nature (and, by extension, nature's god) very clearly doesn't hate gays. otherwise why would it (and, by extension, he, she or it) keep making so many of them? or why hasn't the trait been bred outta existence?

i'm not aware of a single human population in which that's the case. based on what little research i've done, it appears as a certain percentage of all humans past and present have been or are currently sexually attracted to or by persons of the same sex.

     

Awesome. I'm going to steal that for next time I'm in an argument.

Nothing like a great opportunity to take the bible and use it for a purpose other than threatening someone with eternal hell fire.

Didn't that Jesus guy pretty much say "Hey man...eye for an eye days are over. It's turn the other cheek time now."?

Oi Jytheir,



It might have been written by Bono of U2, but it was infact written by Eungene H. Peterson - Professor Emeritius of Spiritual Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Yeoow! From what I understand, he has attempted to give more of a contemporary conversational style to the literal text of the Bible. It is not street, but it really does make the literal texts blossom with meaning, not that it is 100% accurate... hehehe... though some might swear it is... chortel...chortel... chortel yet again.

This is what Bono thought of 'The Message' < the name of it.

"There's a translation of Scriptures that this guy Eugene Peterson has undertaken. It has been a great strength to me. He's a poet and a scholar, and he's brought the text back to the tone which the books were written."

Pretty kewl, I thought. I have checked out it's value with a number of scholars and they are very impressed with the interpretive style that Prof. Peterson employed...some saying he has stayed close to the Greek - which Greek I have no idea, think it might be olde Westcott and Hort...??? (I just got my soft cover copy yesterday...it used to be on my E Sword...so that is why I am so chatty.)

Oh, your question it is from the New Testament, Romans Chapter 1 verse 26 and 27 ... I left out the first two words... 'Worse followed.' (or I might have had to post up the entire chapter...it is worthy of a read as is the entire book of Romans in this style. Have you ever read the NT, in Pigdin English....it is very comical...ay man ?

That wasn't the point, LW. I was using it as an illustration. I was being portrayed as "big, bad Gid attacking poor defenseless Loca", and my point was that what I said was not any worse than anything that happens here on a regular basis. I didn't, and I don't, think the characterization was REMOTELY fair, and was just pointing out the inconsistencies. That was (is) all. More than half the comments on this thread have not revolved around the article, but around my mean attack on someone I did not mention in a thread I did not link. For what it's worth, I do apologize for bringing your name into it; I only did it after the piling on began.

I have been told Loca is off limits. That's fair enough. I want no interaction with her, whatsoever, then, on threads she or I control. But I will say this: if she's THAT thin-skinned, then politics is NOT the right area for her to discuss.

Perhaps I should have said I avoid commenting on Loca's blog. I read most every piece that comes up, but I steer clear of saying anything because of the flareups of the past.

I honestly didn't see this as the vile attack blog that Brandie and Loca apparently see it as. I saw it as an opinion, and a fairly satirical one at that. Whatever. JU needs a bad guy, so I guess I'm the "flavor of the day".

"Anyone wishing to castigate me can now begin. Gid wants to see it, so have at me, ladies...I can take it."

Aw, just ladies?

" Romans Chapter 1 verse 26 and 27 "

Thanks Aeryck. I have "The Message Remix" (I think that's Eugene Peterson) that I use as a reading Bible(er, sometimes) and to find passages that I want to read in other translations.

"As to attacking, I did not mention the name of the blogger OR the name of the thread. I'd think if I chose to attack, I could have done it better than that."

Your attack was on the other thread, and done quite well. So we know you can do better, Gid, don't worry about that. But, you know, we read over there, and we read over here, and despite what people think, a new thread does not reset everyone's minds. We all still remember what you said over there.

Yes, you have been harsh to Loca. Whether it was deserved or not is up to you, Gid.

But if there's anyone who deserves a good talking to it's someone who says they're a Christian but doesn't have a problem with sin.

Harsh? Yes. I don't deny that for a second. But again, I contend, if you're going to hold strong views, you HAVE to be prepared for it. And you rightly point out that my harsh response was on the other thread, not this one. Again, nothing out of line for JU.

I really didn't want this to become a referendum on individuals, but it has. I decided a long time ago, though, that I need to stay the course regardless. I didn't sign up for JU to make friends, and while I appreciate them, I won't self censor to make them. To her credit, that appears to be the same way Loca feels. Not speaking for her here, just stating that if making friends was her primary goal, she picked an odd way to go about it...lol!

To say that I don't like Loca would be a HORRIBLE misstatement. I asked her to stay off my blog because I don't want to have half of JU pile on me because I dare disagree with her. I actually enjoy SOME of the back and forth, and don't dislike her perspective. But if it will cause that much controversy, it's better that we not interact. Period.

The things that got me are that: 1) Loca is not in any way defenseless. She has proved herself, repeatedly, to be more than capable of holding her own in a dispute; and 2) I'm not that bad. I didn't engage in ad hominem attacks, I stated my opinion. And on THIS thread, I tried to do so lightheartedly, although a few people missed it. I'd shut it down except that is the absolutely WORST thing to do on JU when there's controversy involved.

I've really spent way more time on this thread than I'd hoped, honestly.

Mutations occur, kingbee

Like Ginger kids!

That IS a great line!



Hey...shrimp gets you hell fire...why not bum loving!

I had added to this but it seems to have gotten lost. My point is that we are ALL sinners. There is no one who is righteous who can get up on their high horse and judge other sinners because they are sinners too. I don't think that gay sex is a sin. I think that's the way they were made. I don't think it was a choice. That is my opinion. You can agree or disagree.



God doesn't see us as women or men. We are not our physical bodies. We are spiritual beings who live in a spiritual world who just happen to be in physical bodies at this time.



This is the issue. That is your OPINION. Just because you can read the same bible verse and get something completely different out of it than I do, doesn't mean you are right and I am wrong.



This is what I call overreacting. I don't think you are a jackass, you just play one on the computer. (That was a joke - lighten up, Francis) Geesh.

Great point, Ock. I'm sure that you somehow took that "out of context".

lol.

Oh, I got it.

The thing that mitigates this is that YOU didn't petition me because I was being a "big bad a--hole". I've never seen you not be able to take my exchanges, Loca. What I said last night was in the heat of the moment. You are, of course, more than welcome here, but NOT under the condition that I handle you with kid gloves. You are MORE than capable of defending yourself, as I've seen you do time and time again.

If I truly cross the line, I would be more than willing to acknowledge it. I did so with shades shortly after her response. But if I have a difference of opinion, you're GONNA hear about it!

Fair enough?

Again, I could write a long article on the things Jesus really DID say. And there would be a lot of libs and a lot of conservatives squirming in their seats. Because Jesus was pretty harsh towards some people for a guy everyone wants to cast as this big, lovable hippie. I'm sure the moneychangers with the scars from the cat o'nine tails would attest to that!

Actually, it's not that. There are verses before that. There are verses after that. You can't just take twenty words out of a long discussion and sum up the discussion by those twenty words.

I don't have time to write an essay on this, honestly. Suffice it to say that while God is very forgiving, to take it for granted that He will automatically overlook sin could be a big mistake.

But if it's not a sin to begin with, he doesn't HAVE to overlook it.

C'mon, write the essay, I want something to read...

Loved the Article Gid.  I guess I have read you enough to know when you are being sarcastic. 

But the comments were worth the price of popcorn!

Har, har, har. Har, har, har. Dr. Guy, you're so funny.

I suppose I may burn for thinking this is so darn funny.

It's really not that big of a deal to me, jythier. While I don't mind controversy, honestly, I don't want to put a bunch of fuel out there for ugly people who will misuse it. While I don't agree fundamentally with the comment that inspired this article, I DO generally agree that as Christians we need to love first and let God worry about the judging.

So on this one I'll hold back. I'd rather see people take Loca's position on this particular issue than beat gays up and leave 'em to die a la Matthew Sheppard.

excluding genetic disorders (such as hereditary syndromes...huntington's, for instance), how likely is it antagonistic or disadvantageous mutations would be so consistently repetitious?

Meh.

Google "Ginger kids" and you'll have your answer!

nature don't discriminate against anything. unfortunately, that's not true of the aggressively self-righteous straight humans in league with latents and others fearfully insecure in their own sexuality.