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.

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 ?

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".

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.

That IS a great line!



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

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

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?

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.

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!

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

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

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.