David Attenborough: more confused than ever?

[Donovan A. Mordecai]

Re: David Attenborough: more confused than ever?

I think David's sentiments were pretty level headed. Humans will not likely go extinct short of a global incident like a meteor, but the quality of life could take a dip at a certain population level. I don't agree we should limit family sizes but in today's day in age I see nothing wrong with one of god's children voicing an opinion that smaller families are more sustainable.

No? Well if you see nothing wrong with it, then you have no idea of what you're talking about.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

I'm sure that if we were getting overpopulated, God would intervene. And since I haven't heard of any burning bush bearing an addendum, it is safe to assume God is OK with the current situation.

Please stop posting such ridiculous comments. If you would just read The Bible, you would find all your questions answered.

God Bless
DAM

[bryce carmony]

Re: David Attenborough: more confused than ever?

I think David's sentiments were pretty level headed. Humans will not likely go extinct short of a global incident like a meteor, but the quality of life could take a dip at a certain population level. I don't agree we should limit family sizes but in today's day in age I see nothing wrong with one of god's children voicing an opinion that smaller families are more sustainable.

[Thomas Taylor]

Re: David Attenborough: more confused than ever?

Have you ever been thinking about all women who cannot 'be saved in childbird'? I mean how about salvation of childless women then? You theology says: there is no salvation for childless women!..,and there is just only one logical conclusion drawn from such thesis.

Why do you think such way? Quote :There is no mention of any special glory belonging to women anywhere throughout the entire Bible.
Really?
Have you ever been reading 1 Peter 3:7? There is written - and read it carefuly, please:
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you[a] of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (ESV)

and

Ephesians 5:25-27
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. (NIV)

So!, do you really treat your wife as.. a livestock?..

I do not know what Bible you are using, woman, but it is wrong. Here we adhere strictly to the Word of God as found in The Holy Bible (KJV 1611).

If you would care to take the time to readit 1 Peter 3:7 says this:

Likewise ye husbands, dwel with them according to knowledge, giuing honour vnto the wife as vnto the weaker vessel, and as being heires together of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered

How does this in any way, shape or form say that women are the equals of men.

Now, instead of bothering us with your inane wittering, do what God made you to do. Go and make a pie for your husband and then do the dishes.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: David Attenborough: more confused than ever?

Have you ever been thinking about all women who cannot 'be saved in childbird'? I mean how about salvation of childless women then? You theology says: there is no salvation for childless women!..,and there is just only one logical conclusion drawn from such thesis.

Why do you think such way? Quote :There is no mention of any special glory belonging to women anywhere throughout the entire Bible.
Really?
Have you ever been reading 1 Peter 3:7? There is written - and read it carefuly, please:
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you[a] of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (ESV)

and

Ephesians 5:25-27
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. (NIV)

So!, do you really treat your wife as.. a livestock?..

Ephesians 5:23
King James Version (KJV)
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

The love of a man for His wife should be like the love of God for man. It should be a love that reserves the right to burn her for all eternity if she doesn't worship him and believe whatever he says regardless of the evidence.

[Brother Helge]

Re: David Attenborough: more confused than ever?

Have you ever been thinking about all women who cannot 'be saved in childbird'?

It's a punishment from God.
What's there more to think about?

[Bianka]

Re: David Attenborough: more confused than ever?

Your attempts to pervert God's Holy Word to conform to your culture bound preconceptions are laughable. If woman is saved in childbirth, she is saved in childbirth. And additional conditions of her salvation are listed as well. There is no mention of any special glory belonging to women anywhere throughout the entire Bible. Just constant reminders that they are to be treated as livestock.

Have you ever been thinking about all women who cannot 'be saved in childbird'? I mean how about salvation of childless women then? You theology says: there is no salvation for childless women!..,and there is just only one logical conclusion drawn from such thesis.

Why do you think such way? Quote :There is no mention of any special glory belonging to women anywhere throughout the entire Bible.
Really?
Have you ever been reading 1 Peter 3:7? There is written - and read it carefuly, please:
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you[a] of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (ESV)

and

Ephesians 5:25-27
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. (NIV)

So!, do you really treat your wife as.. a livestock?..

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: David Attenborough: more confused than ever?

I have found an interesting biblical analisys of the text, showing up why the werse from 1Timothy chapter 2:15 has nothing to do with the essential mothering role of women in general but rather assures us of the central place of “the woman” in God’s redemptive plan and reminds us that women in general are saved from eternal death through faith in the promised Child, if they persevere in the same.

I can agree with the point o view, presented by Jeffrey J.Meyers in the article How are women saved? here:http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bibl...e-women-saved/

Your attempts to pervert God's Holy Word to conform to your culture bound preconceptions are laughable. If woman is saved in childbirth, she is saved in childbirth. And additional conditions of her salvation are listed as well. There is no mention of any special glory belonging to women anywhere throughout the entire Bible. Just constant reminders that they are to be treated as livestock.

[Bianka]

Re: David Attenborough: more confused than ever?

(..)
For women it's a requirement for salvation.

1 Tim 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (..)

I have found an interesting biblical analisys of the text, showing up why the werse from 1Timothy chapter 2:15 has nothing to do with the essential mothering role of women in general but rather assures us of the central place of “the woman” in God’s redemptive plan and reminds us that women in general are saved from eternal death through faith in the promised Child, if they persevere in the same.

I can agree with the point o view, presented by Jeffrey J.Meyers in the article How are women saved? here:http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bibl...e-women-saved/

[Attila's Wife]

Re: David Attenborough: more confused than ever?

So I understand that humans have "evolved" for quintillions of trillions of years and just today, during this Mr. Attenborough's lifetime, evolution has stopped

He probably thinks that in him, Man has reached perfection.

Ecclesiastes 1:2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

What will be the next step? Will evolution run backwards? Will our children become monkeys again? Will our grandchildren develop scales and fins and crawl back into the water? I look forward to hearing your answers, atheists!

Me too. Maybe their children and grandchildren will "dis-evolve" in some way - God loves a joke and it would serve them right. But from what I've seen of the semi-feral offspring of many atheists, how would they even notice?

YiC
AW

[Ex-soccer player]

Re: David Attenborough: more confused than ever?

he believed humans have stopped evolving physically and genetically

So I understand that humans have "evolved" for quintillions of trillions of years and just today, during this Mr. Attenborough's lifetime, evolution has stopped What will be the next step? Will evolution run backwards? Will our children become monkeys again? Will our grandchildren develop scales and fins and crawl back into the water? I look forward to hearing your answers, atheists!

[Attila's Wife]

Re: David Attenborough: more confused than ever?

This sounds a lot to me like antinatalism, the belief that having children is wrong because it harms the planet and everyone who is born will inevitably suffer. It seems like he's trying to sell a watered-down version, but I'm sure it's just the thin end of the wedge.

Not quite Hosea 9:14 yet, but a step in that direction?

Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

Though Hosea was talking about punishing the Israelites, who deserved it, not "saving" the people of the world as a whole from - well, from what exactly? The petty tribulations of life like war, famine and pestilence?

Job 5:7 Yet man is born unto trouble, As the sparks fly upward.

We at Landover embrace this life, rejoicing in the knowledge that heaven awaits us.

YiC
AW

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: David Attenborough: more confused than ever?

Attenborough said he was not optimistic about the future and that people should be persuaded against having large families.

He added: "If you were able to persuade people that it is irresponsible to have large families in this day and age, and if material wealth and material conditions are such that people value their materialistic life and don't suffer as a consequence, then that's all to the good.

This sounds a lot to me like antinatalism, the belief that having children is wrong because it harms the planet and everyone who is born will inevitably suffer. It seems like he's trying to sell a watered-down version, but I'm sure it's just the thin end of the wedge.

Having children does not harm the planet. It is good for the planet. God wants us to fill the earth and subdue it. He wants us to have dominion over it because we are his representatives made in His image and we know what's best for the planet.

Gen 1:27-28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

It's also a comfort for the Christian to know that this planet is disposable. It's a renewable resource. When we're done with this planet, we'll get a new heaven and a new earth.

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

God wants us to bring children into the world.

Gen 9:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

For women it's a requirement for salvation.

1 Tim 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

God wants us to have large families.

Ps 127:3-5a
3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them:

All children are evil from the moment of conception (Ps 51:5). They have no goodness in them (Rom 3:10) and are incapable of doing good (Jer 13:23). They deserve nothing but suffering in this life (Prov 11:31) and eternal torment in the next (Rev 14:11). God makes the decision whether to love or hate a child before they are even born (Rom 9:11-13). The best a parent can hope for is that their child will be saved, but even then they will suffer (Acts 14:22). As I said earlier, some antinatalists oppose childbirth on the grounds that the child will inevitably suffer. Well, duh! That's stating the obvious. What's the problem? God commands us to have children. Failing to do what God commands is sin (Jas 4:17). Therefore it's wrong not to bring children into a world of suffering.

[Attila's Wife]

The British gorilla-whisperer David Attenborough, naturist and brother of the more-famous Richard, seems to have got his knickers in a twist.

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/sep/10/david-attenborough-human-evolution-stopped

He has finally admitted that evolution is nonsense, which is good. Unfortunately he feels the need to justify this with some twaddle about it having stopped, rather than never having existed in the first place, but I suppose he doesn't want to lose face.

... he believed humans have stopped evolving physically and genetically because of birth control and abortion, but that cultural evolution is proceeding "with extraordinary swiftness".

So far so good - or at least, not as bad as before. The reasons he gives are bizarre, of course, and I don't know what cultural evolution is but don't like the sound of it. But wait!

Attenborough said he was not optimistic about the future and that people should be persuaded against having large families.

Excuse me? I can see that at the age of 87 he personally has little to look forward to, apart from a nice dip in the Lake of Fire
But what has this got to do with the rest of us?

(He) also appeared to express qualified support for the one-child policy in China.

Why only qualified support? Let's give him the benefit of the doubt on this - maybe, like me, he's in favor of a zero-child policy in China. But I haven't seen him at any of our campaign fundraisers.

He added: "If you were able to persuade people that it is irresponsible to have large families in this day and age, and if material wealth and material conditions are such that people value their materialistic life and don't suffer as a consequence, then that's all to the good.

I have no idea what that even means - it sounds like the sort of thing people say when they've been distracted by a squirrel, or a daemon.

I think the sooner he stops talking to the newspapers about matters he doesn't understand and gets back to sitting naked in the forest, the better.

YiC
Attila's Wife