Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: − :::::They're threatened because if it occurs in nature, they can't say that it doesn't occur in nature. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 15:13, 25 November 2008 (EST)+ + + + +
a message for you from God: have a little self control
:::::Sorry, but I seriously doubt your facetious comments amuse anyone here. If you can't contribute intelligently perhaps you'd be better off a Wikipedia, where such childishness is encouraged. [[User:AlbertW|AlbertW]] 14:52, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Sorry, but I seriously doubt your facetious comments amuse anyone here. If you can't contribute intelligently perhaps you'd be better off a Wikipedia, where such childishness is encouraged. [[User:AlbertW|AlbertW]] 14:52, 25 November 2008 (EST)
It's not a matter of offense or threats. It's an issue of using the naturalness of animal behavior to evaluate the morality of human behavior. The [[black widow]] spider kills her mate; no one uses that to justify the [[battered woman defense]]. No one argues that if animals eat their young, then infanticide or cannibalism is justified.
God gives us rules to suppress our "nature" in many cases. It's natural to feel angry when offended or threatened, but God says not to commit murder. In point of fact, he told Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.'" --Genesis 4:6
Although theologians argue about whether sinful desires were implanted in human beings by our Maker, most agree that upon discovering that a particular desire is sinful, we are obliged to resist it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)
==Need==
==Need==
Not to belabor the point, but I don't really see this article being ''encyclopedic'' enough to warrant all of this work going into it. An article specifically about ''two'' "gay" penguins? I once again suggest deleting this article. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:03, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Not to belabor the point, but I don't really see this article being ''encyclopedic'' enough to warrant all of this work going into it. An article specifically about ''two'' "gay" penguins? I once again suggest deleting this article. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:03, 25 November 2008 (EST)