OK. So this is a brass nipple, not the human nipple I am about to write about. If you want nipple pics, hop over to the Curate after Dark. I hope I haven't unduly excited any plumbers with this picture. Now, onward!
If we take the literal Biblical story of creation as correct, and there are those who do, what was God thinking of when he gave men nipples? He hadn't even considered the possibility of children until Eve did the dirty of their agreement, so what was the point?
Just an ornament to break up the monotony?
And, once Eve was in the bad books and condemned to a life of conception and sorrow, did he have to re-engineer her to have lactating breasts?
If not, why was she given them in the first place?
Adam's pleasure? Maybe. But why lactating?
I really cannot get my head around how some people can believe the these stories are true.
I am eagerly awaiting the next visit of the door-to-door brigade, to quiz them.
...
8 comments:
But Lee - you already know the answer: "God moves in mysterious ways." So bloody mysterious as to be one rib short of a rack.
PS - I think this should be called The Nipple Paradox, or possibly Lee's Nipple Conjecture.
Hang on though, Adam could have had no nips and Eve created with two, with the resultant offspring acquiring Eve's genetic blueprint for nips, which were a necessary modification if Eve were to bear offspring.
Bang goes the theory.
A better question is why Adam was created with testes, which he would definitely have needed to procreate.
Why do they have anything sexual at all? Shouldn't they have been two little blogs sitting in paradise, soaking up the rapture?
Come on, God knew what was going to happen all along; why else be all knowing? Besides, male nipples are pleasure-points for gays. Hmmm, maybe God is Gay? LOL What a bunch of sh*t! It's all about power.
I think creation - regardless of whether you believe in a Creator - really is creation, i.e., a messy, untidy process that results in stuff like men with nipples.
(That has to be one of the oddest sentences I've written...)
Many Christians, especially toward the conservative end of the spectrum, seem to view God not as engaging in a process of creation but as a kind of planner or engineer who had a preconceived notion of life's every detail and then executed it according to the specs.
If that's the case, it seems to me too that God's ideas are odd in a great many respects and that he must have received a low grade in divine engineering...
I'm going to digress this a little bit, since we're talking about the creation of nipples, and all the divinity vested in them.
What about *before* our nipples? What about the creation *before* humans (and their nipples)?
The history of an religion only goes as far as humans can write, even if written about "history" in reference to the time period in which they wrote.
What religion explains how the Earth or stars came to be before humans? We're just a pixel on the universal map of space and time, and no religion seems to respect this.
In fact, they seem to gear towards the opposite: that humans are the center and meaning of this vast, empty, hot, dark, cold, mysterious universe.
Just some nipple, ah food, for thought.
Angie
Fair point, Angie.
And I do think a lot about nipples and food.
Post a Comment