« Previous | Main | Next »

Vegetarians have better sex

Post categories:

William Crawley | 10:19 UK time, Saturday, 31 January 2009

peta-campaign-logo-780981.jpgWhile the UK is debating the decision by the BBC and Sky to block a free-standing TV appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee, America is debating the decision by NBC to block a TV ad by Peta, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The ad was due to play to a massive audience during the Super Bowl and is clearly meant to be tongue-in-cheek (though it looks more like courgette-in-cheek). The scientific research underlying the ad relates to weight and fitness levels of the average American vegetarian by comparison with the average American meat-eater.

A Peta spokesperson, citing research on vegetarian diet plans developed by Dr. Dean Ornish and Dr. Caldwell B. Esselstyn as sources, says eating meat makes people "fat, sick, and boring in bed," while vegetarians are, "on average, fitter and slimmer than meat eaters". Separate studies show that meat and dairy consumption is linked to impotence, heart disease, and obesity.

The studies examined only vegetarian and meat-based diets that were low-fat and low-cholesterol. In other words, a low-fat, low-cholesterol vegetable-based diet scores higher in the relevant health and fitness results than a low-fat, low-cholesterol meat-based diet. Some critics may argue that vegetarians may be, in general, healthier than meat-eaters because vegetarians are also, as a group, more health-focused than meat-eaters. Vegetarians tend to opt for healthier lifestyles, a generally more active daily regime, than meat-eaters. This, say critics, may explain the vegetarian group's higher scores in tests, rather than the food they consume.

Recent studies are available on this, which suggest that a switch to a healthy vegetarian diet (and the term 'healthy' is key), can lead to significant risk-reduction in relation to a host of conditions, from cancer and heart disease to diverticular disease. The question, in a sense, is whether all of that adds up to the claim that vegetarians are, therefore, likely to be better in the sack than meat-eaters. I'd like to see some scientific evidence revealing a clear correlation between "being healthy" and "having better sex" (and this latter expression would be extremely difficult to quantify scientifically). In the absence of that evidence, I suspect that an ad of this kind would run foul of the UK watchdog.

In any case, NBC's concern was not, alas, the science underlying the Peta ad. NBC blocked the ad through concerns about taste and decency. The intentionally self-mocking portrayal of a woman frolicking with a head of broccoli was considered "too much" for the American TV viewer.


Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    I have to agreed and disagreed that Vegetarians have better sex...
    ~Dennis Junior~

  • Comment number 2.

    Is it because you can do more with bananas, carrots and cucumbers than with a flabby lump of meat?

  • Comment number 3.

    Anyone that is focused on health and fitness - athletes, those that do hillwalking, climbing, surfing, yoga etc, or those that simply want to look good in a swimming costume - will pay attention to what, and how, much they eat.

    Including some meat in a diet doesn't in itself make you unfit (it is a good source of protein); it's about knowing which vitamins and minerals the body needs, the importance of fibre in a diet, watching calorie intake and so on.
    I imagine if you polled the athletes that participated in the Olympics, a majority would have some meat in their diet.
    And yes diet (and exercise) does play a major role in minimising risk of heart disease and other life threatening illnesses, as well as staving off mental deterioration as we get older.
    Good health and fitness come as a package.

    Do the fit and healthy have better sex? Well, it's an aerobic activity, increases the heart rate and respiration and requires muscle contractions in the pelvis and elsewhere, good blood circulation, some stamina and possibly even some contortion of the body. The fit and healthy are also more likely to be moderate in their alcohol consumption - I'll let you decide.

  • Comment number 4.

    It seems to me that the photograph makes a perfect case for being a meat eater :-) Yum.

  • Comment number 5.

    This is the carrot that broke the donkey's back (sorry!)


    BBC viewer number one asks;-

    "Why oh why do taxpayers of all creeds and classes pay BBC presenters to convince us of their narrow personal viewpoints on evolution, climate change, homosexuality and now.... the evils of eating meat!!???"

    BBC viewer number two answers;-

    "Because we have no lawful way to avoid paying them!"


  • Comment number 6.

    BBC viewer number 3 says:

    "Like Viewer Number 1, I am a teetotal, mean-spirited, narrow-minded, homophobic bible-thumping, carnivorous, environmentally destructive, Christian bigot who would ban all TV and Radio programmes that have the slightest hint of disagreement with myself".

  • Comment number 7.


    Re. carrots and donkeys.

    Straw would probably be vegetarian too!

    Is Will a vegetarian?

    I have a friend who is a vegetarian, and believe me, he's not a 'shrinking violet' of a Christian.

    I'm not really sure I see the connections in either your list, or Brian's.


  • Comment number 8.

    Comment 5. "Why oh why do taxpayers of all creeds and classes pay BBC presenters etc etc"

    Actually I think those that produce these blogs (and HYS and other media sites) often just put up topics they hope will produce a good response from the readers in the comments. If a blog didn't get any comments I imagine it would be seen as a failure.

    Blogs (and HYS) are just provided as another form of entertainment for us. People like giving their opinions etc - these allow you to do so.

    PS. You left "that the earth is not the centre of the universe" and "that the world is not flat' off your list of 'narrow personal viewpoints".
    As for "'narrow personal viewpoints" - you really don't understand irony do you?

  • Comment number 9.

    I am not quite a vegetarian. Like the well-brought-up little boy I was I still eat anything I am given without protest and would cook meat for my friends but I never choose to eat animal flesh. All I can say in the light of this campaign is: "I guess that accounts for it..."

    With regard to Tim's post, while diet and exercise are vital for the maintenance of good health, many top athletes must be an absolute flop in the sack. Over-training suppresses the libido big-time: if you want a marathon session don't go for a marathon runner!

  • Comment number 10.


    I'm guessing you must have, at least, stumbled over my comment 7 in order to post your own so maybe you could identify the connections between, "evolution, climate change, homosexuality and now.... the evils of eating meat and that the earth is not the centre of the universe and that the world is not flat and while you are at it have a go at Brian's list in post 6, teetotal, mean-spirited, narrow-minded, homophobic bible-thumping, carnivorous, environmentally destructive, Christian bigot

    I'm sure the must be a connection somewhere. Like the one between these words - 'stereo' 'typical'


    I was going to say something similar about what I eat, but couldn't quite bring myself to say that I was mostly vegetarian. I fear it probably means not vegetarian!

  • Comment number 11.

    There you go Peter - bringing 'probably' into another discussion! Did you consult the ASA?

    I hate people who say: "O, I'm a vegetarian - but I eat fish." I've never seen a fish with a root yet. I have a friend who is the worst cook in the world - one night she came up with the classic "We're having a vegetarian meal tonight - only with meat".

  • Comment number 12.

    OT/PB has lost the plot again. First, if you actually read this post, Will is being sceptical about the Peta claim that vegetarians have better sex.

    Oh, and since when was "climate change" a narrow personal view anyway? Or evolution? PB, you just have to accept that your views on those subjects, like your views on homosexuality and a host of other issues, is actually the narrow personal view in this country these days. Most people believe evolution is correct, that climate change is a crisis we're facing, and that gay people are an equal part of our society. Sorry, but you are just out of date, PB.

    As for vegetarianism, I'm with Will: I want to see the science connecting vegetarianism with better sex before I can agree with Peta's claim.

  • Comment number 13.

    ASA portwyne?

    I didn't know that alfalfa sprout aficionados had an association.


  • Comment number 14.

    1) PETA is the most hypocritical, illogical, lunatic organisation ever to advocate a cause as noble as stopping cruelty to animals.

    2) "Healthy people have better sex than unhealthy people" would be a claim one could stand by. But since eating meat does not an unhealthy diet make, it seems to me that meat-eaters can be as healthy as vegetarians and, thus, have just as good sex.

    3) The claim ...eating meat makes people "fat, sick, and boring in bed"... is clearly not a scientific claim. But even anecdotally, it doesn't stand up. For example, I'm an enthusiastic meat-eater with a BMI of 19.1 who isn't sick and has had no complaints from the girl. PETA people are talking BS.

  • Comment number 15.

    Hi John,

    "For example, I'm an enthusiastic meat-eater with a BMI of 19.1 who isn't sick and has had no complaints from the girl."

    I'm not sure if I see that as any more valid an argument than that of the governor on the fat people adoption row thread, who had vetoed the law because his mother was fat and had been good at raising a family. And I didn't think that was a very convincing one. But then it seems you didn't think it was either, labeling it as you do "anecdotally". :)

  • Comment number 16.

    petermorrow - post 10 - In post 8, I was attempting sarcasm over Orthodox-tradition's list of "evolution, climate change, homosexuality etc" in post 5. (It's Orthodox-tradition that needs to 'identify the connections'.)
    Post 6 was attempting something similar.
    I think you must have come in half-way down the comments and missed post 5.

  • Comment number 17.


    Apologies, I didn't 'get' the sarcasm, my fault. What I was objecting to were the loose stereotypical connections being made in posts 5 and 6, I'm just not so sure we can assume any if them.

    Anyway, apologies.

  • Comment number 18.

    They are also refusing to allow a pro-life ad.

  • Comment number 19.

    PETA are little more than a slick ad campaign. But it is worth noting just how slick. Their web-site has always been a carefully measured mix of sex and violence. Not enough sex to merit an "R", but certainly enough violence. Rather like the mix that "CSI", "Bones" etc. use to dominate the TV ratings in America. So various super-models would rather go naked than wear fur, alongside pictures of eviscerated dogs.
    And for the ladies they have fashion and cooking advice. Incoherent and amoral but very, very smart.


  • Comment number 20.

    I should clarify that PETA ae incoherent and amoral. I wouldn't level that accusation at ethicists like Peter Singer, or vegetarianism etc.
    (I think a reasonable case could be made for the latter). And CS Lewis opposed vivisection. It's just that groups like PETA seem to be focused on fashion and soundbites.


  • Comment number 21.

    Peter Klaver- Exactly. In response to PETA's very unscientific claim that eating meat makes one fat, sick and sexually substandard, my claim was equally unscientific and anecdotal.

    GV- I agree. PETA consists of the moronic and the gullible. Peter Singer is a fine example of a thoughtful philosopher, on the other hand. They're worlds apart. (Although I do admire PETA's attention-grabbing abilities.)

  • Comment number 22.

    PETA's ad is Evolutionary Psychology 101. I'm married. If I were to go home and tell Nicola that I'd become a vegetarian, I'd be out on my ear. Now I can't cook AND I can't buy take-away.
    Now what PETA is trying to do is use a viral advertising campaign (this ad would never make the super-bowl after Janet Jackson) to grab the attention of single white males. The idea is to convince single white males that they can use vegetarianism to signal that they are like those Doctor's on "Grays Anatomy"
    (i) Good income (ii) Reliable and sensitive (iii) Good in bed (iv) Healthy. A perfect mate.
    It's a very ambitious strategy.The ad basically reads - "Healthy female mates need healthy male mates for breeding and companionship. Preference will be given to those who are gatherers rather than hunters." If they can convince more women to advertise for mates in this way, presumably they could have some effect on single men.
    Another good reason to be glad to be married. Bring on the Big Macs.


  • Comment number 23.


    My issue is this premise that meat-eating is inherently unhealthy. It's balderdash. I have no problem with their marketing, actually, and I have no problem with a claim that perhaps on average the kinds of people who are vegetarians are more likely to be the kinds of people who care enough about what they eat to eat healthfully and therefore be healthier on average than meat-eaters: fine. But I'm a meat-eater and think I'm as healthy as any average vegetarian. Ergo, meat-eating is not inherently unhealthy.

    Some more convincing arguments for vegetarianism are ethical and moral (even then, I reject them because I reject their utilitarian foundations); but the above claim is a perfect example of foggy thinking.

  • Comment number 24.


    Good to see you back! and I see your post has been already dealt with by other posters on this thread(from all creeds and classes).

    However I could not let this pass...

    "Why oh why do taxpayers of all creeds and classes pay BBC presenters to convince us of their narrow personal viewpoints on evolution..."

    Dear oh dear! still as wilfully ignorant as ever! must really stick in your mouth all the programmes about Darwin. You see OT/PB etc we can all have our own viewpoint and should be able to express it(I know you have problems comprehending this very simple issue being an absolutist, religious fundamentalist and as such do not allow others to have non-OT thoughts), likewise OT we have had to put up with the incoherent, dishonest guff that you have served up to us regularly over the past two years.

    As I have told you before OT, you really shouldn't get so worked up over the whole evolution/science thing as intelligent Christians have no problem with it, so please try not to worry about it.

    Btw there are a lot of questions that you have left unanswered/ran away from...when you have a moment.

    Kindest regards


  • Comment number 25.

    It's not an argument that PETA are presenting, it's a lifestyle choice. Their site typically presents "arguments" that animals are not ours to experiment on, eat, or be entertained by. Then they promote both having pets and having them neutered/spayed. Spot the contradiction.
    What I find fascinating about the PETA movement is that it seems to exist for it's own sake. There is no coherent world-view or set of principles or policies. It's just one massive publicity stunt.
    So it's no surprise that these adverts emerge whilst the "PussyCat Dolls" are enjoying success. It's a very slick campaign, and I dare say that it took a group of very clever men with pony-tails some thought to come up with it. But what, exactly, is the point?


  • Comment number 26.

    GV- Check it out; my favorite libertarians of all:

    Penn & Teller on PETA.

  • Comment number 27.

    The school system won't let me in! Says it's too adult! John, what filth are you peddling?!!!

  • Comment number 28.

    Hi PERP,

    Maybe you can see another P&T clip here:


    Or maybe that wouldn't make it past the RE class filter either, seeing how it's full of science that makes good sense. :D

  • Comment number 29.

    Penn and Teller are great and it is heart-warming to see other aficionados!

    Their show on the Bible is also great...


  • Comment number 30.


    The school system won't let you in cos it blocks youtube. It blocks games sites too.


    The school system won't let you in cos it blocks you tube. It blocks games sites too! (did somebody mention RE?)

    DD (hi again)

    Got to hand it to Ben and Tiller - funny guys. It was even funny that they had 3 anti bible videos, sort of an anti trinity. Funny guys yeah, but stereo typical arguments - yawn!!


  • Comment number 31.

    Hello petermorrow,

    "The school system won't let you in cos it blocks you tube. It blocks games sites too! (did somebody mention RE?)"

    Just teasing the PERP a bit. :)

  • Comment number 32.


    They may be "stereo-typical" arguments but ones that are never answered...unless of course with a very healthy dollop of special pleading.


  • Comment number 33.

    Hi DD

    never answered?

    I haven't watched all three P and T videos, they sort of lost my attention after complaining about chapters one and two of Genesis, (so I did a quick youtube flick) and I'm sure I don't have answers to all the objections, but I do have answers to some of then, and they are not examples of 'special pleading'.

    I could, if you could be bothered and if I could be bothered, because I've answered it before on here, begin with the Genesis 1 and 2 'problem'.

    DD, honestly, not all Christians are into 'gaps' and 'special pleading'.


  • Comment number 34.

    Since we invoked the god of Science, does anyone know how much impact PETA has on animal experimentation? Is research being substantially hindered in the UK?

    G Veale

  • Comment number 35.

    "Do the fit and healthy have better sex? Well, it's an aerobic activity, increases the heart rate and respiration and requires muscle contractions in the pelvis and elsewhere, good blood circulation, some stamina and possibly even some contortion of the body. The fit and healthy are also more likely to be moderate in their alcohol consumption - I'll let you decide."

    "the claim ...eating meat makes people "fat, sick, and boring in bed"... is clearly not a scientific claim. But even anecdotally, it doesn't stand up. For example, I'm an enthusiastic meat-eater with a BMI of 19.1 who isn't sick and has had no complaints from the girl."

    The two quotes take competing views of good sex. One looks at physical measures (how often, time taken, etc) the other at satisfaction. And given that people can have a wide variety of expectations and needs when it comes to sex, it would seem much more sensible to simply ask how satisfied the consumer is with the product.

    Not that I want to start a debate on the topic (I'm far too Puritanical (-:!) but the simplistic equation of athleticism with good sex shouldn't go unchallenged. I could argue that trust and emotional intimacy are far more important. There's no physical measure that could decide on the difference. This is just down to taste so far as I can see.

    G Veale

  • Comment number 36.

    #35 True, the context and subjective experience is very important; but if a couple were to combine deep feelings of love, intimacy, trust, honesty, understanding and security WITH peak physical condition . . .

    But sex also can be enjoyed as a fun, guilt free, activity done purely for physical pleasure in its own right.

  • Comment number 37.

    Okay. Hypothetical field study.

    Let's say you have two couples, both with identical levels of trust, love, intimacy, and whatever.

    (Important: they could be identically nonexistent levels of trust and love and intimacy: if anecdotal evidence is to be believed, then sex with strangers or one-night stands or other promiscuous sexual behaviour can be sexually satisfying - some would say moreso than that experienced within committed relationships. So we don't care whether the two sets of couples are identical to each other in that both couples are strangers to each other, or identical in that they're both long-term committed couples; the point is that both couples would answer similarly when asked about their levels of trust and intimacy and love for their partners.)

    Then let's say that one couple is 'healthy' and the other is not. 'Couple A' is overweight, inactive, deficient in some nutritional levels, lacking in energy, whatever. Couple B are lean, active, and take care to eat food high in nutritional value. (Contrary to PETA's claim, we don't care if they're vegetarian or not.)

    All the 'love levels' being equal, 'Couple B' is having better sex, are they not?

  • Comment number 38.

    Oh dear, this is the debate that I wanted to avoid.

    (i) There's no way of measuring the experience of trust, intimacy etc. - so there's no way to know if athleticism would add more to the experience.
    (ii) Knowledge of another person's physical wants and needs seems essential to the physical experience. Presumably there is some sort added adrenaline rush on a one night stand. That would be down to the sense of adventure. That's a physical experience in itself. Physically which is more satisfying? The adrenaline rush or having your wants and needs reliably responded to? There is no way to tell.
    (iii) You're viewing the sexual experience as the goal. Fair enough, we'll get back to that. But sex can also be a means to other goods like a deeper relationship, a sign of commitment and trust etc. Now which should a person value more? The experience or the significance of the act? There is no value neutral way to decide.
    (iv) From the point of view of evolutionary psychology and Judaeo-Christianity sex is FOR family. *Maybe* it is ethically permissable to use it recreationally outside the context of family (as opposed to mere reproduction. Bonds need to be formed that facilitate child rearing). Analogously food is for nutrition, but can be enjoyed for the experience.
    It seems extremely odd that this obvious point needs to be restated repeatedly (I'm aiming this comment at PETA et al, not John and Tim who were just responding to my post). If I ask my pupils what food is for, they say to stay alive. Ask them what sex is for, they say pleasure. Both food and sex can be pleasant (otherwise men would lose our reasons for marrying - and probably living). But that's not what they are FOR. Surely it's harmful to lose sight of that?

    G Veale

  • Comment number 39.


    It simply isn't as simple as your "experiment" suggests. Ethics and "love" aside -

    It depends what "couple B" want out of the experience, if they know what the others needs are or care if their own are met, if they value visually attractive partners and what their age and culture and personal taste define as visually attractive, whether or not they like athletic experiences, how much their tastes coincide, whether or not their day jobs are tiring, how much free time they can set aside, whether or not they want to capture a long term partner or just have fun, and the financial income of the male partner (if Daniel Nettle's research is reliable this is more important that male fitness or attractiveness for many females. In China.) Etc Etc Etc

    There are too many determinants. Sex is an extremely complex social interaction. To reduce it to a physical act, as is implied by the PETA slogan, is juvenile. But then PETA is a puerile organisation.


  • Comment number 40.

    Just some quick comments to explore the arguments in #38 - I agree with some of what you put: e.g. "But sex can also be a means to other goods like a deeper relationship, a sign of commitment and trust etc. Now which should a person value more? The experience or the significance of the act?"

    If everyone is happy and satisfied from their individual sexual experiences then physical condition doesn't come into it; however, to use a rough analogy of attempting to run up stairs – those that are very overweight, heavy smokers and unfit to boot will find it laborious, unenjoyable etc whilst those that are fit may be able to run up and down several times and also enjoy the purely physical feeling of exertion that results. I think that's the basic argument here.

    As for what is sex for – one answer is that it is how a female's eggs are fertilised, but is also for enjoyment; humans are not the only animals that engage in it for its own sake.
    However, thanks to another human organ, our brain/minds, other ways have been found by which eggs can be fertilised etc without recourse to a sex act.
    It could also be argued that sex primarily is a way of establishing intimacy and relationship bonds with a partner.
    Throughout history not every m/f couple could produce children; large numbers today have to turn to IVF to attempt to do so.
    As someone that has consciously chosen to remain child-free (and not to accidentally impregnate) I would dispute that sex is FOR procreation, we have a choice; it hasn't been in my case; and I have several friends (female as well as male) that have chosen a similar lifestyle. Procreation isn't compulsory.

    In #39 you're really looking at how sex partners (mates) are chosen - in particular how females choose mates that they'll grant sexual access (and therefore whose genes may mix with theirs, if they wish) to.
    For males being able to attract mates etc can be seen as a signifier of status, wealth, physique etc. But that's different from actually having sex.

  • Comment number 41.

    The research actually focuses on the enjoyment of sexual intercourse

    Pollet, T.V. and Nettle, D. (2009). "Partner wealth predicts self-reported orgasm frequency in a sample of Chinese women" in Evolution and Human Behavior

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    I should point out that the paper is not as dodgy as it sounds (I really wish they'd given it a different title now I have to refer someone to it). And may only apply to China.

    As to the purpose of sex, what we choose to do is one thing. But objectively it has certain functions, and these are tied into reproduction. Mate selection goes beyond reproduction, as human children need significant amounts of nurture to survive and thrive. So the right choice of mate impacts on the pffsrings chances of surviving and reproducing themselves.

    I describe all that in value-neutral terms. As a Christian I would want to say much, much more. But that would involve discussing the rationality of Christian Ethics, the rationality of Christianity and conservative interpretations of Christianity. That would take the thread way off course. (For myself I would rather ethically evaluate a sexual relationship as a whole, rather than indivdual sexual acts. A "one night stand" is a very limited relationship, at the very least. But that's just my take on Biblical Ethics and it clearly depends on many assumptions about morality and human nature).

    I certainly don't want to criticise anyone's sexual practices. Obviously it's none of my business. Of course you may have excellent reasons for remaining childless, perhaps even religious reasons. And maybe I'm wrong about Christian ethics, and something like John's libertarianism is true ("If it hurts none do what thou wilt").
    My point is that sex and reproduction are inextricably linked. If we need to remind ourselves of that *as a culture* something has gone horribly wrong with our thinking. If *as a culture* we value recreation and pleasure more than future generations then we've got a problem.

    G Veale

  • Comment number 42.


    There is no "problem" with the two separate creation myths of Genesis as evidently they are creation myths and was first noted by Augustine and by Christians ever since. The thing is that some Christians use a very healthy dollop of special pleading in an attempt to get over the "problem". The same way that Muslims use special pleading to get over the many inconsistencies in the Koran, Mormons with the book of Mormon etc ad nauseum.


  • Comment number 43.

    # 41 (I didn't mod you BTW)
    Yet females well past childbearing age, those unable to have children (and couples with grown up children, that don't want any more) continue to engage in sex - as do gay men and women (something we've avoided discussing so far).

    The findings of the Pollet et al paper: "In a large representative sample of the Chinese population, we found evidence that women's self-reported orgasm frequency increases with the income of their partner." I think could well apply in the West too.
    Hence (mainly) wealthy, successful older men attracting younger women as partners (I tend to the view that if you want to see how well you're doing in life, the best indicator is looking at whose sharing your bed - people tend to find partners at their own 'level'; to put it in unsophisticated terms.), but I imagine that competition often means that value is placed by the man on a woman's physical attractiveness, health, energy etc.
    Clearly there will be differences between cultures as to what constitutes physical attractiveness, and between individuals as to desirable characteristics in partners. But this is by-the-by.

    Your point that If "as a culture" we value recreation and pleasure more than future generations then we've got a problem. Hmm, I think we'd need a whole thread to discuss that. (It also reads as if some key words are missing as well? "More than the ???WHAT??? of future generations"?)

    And 'Christian Ethics', we'd need a whole thread for that too.
    You may have noticed they vary from faith to faith, church to church, and in time too.
    In the early Roman Church the tension was between eros and agape. If sexual relationships had to occur, then sex had to be channelled soley into procreation.
    Refer to Hebrew Scriptures and they authorized not only polygamy (for Abraham, Isaac, Esau, Gideon, Jacob, Rehaboam, Jehoram, David, Solomon and Moses, among others) but also the use of surrogate child bearers (Genesis 16) ["Sarai said unto Abram - I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her."] and requires that a woman be a virgin when she is married; if she has had sexual relations before that then she's to be stoned to death. [Deuteronomy 22:13-21].
    Deuteronomy [22:28-29] also requires that a virgin woman who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist.
    I see the Old Testament as being of only minor historical and anthropological interest; the beliefs, actions and customs of an ancient desert tribe in one small part of the world.

    In the New Testament Jesus is portrayed as being quite resolute in opposing divorce (yet European cultures have had ways of circumventing that for centuries) but he said nothing on homosexuality, abortion etc. The Churches claim the Christian message is of love and compassion, in which case that should mean accepting differences between people too. But I can't see any overwhelming argument why I should accept either a literal or liberal interpretation of any testament, of any religion, as the sole basis for guiding my actions. (I find them very inadequate too.)

    I suspect that you think that 'secuarism' equals 'immorality'?
    I don't agree. I have thought quite deeply (I hope!) about my own moral code. I've even written it out; it is a work in progress, as is my life.

    I put it on the Web solely as my own thinking to contribute to a wider debate.
    Society (and individuals) should be having a more vigorous on-going discussion about ethics and morality, and the principles that guide our thinking. Perhaps we agree on that?

  • Comment number 44.

    I'm quite confused about the real points of debate here, and I suspect there isn't really that much debate at all (certainly there's a lot to discuss though).

    Really, starting with PETA's claim, we can begin to generalise more, from 'Vegetarians have better sex' to the real point, which is 'Healthy people have better sex'. In assessing the truth of that claim, I think we'd have to add the words 'on average' to the sentence: 'Healthy people have better sex on average than unhealthy people' - why is this posited to be the case? - because sex is a physical act with physical requirements that make the act easier to enjoy in a state of healthfulness.

    On the question of what sex is FOR, it depends what you mean. If you mean, 'Why does sex exist, in evolutionary terms?', then the answer is quite clearly that it exists to enable this form of procreation. Why is it pleasurable? Because of the evolutionary advantage that it produces. But, 'What is sex for?' could also just as easily mean, 'What is a human being's purpose when he/she engages in sexual activity?' The answer is that pleasure is as much of a 'purpose' as procreation.

    In fact it could be argued that the purpose of sex is - 99 percent of the time (or some such percentage) - for pleasure, not procreation. In developing countries sex results in procreation without much planning at all; the purpose was likely pleasure. In developed countries sex is very deliberately intended for either procreation and/or pleasure at different times, and many orders of magnitude more often for the latter than for the former.

  • Comment number 45.

    I've been moderated?!! For providing a link to a scientific paper? Someone tell PK, he'll love the irony.

    Does somebody out there think that "orgasm" is a rude word? Let's get something clear - *I* am the Puritanical Zealot! And orgasm is a scientific term. They provide one measure of sexual satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction is important on some planets!!! For pities sake...

    Anyhoo, SheffTim
    (i)Thanks for an adult conversation
    (ii)No, I don't equate atheism with immorality. But I'll look at the link. (www.infidels.org have an excellent exchange https://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/great-debate.html%29
    (iii) I think we're agreed that health is one determinant among many when it comes to sexual satisfaction. (Although it may be worth asking how healthy the young lady pictured above is. Her bone structure is very clearly defined under the lighting, so I'd place a bet on her being underweight. Yet I imagine that most westernised heterosexual men would rate her as very attractive.)
    (iv) Christian views of sex have not been monolithic. Certainly the Hebrew scriptures have a healthy attitude to physical pleasure and sexuality. And Paul isn't the puritan that many
    envisage. We do need to remember that reliable methods of birth control
    are very recent. Large families were encouraged in Judaism. So a divide between sex for pleasure and sex for children would not really be obvious to the Jewish people and the Earliest Churches.
    (v) Early Christianity was also forming it's views in a culture that in many places valued the intellectual over the physical. So it was not a case of Christian Spirituality infecting a pagan philosophy at ease with sexual pleasure. Many of the Fathers simply baptised what seemed to be obvious at the time- lofty thoughts were seen to be better than physical enjoyment.
    As a parallel Christian book shops now stock so many sex guides, and books that draw lazy connections between Song of Solomon and contemporary wisdom on sexual experience, that a Christian couple might think that they have a divine obligation to be multi-orgasmic. Heaven forbid that we find something distinctive to say!
    (vi) Christian Ethics needs to be discussed a little more. I think the Deuteronomic texts need to be put in cultural and scriptural context. And the aim isn't to produce a univeral set of rules. We can discuss and debate this if you like, or leave it for another time.

    Thanks for the discussion so far.

    G Veale

  • Comment number 46.


    I wanted to point out that
    (a) PETA is a trivial, juvenile and vapid advertsing campaign that uses an puerile view of sex to promote it's "product". Whatever that is, I don't think anyone knows anymore.
    (b) You are, obviously, correct. Sex can be used for pleasure alone. But now that we have the Pill that's a lifestyle choice, not merely an activity that can be indulged in from time to time.
    (c) The problem is that if we - as a cultue - value sex as an experience more than we value sex as the possibility for new life and new love, then we have lost something of profound value.
    (d) Certainly popular culture values sex as an experience over sex as the possibility of family. Of course it can be valued for both. But when we *only* talk about the former, and hardly ever about the latter, then something is going wrong.
    (e) Also for the record. I don't envisage a vast and sinister secular conspiracy at work here. Sex sells. We use it to shift goods. So we lose track of what it is for.


  • Comment number 47.

    C'mon. Who moderated me? Who thinks Daniel Nettle is a pornographer?

  • Comment number 48.

    Hi Graham,

    I follow bits of W&T outside weekends, just little time for lengthy posts on the god and science thread.

    "I've been moderated?!! For providing a link to a scientific paper? Someone tell PK, he'll love the irony. "

    Indeed! I remember you complaining before when a certain pastor (whose real-life name we are not allowed to mention, Other Than that it starts with an M) censored one of your posts. Could it have been him again?

  • Comment number 49.

    I'm waiting on the obligatory e-mail frm the moderators. But I have to say, if it was for moral reasons I'll be furious.

  • Comment number 50.


    "The problem is that if we - as a cultue - value sex as an experience more than we value sex as the possibility for new life and new love, then we have lost something of profound value."

    You're suggesting that there's the possibility of a society that never produces offspring? Or that there's the possibility of a society that produces offspring by mistake and fails to embrace or love it? I'm just not sure what you think is the downside here.

  • Comment number 51.

    We lose a high view of family, we take an irresponsible attitude to sex, kids suffer the consequences.

  • Comment number 52.

    The offspring aren't mistakes in such a society- they become "choices" that "consumers" of sex make.

  • Comment number 53.

    Gotta go. Wife waiting. If my censor owns up, lash him in the meantime.

  • Comment number 54.

    post 52 is a bit OTT, but hopefully you know me well enough to get the gist of my position here John. Look forward to your thoughts.

  • Comment number 55.

    Hi GV. No idea why your comment got reported to the mods. It's happened to me before and the mods then let it back in, so it may re-appear.
    Out of curiosity:

    Christian Ethics, on what basis do you think they should be formulated? Be based on bibliology/theology?
    Do they rely on punishment or reward in an afterlife, belief in a divine authority or a doctrine of sin?
    What is their ultimate goal?
    How do they differ from those that spring from our capacity to make reasoned value judgements and weigh our actions against those values, without a belief in a God?

    What makes them uniquely 'Christian' in other words?
    And if the aim isn't to produce a universal set of rules, then what is it?

    Given the number of minds that have contributed to the debate on ethics, I doubt we'd contribute anything new. It may be more productive to swap reading lists.

    I'll read the 'infidels' papers; it's bookmarked - but time is limited, as I'm sure yours is too. (One day I'll donate the PC to a charity shop and settle down with a satisfyingly large pile of books.) It looks interesting.
    In exchange - in a similar vein - a debate between Lewis Wolpert and Richard Harries, if this software doesn't object to the ampersand.

  • Comment number 56.

    Hi Jayfurneaux

    Did you know that less than half of Britons believe in evolution? so says the BBC;-


    Please define narrow minded again for me, I am losing your plot here!

    Did anyone see the BBCNI CGI blockbuster on evolution?

    Did anyone see the NNC NI CGI blockbuster on ID - sorry there wasnt one.


    BTW Jay, how many of the thousands of scientists whose data was used in the IPCC report on climate change actually endorsed the conclusion their data was used to reach?

    Please can you supply figures to show how many climate experts there are in the world of science and how many are convinced that climate change is man-made?

    You will need to do some work to stand up your definition of narrow minded here.


    Previously there were some claims from this blog undermining reputable research which claimed that gay people could change sexuality;-


    That is pretty activist stuff, I suggest. I wonder what Masters and Johnston make of these comments about their work?

    Certainly the Royal College of Psychaitrists endorse clients seeking such counselling;-





  • Comment number 57.

    ps yes, in answer to your question, yes this blog is vegetarian.

  • Comment number 58.

    fyi Jay

    Here is the broad mainstream view of the Johnston and Masters work;-


  • Comment number 59.

    WOW! I've finally got round to viewing the ad - case made as far as I'm concerned.

    PETA do an excellent job of raising awareness of the appalling mistreatment of other animals by humans and are wholly to be commended. Can we have more ads like this, please.

    OT loving the fundamentalist verve with which you are interpreting 'The Newsletter' to make it mean what you want it to mean. The fact that people should be able to access help for unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction is a long way from endorsement of a cure for homosexuality or acceptance of the possibility of a change in base-line sexuality. Neither are remotely possible.

    Sex should befun - if you have to ask what it's 'for' then, to paraphrase Woody Allen, you're not doing it right. A lot of really brilliant sex is in the mind though and athleticism is not always everything: if your particular turn-on is a twenty stone granny, then a fit, lithe twenty year old just won't do the trick.

  • Comment number 60.


    I'm guessing that you haven't been won over by PETA's subtle arguments.

    Should I complain about your link to Masters and Johnsons sexually explicit work? Can you see any moral difference between the research you cite, and the research that I cited?

    The url is NOT broken. So I assume it is inappropriate. Would you please have the courtesy to tell me how it breaks the rules? Given that the Beeb has had much more explicit material on it's site? How is it any less inappropriate than the above link to the PETA ad, for example? Shouldn't Williams post also be removed? Can somebody *please* explain how this censorship works? It seems completely arbritrary.

    G Veale

  • Comment number 61.

    Actually OT, I have to be blunt. I find it extremely suspicious that my post is removed and then you appear. I don't believe that you will tell a direct lie, so can you tell me that it wasn't you? And if it was you, would YOU have the common decency to explain what was offensive about the article?

    If it was you I can only hope that it had nothing to do with the word "evolution".

    G Veale

  • Comment number 62.


    Thanks for the link. I would have objections to Harries ethics, so I suppose I would have to begin by saying that "Christian Ethics" covers a multitude of viwpoints. There isn't one take - even among conservatives.

    I'll get back to your questions this avo.


  • Comment number 63.

    Graham, there were arguments?

  • Comment number 64.


    Actually, Will and Testament may have saved my job. I used to send my students to the PETA site so they could aquaint themselves with some of the more extreme positions on hunting etc (comparing a pigeon shoot to the holocaust, that sort of thing.) And, to be honest, look at the cool gory pictures.

    We're just about to start animal rights again, and I hadn't looked at the site. So if my classes had logged on the that advertisement
    (a) RE would become the most popular subject in School
    (b) I'd have a lot of explaining to do to my Board of Governors.

    W&T to the rescue.


  • Comment number 65.


    It is suspicious that OT is back and posts are being mucked about with-maybe you posted some Un OT thoughts?

    Dear oh dear OT!?

    Still as wilfully ignorant and full of fallacies as ever!

    "Did you know that less than half of Britons believe in evolution? so says the BBC;-"

    Yawn! this old canard again-you have been banging on about this for the past two years-yawn. Yes OT we know people are silly and ignorant-so what! 50% of Britons also believe in astrology therefore...

    "Please define narrow minded again for me, I am losing your plot here!"

    Well *you* are narrow-minded! you have given many examples as well as many examples of your dishonesty. You lost the plot long ago.

    "Did anyone see the BBCNI CGI blockbuster on evolution?"

    yes wasn't it marvellous!

    "Did anyone see the NNC NI CGI blockbuster on ID - sorry there wasnt one."

    Errr of course not!:-/ because it's not science-it's as *simple* as that! Incidentally OT you have given us numerous examples of how much dishonest guff ID and creationism is-I have thanked you before and must thank you again.

    As you know there are many points that you have left unanswered-you keep running away-you are only compounding your dishonesty.

    Please read the words of Jesus on religious hypocrites.



  • Comment number 66.

    Oh and OT on the other thread Jay was talking about radiometric dating, we were eagerly awaiting your pronouncements on the "assumptions behind radiometric dating" and how only a "few labs" did radiometric dating but...you as ever ran away! :-/


  • Comment number 67.

    PeterK m48

    I think it is time to desist with the links to a certain Pastors blog. The pastor in question (on his blog and on here) has denied being OT/PB. PB/OT strenuously denied being the pastor in question. If they are indeed the same person that would make OT a terrible hypocrite and a liar. As you are well aware PeterK OT is a TRUE Christian and as such would never, never tell a falsehood or behave in a hypocritical manner.

    Kindest regards


  • Comment number 68.


    When you come to the W&T bloggers Darwin Day dinner tomorrow, bring me a new irony meter. You owe me one, as mine overheated and then melted when I read post 67.

    Do you think his wife Monica knows what he's up to on this blog?


  • Comment number 69.

    Nicola. Her name is Nicola.
    And yes she does.

  • Comment number 70.

    The survey that OT refers to is full of holes.
    At most it shows that most Britons are confused about the age of the Earth, don't like Dawkins style of Atheism, and don't think that material forces alone produced the complexity of the living world.
    The questions did not ask if a literal understanding of Genesis was essential to science (a core YEC belief), or if repondents could believe in Flood Geology. It did not describe ID correctly. The question on Atheistic Evolution was bizarre. The description of Theistic Evolution wouldn't rule out Intelligent Design.

    Make inferences to the British populations Creation Theology or lack thereof if you like. But the results struck me as anomalous, and having read the survey I think I can see why.

    Shoddy, shoddy work.

    G Veale

  • Comment number 71.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 72.

    Hilariously, the attached report concludes that
    "The results were complex, bearing out the hypothesis that people’s opinions in this matter are not necessarily well-formed or coherent."
    Well, if the survey itself is irreparably incoherent, what do you expect?

    I'm not at all surprised to find Denis Alexander's name attached to this. Don't get me wrong - he's very well informed on Science and Religion in general, an excellent scientific career, a sound evangelical, and a selfless man by all accounts. But he doesn't exactly follow the subtleties of the ID debate. In fact, he actually endorses a type of ID himself and yet seems oblivious to the fact.

    G Veale

  • Comment number 73.

    Hi Graham,

    I believe that there is some confusion. PeterK is not referring to your better half but the better half of another poster.

    The work is indeed shoddy in the survey Graham but that doesn't matter to OT, one must remember that he is always right.

    I wonder if OT would agree on equal time given to astrology in the classroom or in TV programming? Given that about 50% Britons give credence to this theory then it must obviously be true!

    I can remember watching Horizon recently on new developments on the study of our Solar System-perhaps you saw it to Graham?

    Did anyone see a programme giving the astrologers case?-No! did we see Mystic Meg or Russell Grant?-No!

    I can remember thinking how narrow-minded and biased BBC programmers are as they did not present a programme on astrology! Clearly this is a dreadful state of affairs and if I may be so bold-I believe this is a conspiracy.

    Perhaps Graham if creationists spent less time yapping and spent more time(indeed anytime) actually testing their explanations, getting them peer-reviewed, showing mineral/pharmaceutical companies the strength of their explanation-it would be better. However at the moment they are simply trying to get their "explanations" in the classroom-"explanations" that are that daft and useless that even don't use!utterly bonkers!



  • Comment number 74.

    Hiya PERP,

    I think there was a mixup in persons being referred to. I was referring to some definitely called Monica. See the 'About me' page on


  • Comment number 75.

    Gotcha, sorry about the mix up.
    Enjoy your meal tomorrow.


  • Comment number 76.

    Maybe the next time Graham?

    btw my better half is making an appearance tomorrow so there is no bar on partners.

  • Comment number 77.

    Aw now guys, you're making me sad I can't be there. That would've been fun.

  • Comment number 78.

    Hi John,

    There's nothing holding back some of the regulars here from having a Skype group chat sometime (although for Darwin Day evening itself I already have a cyber-date with my FSM buddies for that, feel free to suggest another time to the people here). Those physically separate locations are less of a problem in the internet age.

  • Comment number 79.

    Pete Morrow in answer to your question,

    what is the connection between darwinism, climate change and homosexuality?

    You might ask Sunday Sequence team because they seem to be three permenant fixtures on their agenda, especially darwinism and homosexuality.

    I like you have been tying to work out the connection for SS and this has been my conclusion.

    You have to be able to totally discredit genesis if you want to make inroads into cultural rejection of homosexual practise.

    As soon as you have convinced people that genesis means whatever the commentator wants it to mean, then you have really destroyed the foundation of the only real moral objection to homosexuality ie the story of sodom, which in the past few decades some radicals have defined as the sin of inhospitality.

    Of course this literally does mean that the commentator will make genesis mean whatever he wants it to mean. The words in the text become completely irrelevant and the commentator imposed his cultural values on the text.

    Language loses its meaning.

    The commentator is completely free to do this, but the product has zero to do with traditional judeo christian thought and will never find a home in the thinking of a growing church; this sort of theology is from people who have no active interest in building church communities, only justifying apostasy and scepticism ie falling away from the foundations, as the greek puts it.

    As well as turning the origin and meaning of the term sodomy on its head in every sense, this approach establishes an interpretation of scripture which allows every other reference to marriage and homosexual practise in the bible to be easily dismissed with a smile.

    What is the connection with climate change? pondered long on this one.

    The dismisall of traditional mainstream judeo christian belief and embracing of sexual practises outside of heterosexual marriage are clearly a reversion to a pagan worldview or neo paganism if you will.

    Many adherents of the environmental movement have a fervour which has them verging into the old tradition of earth worship. so again, to me it seems to be a neo-pagan link between the subjects. Vegetarianism is often in the same field (just stuck to a strict vegan diet for 3 weeks BTW, quite good).

    To me I think a major root of the problem could be that people buying into all this have never really experienced quality fatherhood, either earthly or heavenly.

    From what I am told by people with first hand experience in the liiestyle, this is normally a crucial factor - but not the only one - in nudging people towards homosexual desires.

    Does that answer your question Peter?

    In short, the answer is the zeitgeist, which the BBC buy into big time, on the whole.

    My solution is a loving heavenly father who gives peace beyond all understanding, security, affirmation, identity, purpose, forgiveness when I sin, grace to start again.

    I hate pollution and energy efficiency footprint has the benefit of teaching biblical frugality in my opinion, BTW.
    Also, I'm omnivorous and enjoy wine BTW Brian ;-).


    BTW anyone with any complaints about the horizon survey, please direct them to the BBC who commissioned it.

    PS Graham Veale, a little amnesia there? Arent you on record as saying you dont believe in evolution and believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

    Anyway the key part of genesis is not that subject, it is;
    - That God created the universe perfect
    - that man sinned and brought a curse on it all
    - That God promised a saviour to crush the serpents head
    - that God sacrified the first animals to provide righteous covering for Adam and Eve, ie skins.

  • Comment number 80.


    As an example of language losing all meaning in genesis, you might take Noah.

    The BBC approach to genesis says Noah was created as part of a myth to address peoples fears of not understanding natural disasters.

    The problem is that Christ and Peter both referred to Noah as a real person.

    So this approach obviously tears the spine out of your bible and leaves you satisfied regardless as you are left only with the liberal secular spectacles you wanted anyway.


  • Comment number 81.

    Peter- Skype group chat sounds like a great way to expand this community of malcontents. Maybe someone would be interested in setting something up sometime. :-)

  • Comment number 82.


    Genesis is a myth-it has no evidence to back it up-it is not part of an agenda or conspiracy. Your special pleading does not work. The "evidence" presented by Biblical creationists(eg. those 174 dentists from AIG) is that stupid and useless even they don't use-which when you think about is mind-boggingly stupid.



    ps. Julius Caesar and Tiberius (and other prominent Romans) referred to Romulus and Remus as real people therefore they were real-obviously!:-/

  • Comment number 83.


    "this community of malcontents."


    This community of malcontents!

    For goodness sake.

    I am outraged.

    Not happy about that description at all.


  • Comment number 84.


    No amnesia. You don't really understand my position at all if you think I don't believe in Adam and Eve as having real, historical referents. Same goes for Noah.

    However Flood Geology is credulous pseudoscience and theology, based on ludicrous eisegesis. It probably seemed like a good idea in the 1960s.

    But my complaints about the survey assume *no* position on Creation/Evolution. A Young Earth Creationist could make exactly the same complaint.

    I assume you complained about my post, and I would like an explanation.

    G Veale

  • Comment number 85.


    I'm a bit confused by 79. If you are a homosexual you are more likely to believe in Climate Change? Or vice - versa? Al Gore and James Lovelock needed to spend more time with dad?
    John Houghton? The Faraday Institute? They're in on the neo-pagan conspiracy as well?

    G Veale

  • Comment number 86.

    Oh. If you're going to accuse me of being liberal and secular, fair enough. But keep in mind that by accusing me of posting inappropriate URLs and denying my faith, a person does my reputation damage.

    You see I make my faith, my positions, my profession and *my name* very clear. There is no confusion about my identity.

    Graham Martin Veale
    Co Armagh

  • Comment number 87.

    sorry Graham

    Honestly, I never even read your post, never mind complained about it...

    Also, the refs to liberal commentators were in no way directed at you as I know we share the same views on evolution and Adam and Eve.


  • Comment number 88.

    also Graham

    ref post 85, my thoughts were about what links these three items for Sunday Sequence in particular, so faraday inst and al gore etc are not directly relevant.

    I do think there is a link between establishing a liberal theology in genesis and the liberal approach to sexuality. I reckon many people buy these items in relevant pairs.

    It isnt hard to see how these three issues come under neo-paganism though in SS;-

    - Normalisation of sex outside heterosexual marriage
    - Religious approach to environmentalism that displaces the relevant biblical mandate/worldview
    - Any certainty that God created man, by whatever means, ID/creationism/theistic evolution.

    BTW I dont go in for conspiracies, I think movements like these are spiritual.

    Also it aint accurate to call me a young earther as I dont feel qualified to reach a conclusion on this matter as it stands to be honest.


  • Comment number 89.


    Profuse apologies. I feel rather red-faced.

    Rather relieved to find out it wasn't you.


  • Comment number 90.


    Was having a bit of fun. Got the impression that post wasn't as well thought out as you mught have liked, so I couldn't resist the temptation.


  • Comment number 91.

    However OT you have continually made the same dishonest YEC arguments over the past two years.

    And really OT I am slightly disappointed that you did not thank me for defending you against that atheist Klaver. If he is right you would be a liar and a hypocrite-even more so since you do like to preach at others...

    Anyway...if you believe Genesis is real, the flood happened etc then simply show the evidence.

    Kindest regards


  • Comment number 92.

    Orthodox-tradition, my dear, dear shamed-into-desperate-anonymity pastor,

    DD is right to highlight your disingenuousnes. For two years you've quoted YECs like Andrew Snelling, posted links to AiG nonsense pages, held up every YEC dishonesty in the book (still waiting for your views on radiometric dating, and the labs that carry it out). Wouldn't it fit your character far better is you kept foregoing any degree of honesty in your fundamentalist defence of Magic Man?

    I keep feeling the urge to post on Monica's blog. What do you think she would say if she found out what you've been up to on the blog here?


  • Comment number 93.

    Peter Klaver!

    You unscrupulous, scurrilous, moral-less atheist!

    I did call you out before about referring to OT as a certain Pastor! Obviously you did not listen! Both OT and the Pastor in question have both denied being the same person-so if you are correct that would mean that OT told a lie. Also OT in his recent posts has been going on about his moral superiority and that of the Bible(and going on about others people "liiestyles" geddit Peter Lie Styles?)well if you are right Peter that would make OT some sort of sanctimonious, self-righteous hypocrite, indeed the very type of person that Jesus spoke out against. This is obviously not true! please desist Peter!

    Kindest regards


  • Comment number 94.

    DD, you immoral atheist seductor! You're trying to steal him away from Monica and me again, aren't you?! Sucking up to him with your pretense of kindness. Well you can find your own pastor to play with. No more of these deplorable threesomes for him, you and Monica!

  • Comment number 95.

    Er, guys, I know that you've had probs with OT and another guy called PB. And maybe another guy who's the same as both.

    And, yep, I don't like posts being censored. And I don't like being
    But I don't think a blogger referencing AiG makes the blogger a liar.

    AiG *are* dishonest. You want to try being a Christian who disagrees with them. Check your irony meter PK - *I'm* the dangerous liberal in their world. You're just misled by Satan. (Of course all the bloggers know the left wing secularist ideology I represent). But it's always possible a blogger might think they are honest.

    I know there are other times when you feel arguments and evidence have been ignored and misrepresented. I think you're on more solid ground there.

    But, c'mon guys. Bringing a guys wife into it? That *seems* a bit personal. Maybe one or both of you know OT or PB f-2-f. So maybe it's an in joke.

    However, if it's not, and even if you've very good reason for the onslaught - wouldn't you have provided be a very good reason to preserve anonymity? And to complain about posts? Couldn't this backfire?


  • Comment number 96.

    Thanks for that Graham

    No they dont know me face to face and it aint an in joke...

    For the record, I dont feel qualified to pass judgment on the complexities of estimating the age of the earth.

    I have certainly debated points from AIG with the opposite views on this blog to see which argument might be the strongest.

    I know that might sound strange as sometimes we give the impression that posters on this blog know everything about everything and are absolutely certain about every post.

    That is hardly credible.

    Thanks again Graham and sorry for the confusion I caused ref post 89.



  • Comment number 97.

    I'd be very, very surprised if there was any hurt intended. Just a bit of mischief making gone a bit OTT, I wouldn't worry about it.

    DD has said that he likes you a lot, and he's a bit of a leg-puller.


  • Comment number 98.

    Hi Graham,

    It is not the fact that anyone quotes AIG that makes them a liar, it would be if someone said that they "never found the position convincing" yet for over a year posted links to AIG and prominent YECists and did tell everyone confidently about the *actual* age of the earth. Someone is being disengenuous here and it so not Peter nor myself.

    OT is PB that is no problem and he would have no problem admitting to that. However there is a certain Pastor who OT/PB has denied being(as has the Pastor)so...if indeed they are the same person that would make OT...how shall I put it...less than honest. Especially so when this person would preach at us(and Christians) about the superiority of his own "beliefs").

    For the record I don't agree with the wife thing.




  • Comment number 99.


    why do you not agree with the wife thing?

    just curious...

    Also can you point to any post of mine where I affirmed what age I personally thought the earth to be?

    I really dont think that will be possible, for the reasons outlined above.

    Think about it again and you will see that all my posts are consistent.


  • Comment number 100.

    btw Graham you are quite right, this whole thing could backfire....



    Arent there also rules/laws against these things in Edinburgh too?


Page 1 of 2

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.