The close-ups are getting way too extreme!

Thanks, Ursarodinia



  1. JS says:

    Would this be considered a gang-bang, or more like bukkake?

  2. Dallas says:

    Is that human yet or in another nanosecond?

    • BubbaMustafa says:

      Its not human until it pays taxes (or on welfare)

    • pedro says:

      It’s something you will never do. Is against your nature.

      • Dallas says:

        Meh, I’m certain I’ve had more sex with females than you ever will. ..and that includes the times you’ve had with your donkey.

        • pedro says:

          Sure DUhllass, that’s why you changed teams.

          Regardless, you’ll never do that so enjoy the photo

  3. Rick says:

    Funny how the Radical Right thinks an egg is a human being, but doesn’t seem to care about the other 39,999,999 sperm that didn’t make it.

    • orchidcup says:

      Think of all the wasted human resources.

    • Mr Windows says:

      An egg is no more a human being than a spermatozoa; they are each half a human being. It is only after the egg (female gamete) is fertilized with the spermatozoa (male gamete) and the first cell division occurs that it is considered a human being, there being present all of the DNA required to identify a unique individual.

      • orchidcup says:

        One cell division does not a human resource make.

        • pedro says:

          It is unless you stop it. Once the cell start reproducing it doesn’t stop until the subject dies

        • Who's Counting says:

          So how many divisions does it take before it’s human?

          • pedro says:

            Is already human at first division, Is not as if it will turn into something else… DUhllass is the exception that confirms the rule.

      • F U 2 says:

        So does that mean if I throw my fingernail clippings in the toilet that I’m committing murder?! Or maybe if I clean my toilet it does. Perhaps those 3 stem cells I just shed with my dead skin is why I’m always going to be in perpetual “sin”. Or could it be that you’re simply full of shit and want everyone to feel guilty for some crazy reason?

        If you ever understand anything (you ignorant fuck) then understand this! A “human” is a “human” at the point it can survive OUTSIDE the mother’s body – not outside a CHICKEN! The fact that you forget or conveniently omit the fact that humans are also MAMMALS also seems to have no part in your fucked up argument.

        So your crap about human cell division being “human” is total BULLSHIT! In fact, YOU seem to want to play god (you hypocrite!) when YOU and only YOU decide what pieces of scientific fact to use when it serves your insane reasoning. You actually use science which is something your very own CULT has rejected for hundreds of years. So all I can say to a mindless fuck like you is, shut the fuck up (STFU) and go back to chanting at your doll on a stick. That does a “world” of lot of good when you stay out of adult conversations and the public like that.

        Oh ya! And guess what? I’m NOT a leftist Democrat either. So it looks like I just blew someone Else’s mind who also seems to be a jerk ass BIGOT! Or should I say “ASS”!

        • pedro says:

          You were stupid the minute you wrote the first letter of your comment. It begun stupid and it ended stupid (no other way to go). Too bad nobody aborted your stupidity.

          BTW, get your head off your caboose when time comes to see between biological & legal definitions.

  4. Harry says:

    That guy has got some good swimmers.LOL

  5. Enemy_Of_The_State says:

    Not a person until incorporation

  6. orchidcup says:

    Which came first, the sperm or the egg?

    • orchidcup says:

      Answer:

      A magical being formed a male from the dust of the Earth and breathed life into his nostrils.

      Then the magical being formed a female from the rib of the male and proclaimed the female to be a helper for the male and forever subservient to the male.

      Then the female deceived the male and the magical being cursed the female with the chore of pregnancy and nurturing of the progeny and doing housework.

      That explains it.

      • Raintree says:

        You forgot the part about the unicorn and the rainbow. And pop tarts.

        • orchidcup says:

          I stand by the accuracy of my historical narrative.

          A Bronze Age nomadic tribesman recounted the story and I believe it to be accurate.

          • deegee says:

            I always find it amusing how some people attempt to mock what they believe is the biblical account of creation, yet it is apparent by their account that they have neither read the scriptures nor understood them. Nor understood history apparently.

        • pedro says:

          That’s DUhllass’ story

        • So what says:

          I always find amusing that people think the bible is an account of history.

      • “Then the female deceived the male and the magical being cursed the female with the chore of pregnancy and nurturing of the progeny and doing housework.”

        As accurate as that might be, you neglected to mention what I consider to be one of the more important parts of this tale, because it sheds a great deal of light on the personality of the “magical being” depicted as our Creator. Not only did this deity curse the female with the CHORE of pregnancy, he also cursed females with the pain and often fatal (without medical care) consequences of pregnancy. And he punished ALL females throughout the ages for the disobedience of ONE SINGLE female. But it doesn’t end there, because when the mother dies in childbirth because of this curse but the child survives, the child grows up without its biological mother to nurture it. It almost seems like an attack on the entire family, doesn’t it?

        If this deity weren’t so widely hailed as a merciful, just and loving god, I would never have guessed it from his actions. The intentional infliction of pain upon billions of women whenever they fulfill their reproductive imperative seems a tad cruel. And to do this as punishment for the disobedience of one single female at the beginning of time doesn’t quite square with my own internal sense of justice and morality, but I’m probably influenced by Satan when I think that innocent people should rightfully not suffer because of someone else’s misconduct. Satan has crazy ideas like that.

        • pedro says:

          “But it doesn’t end there, because when the mother dies in childbirth because of this curse but the child survives, the child grows up without its biological mother to nurture it. It almost seems like an attack on the entire family, doesn’t it?”

          Don’t worry, gays took the burden of screwing the family from the magic being

          • Now that you mention it, there is certainly a comparison to be made. Which represents the greater attack on the family, the same-sex couple living across the street, or a mother who dies in childbirth because of the Creator’s curse? Hmmm, that’s such a tough choice…

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Gays do nothing but champion family values. They raise kiddies while not creating the initial burden to begin with.

            ……in the future, not long in coming…everyone will be gay…in that they will be having fewer kiddies and raising other’s if they want more.

            Tick, tock.

            Which reminds me…..YOU KNOW…the Bible lacks detailed instructions: “Be fruitful, go forth and multiply…: is good advice for the first two people on earth. Not added: “…and when thy numbers exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth consistent with the science of the times…then stop screwing like rabbits.”

            Its not that the Bible is wrong ALL the time, but it never does have all the details.

            Ha, ha.

          • pedro says:

            “Gays do nothing but champion family values.”

            Aaaaahahahahaha, good joke.

          • F U 2 says:

            Good one. But there’s still one nagging question even the magic being seems unable to answer, not that he/she/it ever answered anyone other than from a burning bush, golden ark or through John Denver in a movie: Are gays any happier than those mythical beings he/she/it created?

            What do you say BooB and dull-ass?

        • deegee says:

          Good grief… (face palm)

          Genesis 3:16-17

          KVJ: 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
          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 sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

          NWT: 16 To the woman he said: “I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”
          17 And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account . In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life.

          These scriptures do not say that God cursed women to have bad labor pains during the act of childbirth. Otherwise then man would eat food with the same pain that women have giving childbirth (one really bad case of heart-burn I guess).

          Actual study and understanding of the scriptures is required to know fully who YHWH is.
          It seems that most people just parrots false half-meanings that they heard someone else say. And that they believe in some “angry god of the old testament” whom YHWH definitely is not.

          I recommend reading the following for just a few scriptures on the subject:
          Luke 11:11-13
          James 1:13
          James 1:17
          Romans 8:28

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            deegee cutting the baloney more finely than the Holy Ghost says:

            “These scriptures do not say that God cursed women to have bad labor pains during the act of childbirth.” /// He states this after quoting the bible that: “To the woman he said: “I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children,

            So…. the resolution is that Eve, and all women thereafter, although Mom told me I was her easiest birth with no pain at all ((whacked out on drugs I thought giving her the benefit of doubt)), will have greatly increased pain but not to the level of being “bad.” So…does that mean the pain is not that great–kinda like a 4 or 5 on the pain scale up from 2-3… OR==they pain is at 11 but it is a good pain simply meant to remind all women that they sinned in the judgment of God?

            Free will. God made all things and knew before time began that eve would eat the apple==yet he blames her.

            Ha, ha. He might be all powerful and all knowing, but he can’t be those and all merciful at the same time.

            Gives anti-theists a strong and proper contest.

          • So what says:

            I prefer non-fiction thanks.

          • Right after you quote scripture saying “I [God] shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children,” you go on to claim that “these scriptures do not say that God cursed women to have bad labor pains during the act of childbirth.” Huh??? What am I misreading here?
            (dammit, bobbo, you’re quicker on the button refuting this point — haha)

            But moving on, as much as we all appreciate your suggested reading list of scriptures, the whole point others like me try to make is that your list, and the characterizations of your god which your well-chosen scriptures seem to inspire, are anything BUT comprehensive in describing the range of his actions. Other scriptures not on your list describe actions that, in any other context, would be seen as purely evil, worthy only of history’s worst dictators and terrorists. I can’t find any action attributed to Satan which even compares to the worst of God’s actions. Of course, I’ll stand corrected on this one point if you can show me a scripture where Satan kills lots and lots of children.

            There are many accounts where your deity, either by his own mighty hand or through authorizations to his chosen people, is responsible for the death of any number of innocents, including those pesky little children. Whatever scriptures you can dig up that depict your god as loving and just and fair are completely undermined by the scriptures that show him killing or otherwise punishing innocent people because of the misdeeds of others. At the very least, you need to explain why you think your god has changed so radically from his earlier personality, and also why you think any such change is permanent. Sure, we’ve got that lovely rainbow as a reminder that he’ll never again drown nearly all living creatures the way he once did, but God never really promised not to kill the firstborn male child in every family if our leader goes against his will.

            Surely you can understand why we seek reassurance that this kinder, gentler, less erratic god is here for good. How can we be sure he’ll stay on his meds and not revert to his Old Testament temperament?

          • deegee says:

            Huh??? What am I misreading here?

            Note the different words used in the two renderings. Sorrow, pain.
            Note that the man also has for the consequences of his disobedience, sorrow (or pain).

            To the woman: “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” Regarding birth the NWT rendering also only states “in birth pangs you will bring forth children”.
            To the man: “in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life”

            It does not state that “God shall curse woman to have terrible pain during childbirth.” Any pain caused during birth is a function of humans as mammals, standard physiology, not some supposed “curse” that was never actually given but is often taken as common theology by people.
            Requirements: Transliteration. Understanding. Concept of the entire character through all scriptures.

            These scriptures specify the result of their disobedience and the consequences that their position is now outside of YHWH’s close communion.

            ‘Woman’ signifies the caregiver of the family and the bearer of children. If mankind is outside of YHWH’s close communion, what are the consequences in this respect to ‘woman’? See Matthew 10:21 and James 4:1-2 for example scripture.
            ‘Man’ signifies the family protector and the family provider. If mankind is outside of YHWH’s close communion, what are the consequences in this respect to ‘man’? See Genesis 3:19 for one example scripture.

            Sorry, if this doesn’t clarify it then I don’t want to take this blog to the area of a study on scripture and ancient languages as it is not the place imho.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Fairly secure in the assumption Dangerous Gary is as fed up with DeeGee’s wandering BS, I will only respond that the Bible says everything 10 different ways. State one and when confronted, move to another and fault the reader for not catching up.

            Same as it always was.

            And thanks Gary for the back up. Always good to gain concurrence from a fellow infidel.

            ….and Deggee==don’t you think you should be able to read English before you go off on the Bible? What does your quote: “NWT: 16 To the woman he said: “I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children,…” mean except for its clear exposition?

            “Don’t look there… the inerrent word of god is over here>>>>”

            I only wish I liked candy.

            Yea, veerily.

          • deegee says:

            Whatever scriptures you can dig up that depict your god as loving and just and fair are completely undermined by the scriptures that show him killing or otherwise punishing innocent people because of the misdeeds of others.

            Unfortunately I was not on the board of persons who determined what books made it into the Holy Bible. Some books probably should not be in there.

            Neither was I on the board of those who performed the translations/transliterations. Many scriptures are translated incorrectly (not as good as they could have been), especially in that meanings or slangs within our language change with each generation. Or many scriptures were translated at least not in the best wording for which it was originally intended.

            Many scriptures and teachings especially among the peoples in the old testament were based on superstitions or incorrect understandings. So anything that is written as “God told me to go and do ___” should be carefully examined. Question all things.
            Christ even mentions this many times in the gospels, where he corrects the apostles repeatedly because they have listened to the ‘church leaders’ who often pushed scriptures twisted to their own agenda and not the truth of YHWH or who He and Christ are, or they (the apostles) have followed the incorrect common teachings of the day, which includes superstitions.

            Even today, it is very common, almost part of our language to hear people say things like “God told me so” or “the devil made me do it”
            or even “God has called him/her back to heaven” when a person dies, or “evil people go to hell to be tortured forever when they die”.
            The former two are highly questionable. The latter two are both false. As are many of the other common phrases people use when they (mis)quote the “bible”.
            Just like most people believe that Bogart said “Play it again Sam”.

            If there is anything that can sum up what should be accepted over all other (questioning of) scriptures it would include:
            Mark 12:28-31
            1 Corinthians 2:2

          • deegee says:

            Fairly secure in the assumption Dangerous Gary is as fed up with DeeGee’s wandering BS

            No wandering BS at all.

            I quoted two different translations to show how one has translated the original wording as pain whereas the other has translated the same wording as sorrow.

            Then I continued to explain what the scriptures meant with relation to those words.
            The word “pain” doesn’t refer just to physical pain as you (and most others) typically attribute that specific scripture, the word pain includes emotional and other meanings.

            If this has escaped you, then unfortunately you either did not understand what my post was saying, or it was not worded to your understandings.

          • deegee says:

            @bobbo

            What does your quote: … mean except for its clear exposition?

            If I told you I was going to say two different sentences and both had the identical meaning, and those sentences were:
            1 “She was in a lot of pain over losing her pet.”
            2 “She was filled with sorrow over losing her pet.”

            So you believe that the word ‘pain’ always means physical pain? So in #1 she was having her body physically hurt?

            Please go read the reference scriptures I listed for each woman and man.

          • deegee, I do agree, please don’t take this blog into a study on scripture and ancient languages. I might be helpful, though, to take a moment to explain why you think that the obvious, apparent meaning of holy scripture can be so different from the true meaning gleaned through your more focused study of scripture and the language in which it was written. To the uninformed among us, it would almost seem like the Creator intentionally made his word difficult to understand, and I don’t know why. After all, an omnipotent and omniscient being communicates with exactly the amount of clarity he desires, and if language is a frequent stumbling block for the people of earth to understand their Creator, perhaps your god should have come up with a less obstructive solution to the situation at the Tower of Babel. If he really wanted a closer relationship to the people he created and depended on his human messengers to spread the word, he certainly shot himself in the foot by confusing their language.

            These language issues put people like me who are mildly retarded at a severe disadvantage to understand our Maker. Apparently I cannot trust my own understanding of the words printed in the Bible, but instead I am at the mercy of more learned ones like priests or pastors (or you) to tell me what it truly means. I guess it’s just lucky that none of those people have their own agendas, and can always be trusted to accurately explain the true meaning of holy scriptures. Without their help, those of us who lack the time or mental capacity for such study are truly lost. Now if only those clergy could agree among themselves, that would be a miracle worth praying for.

            The Bible depicts a god who continually engages in group punishment, making large groups of people suffer for the misdeeds or disobedience of as few as one single person. But if the Bible doesn’t really say what it seems to say, perhaps my innate sense of ethics and justice won’t be so greatly offended when I learn from language scholars like yourself what those seemingly unmistakable passages really mean, and even more importantly, why the true meaning would be so well-hidden beneath a steaming pile of apparent contradictions of character.

          • F U 2 says:

            While you’re at it, you might want to “study” the scriptures of Alice in Wonderland. But if that’s not up to your belief structure then perhaps Peter Pan is!

            Either way, those fairy tales are just about as real as the entire book of Genesis is.

            Remember: Beliefs (and opinions) are like assholes. Everyone has one. But then priests/ministers/whatever are like proctologists. It’s a practice best left alone!

            Come to think of it, that would explain quite a few things as far as the Catholic church and Christianity go. There’s just something about anal cavities and religion that go well together. Maybe that’s why we sometimes hear of certain priests trying to find god by “probing” someone.

    • Wam Bam says:

      Which came first?

      The male always comes first. And then he falls asleep.

      • pedro says:

        FTW

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          PedoBear—have I ever lorded it over you that I am a healthcare expert?

          Being one, I know that women often cum (have orgasm including the expression of fluids) before men do.

          Men and women—more the same than different in so many things.

          What you can learn in a chat room?

          • pedro says:

            And where’s the humor there?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Where’s the humor PedoBear????

            Why ….. just look!

            there you are butt nakid stretched over a barrel in the public square. And here comes ……. (I said comes)…. Dallas. No fear, he has your Donkey in hand.

            The Donkey show just doesn’t get any better. PedoBear…. so self centered, he thinks having sex is all about himself……..>>> oooopsey. That isn’t very funny is it? I was wrong.

            Nevermind.

          • pedro says:

            Is funny when you tell what happened in the end.

            How did it go to you & DUhllass? Which one of you came first?

    • The Monster's Lawyer says:

      The CEO came first.

  7. sic butt funny says:

    Don’t look at……

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage

    It shows a gang-rape!

  8. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Anyone know why a first cell division has to take place first? I haven’t heard that before, just curious.

    Just as I take atheism to the next step of being an anti-theist, I take my pro-choice position to one of Eugenics recognizing that both positions are just the majority position, scientific position, rational/logical/humanitarian/loving position…. just a bit in advance of most others.

    If you haven’t been using YouTube much, it has gotten better over the years. Search for Dawkins and you have hours of full lectures and debates on these issues. Last night, I saw a 10 minute clip where he made the point that if you imagine your parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so forth back 185 million years you will find your great to be a fish. During this trek, each child and parent were of the same species, yet over time, slowly, the tree of life differentiated.

    Quite obvious, and its so common place… still satisfying to hear the basics without some knuckle dragger “asking the one question that destroys evolution.”

    I’ve always thought a fertilized egg was when life, even protectable life began—but not yet a human being. As the Sup Ct asked and answered in Roe v Wade that is a religious cultural question. The question before the court was when do certain rights attach? Like owning property, driving a car, drinking alcohol, getting drafted and so forth==things all human beings do.

    Just look.

    • bobbo, one true Liberal recognizing Obama is too far Right mostly because I view the world from the viewpoint of being a pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      ….and just for grins: the MORALITY of the when does life begin is not whatever position/answer you think applies BUT RATHER: who decides.

      Yes, my zygote loving friends FREEEEEEEDOM is leaving other people alone.

      Ain’t that a bitch?

    • bobbo, one true Liberal recognizing Obama is too far Right mostly because I view the world from the viewpoint of being a pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Speaking of YouTube and who decides…(and the stupidity/tryranny of for profit copyright laws etc that is often reported here) we have NASCAR (still the most attended of sports events?==I always find that hard to believe…..) like the Catholic Church trying to squelch the truth to keep its image clean. Ain’t it wonderful how everything is connected to everything else… zygote wise? As in the clip: “Holy Shit…Oh my god.”—Ha, ha.

      ((Not much of a crash, side bar if you need blood.))

      http://allthingsd.com/20130223/a-race-a-crash-and-the-nascar-approach-to-youtube-video-takedowns/

  9. pedro says:

    “Anyone know why a first cell division has to take place first? I haven’t heard that before, just curious.”

    Can you take a ride on a car if the engine doesn’t start?

    • bobbo, one true Liberal recognizing Obama is too far Right mostly because I view the world from the viewpoint of being a pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Well–when the sperm penetrates the egg’s wall, the egg secrets a chemical that hardens the egg wall making further sperm penetration impossible and the sperms genetic content merges with that of the egg creating everything that is necessary for a tax paying hooman being. The egg may not divide the first time, many (sic) don’t. But many also die before birth as well.

      The point being–the egg is up and running even before it has 23 full chromosomes. Certainly the detail of first division is completely unknown to the writers of the Bible, so this is a Johnny come (sic) lately add on.

      Still wondering….. but curiosity is waning.

  10. Reminds me of an old girlfiend of mine or perhaps boyfriend
    Looks like acne up close on a friend’s luxury big screen TV

  11. sargasso_c says:

    Let’s see a corporation do that.

  12. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    My favorite quote regarding the Relgious: “If the Religious could be reasoned with, there wouldn’t be any.”

    Its deep, man!

    • pedro says:

      Deep as in someone has to be with you in a submarine to appreciate that, deep down, you’re kinda smart.

      • bobbo, expert in everything being defined as knowing when I know and when I dont says:

        Well thank you Pedro. I know that requires wiping off a little rust.

        Everyone here is though.

        Simple truths.

  13. bobbo, expert in everything being defined as knowing when I know and when I dont says:

    Gary in a fit of self deprecating humor claims his appreciation of the Lord is the result of being retarded, says: “The Bible depicts a god who continually engages in group punishment, making large groups of people suffer for the misdeeds or disobedience of as few as one single person.”

    /// Are we on the same wavelength here Dangerous Gary? GUESS who that single person misdeeding is…. nay, even the first misdeeder…. the Primum movens so to say?

    …………………………………

    I know you know………………….

    …………………………………..

    Just giving you time to change horses.

    …………………………………..

    Who else but God himself? Creates evil then blames what he made and calls it free will. He is too great for us to understand, but our free will supersedes his own infinite complexities.

    Pull my finger.

    • Maybe the earth is God’s reality theater. We all know that nothing is more entertaining than conflict. In the boredom of eternal void, God may have created the earth for no other reason than to entertain himself, so peace and harmony were never on the menu, the specifics of which change daily according to his whims. Sibling rivalry is one of his favorite plot motivations, and it’s equally entertaining for him when brother turns against brother or when one nation sees itself as favored above other nations. That is the whole point, not an inadvertent side-effect.

      That’s about the most logical metaphysical explanation of a universe that includes any deity or being with a “will” that I can think of, and it beats the hell out of other explanations that imbue such a being with love and good will toward all and any desire to see his children get along.

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

        Its all what you make of a god. The Judeao/Christian/Muslim god being beyond one’s imagination to conceive==kinda like that rock (can god make a rock he can’t lift?).

        Now, if Gods were only SUPER powerful, maybe even knowing, BUT not all good, more like HOOMANS, then you have the Greek and Roman panoply. Something more human and relateable in scale. But the Jews wanted a god that could beat up the other gods but in achieving that goal they got a Tyrant they can’t understand.

        Ironic, if you are of that sort of mind. Anti-theism makes so much sense. Why argue what cant be proven one way or the other whereas with FREEEEEEEEEEEwill that question becomes irrelevant because whatever it is, I’m against it. And thats fair enough. After all, no one really knows what god wants: toadies or competitors in a nice dialectic.

        Fie! doesn’t make any sense from start to finish, and if god were a given==then he would be as apparent as the Universe.

        Imagine that?

    • The slogan to accompany my explanation above would be…
      “Please the Creator by waging bloody, bloody war!”

    • orchidcup says:

      Who else but God himself? Creates evil then blames what he made and calls it free will.

      Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
      — Amos 3:6

      I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
      — Isaiah 45:7

      Behold, this evil is of the LORD.
      — 2 Kings 6:33

      I will bring evil upon all flesh, saith the LORD.
      — Jeremiah 45:5

      The words of the Bronze Age nomadic tribesmen appear to support your theory.

  14. bobbo, expert in everything being defined as knowing when I know and when I dont says:

    deegee not clever enough by half says:
    2/24/2013 at 5:42 pm

    @bobbo

    What does your quote: … mean except for its clear exposition?

    If I told you I was going to say two different sentences and both had the identical meaning, and those sentences were:
    1 “She was in a lot of pain over losing her pet.”
    2 “She was filled with sorrow over losing her pet.” /// fog and mirrors DG===we are talking about the one and true inerrent word of god are we not? As you quoted:

    NWT: 16 To the woman he said: “I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children….” /// not the red herrings you challenge me with. So like guerilla warfare you engage in. Can’t attack logic/words straight because you lose on the merits, so you attack and retreat, bob and weave, never confronting the enemy head on. The arguments you win are only against those who chase you into the weeds.

    What does ““I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children….” mean? Not the alternative BS comparison you try to substitute. WHAT DOES nwt 16 mean? Ha, ha. I say—it means just what it says.

    An argument is admittedly lost when it is not addressed directly.

    Read a dictionary. Let simple English be your guide.

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      But because I do love words, and am an Expert Tracker in the weeds, let us consider together:

      “If I told you I was going to say two different sentences and both had the identical meaning, and those sentences were:
      1 “She was in a lot of pain over losing her pet.”
      2 “She was filled with sorrow over losing her pet.”

      So you believe that the word ‘pain’ always means physical pain? So in #1 she was having her body physically hurt? //// Ooooohhhh!===Not even close. You got target fixation over a single word? Words gain meaning from their context==just as in biblical interpretations?

      Pain can be physical, as in CHILDBIRTH, or mental as in losing a pet. You see the additional words clarifying what is meant?==Physical pain vs Mental pain. Define pain alone and you will get a listing of the various contexts and different meanings that result therefrom. No truncated red herrings allowed.

      Further–pain over losing her pet DOES NOT MEAN the same thing as sorrow over losing her pet. See the difference? Pain vs Sorrow. Two different words. Different meanings. Pain more acute, more transitory. Sorrow being more chronic. Words.

      We think with words, and flower with ideas===unless your submarine has screen doors? …… but I kid. You can’t be intelligent enough to twist and turn as you do without being conscious of it. Now, you just need to have a conscience about it…. and be a bit more honest.

      Always amusing when dogma turns off a man’s intellect, which like pain and sorrow, is an extension of one for the other, coming to a conflict when its honesty and intellect in the ring.

      Yea, verily.

  15. orchidcup says:

    Did I start something?

    I was merely pointing out that the sperm must have come before the egg according to the best knowledge of a Bronze Age nomadic tribesman.

    If you do not consider a Bronze Age nomadic tribesman to be a credible source of historical fact, that is your problem.

    What is most notable about the story told by the Bronze Age nomadic tribesman is the obvious notoriety of female behavior.

    As soon as the first female was able to breathe, she set out to deceive the male and lead him astray.

    Who in their right mind would blame the magical being for cursing the female with the pain and suffering of childbirth and requiring her to be forever subservient to the male and his desires?

    It all makes perfect sense to me. If not for the fact that females are required to produce more males, I would suggest to the magical being that all females should be eradicated for deceiving the male and tricking him into doing something wrong.

    Short of that, subservience to the male and house cleaning and cooking along with nurturing progeny will serve as a just punishment until something better comes along.

    • Y(our) Brains Are in Y(our) PANTS! says:

      What does that have to do with jacking off or sex? Just cause we see an egg about to be fertilized?

      The question seems to be, “Too close for a close up”? And with all the self hyped awards shows showcasing last years worthless entertainment products including the crews who assisted making them it’s even somewhat a timely question.

      Sure, there were a few movies worth mentioning. And there may even be a song or two that you just can’t get out of your head too. But isn’t all this Oscar and Golden Globe etc. crap just that? CRAP?! Do we really need to examine it with a “close up”?

      These award shows tends to put some of the most stupid people on planet earth on a pedestal. People who never actually did anything other than pretend to be someone and occasionally some thing they are not. They may do their job of pretending very well but it’s still hardly a contribution to anything (I’m not saying nothing either – just not much). Yet, we glorify this crap, pay outrageous sums of money for it and then present awards for best pretenders who spent the most money and probably even wasted the most resources making it. Meanwhile, other humans on planet earth suffer and die! But don’t anyone LOOK! Let’s NOT get a close up of THAT! Shall we?

      That “crap” aside, there seems to be another question being asked: Too close for comfort? And I say with finger print and eyeball retina scanners already in use, and with DNA readers on the horizon it’s not close enough! But then, most people don’t care to see boring finite facts even when it has to do with their own procreation. They’d rather have the camera pull out a ways (poetically maybe?) and see how it all gets started! They’d rather see the skin on skin action that produced that shot. (Better known as “porn”!)

      • orchidcup says:

        Wow, that came out of nowhere….

        But I see your point.

        • Y(our) Brains Are in Y(our) PANTS! says:

          Thanks!

          Just trying to stay ON topic here since it seems some troglodyte religious fool (who’s convinced he/she is “right”) got things off topic with his/her religious crap (AGAIN)!

          Personally, I liked your essay of the “magical being” and how utterly ridiculous it all is. I hope you meant it humorously in a back handed kind of way since that’s how I interpreted it. But the similarity between that and some idiots take on the Bible’s Book of Genesis may be a bit too much truth for them to bare. So obviously, the “solution” is to blog about it here. Right?!

          I just don’t see how those last few comments in response (like 50+) had anything (much) to do with the topic being presented.

          Remembering Marylin Monroe’s famous comment, “I’m ready for my close up, Mr. DeMille” (DeVille, or whatever) it seems like the question here is hinting at the Hollywood sex craziness, particularly since it’s Oscar “season” again. I mean, even Eideards comment, “Pron – ” seems to hint at it. So if my comments seem to be “out of no where” then please explain.

          • orchidcup says:

            Personally, I liked your essay of the “magical being” and how utterly ridiculous it all is. I hope you meant it humorously in a back handed kind of way since that’s how I interpreted it.

            Nothing I say should be interpreted as humorous.

            A magical being must have created the first humans because there is no other explanation that makes sense.

            Besides, I have it on good authority from a number of Bronze Age nomadic tribesmen that spoke to the magical being personally.

            Don’t make fun of my religion.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Gee Orchi—I don’t think you fully grasp the limitations of this medium.

            ……also, there are no good authorities from the bronze age. A few come 1000’s of years laters on 2-3 issues of no consequence any more at all.

            It is amusing how untouched by progress religion remains though. something sadly all too human about that.

  16. honeyman says:

    Seems to me that religion is superfluous to the process depicted in the post. Religion comes afterwards, when the newly grown human’s curious mind needs to be restrained and diminished. Ultimately the fully grown human, in a fearful stupor, empties his or her wallet unto the collection plate on a regular basis in exchange for some fanciful tale of everlasting life.

    • orchidcup says:

      Science cannot answer the question of “what happens to the consciousness of an individual after death?”

      Religion claims to answer that question in various ways.

      Religion is a business. It thrives on the fear of death.

      Some people tend to get some emotional comfort when they can believe that a deceased loved one is comfortable in another realm of existence.

      Other people tend to get some emotional comfort when they can believe that a deceased asshole has gone to Hell and is burning in anguish as punishment for their being a complete asshole.

      Maybe there is a magical being that judges people for their actions during their lives. If that is the case, I tend to think that preachers, priests, and politicians will be judged most severely.

      On the other hand, the simplest explanation is most likely that people cease to exist when they die.

      I can’t think of a way to turn that thought into a business, so I will leave it at that.