animals do it just for "it feels good, it's a show of dominance, it's instinctive".
NOTHING in that contradicts the definitions of "heterosexual" or "homosexual".

Let's try a different tact.
I have already given the definitions of heterosexual and homosexual which clearly do not require anything "anthropomorphic" from animals.
How about YOU give the definitions of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" which (in your mind) would establish them as exclusively human...



I sense the nuance where you try to shift the conversation from "animals can be heterosexual" to "animals can share the same sexuality".
The actual bone of contention is the first issue, as the second one is inappropriately vague. Obfuscational compared to the actual issues of contention, encompassing much more than was previously meant.

Are you now trying to change the point of this discussion?

And for the record, it isn't just me who "asserts that humans and animals" can be heterosexual. I've already established that.
You are evidently being "insulted" by a lot more people than me.

And as for "laughable"? Your view-point that animals cannot be heterosexual is what is laughable. Like I said, I have NEVER come across anybody who wants to deny that...
You are a rare first...

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin