The journey from there to here
Published on August 28, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Misc

On another blog, a blogger stated that "their God" loves gays. Besides wondering if they have little wooden tiki guys they worship, that allow them to definitively state what their God does and doesn't like (eg: "God likes broccoli", "God likes to watch Wapner at 7"), I have to wonder why they would think God loves gays, when nature clearly does not.

See, the ultimate goal of a species in regards to natural selection is its own advancement. This can only happen when people are procreating (I could use coarser terms, but this is a PG rated blog, and, well, I'm sure MOST of you get the picture. If not, there are trade magazines that can help you with that). Now, usually to reproduce, a species must produce surplus to account for attrition due to top level predators. Fortunately, my good friends Colt, Smith, and Wesson have allowed us to veto that whole attrition process in a rather effective way. However, the fact remains that nature wants us to procreate.

Well, it goes without saying that one can only procreate when one of each gender is selected in the...err, mating process. Can't do it with same gender partnerships. Doesn't work. And enough people have tried to say this is pretty conclusive at this point.

So if God created nature, then God could have created nature so that His chosen people could procreate. And if God loved gays so much, he'd let 'em have babies.

But Elton John remains childless!


Comments (Page 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Aug 28, 2007
I think you are trying to find a polite way to tell me to fuck off and you don't care what I think or how I feel


Nope. If I were telling you to fuck off, I'm perfectly capable of doing so.

You and I just see Loca differently, that's all. Wouldn't be the first time we shared different perspectives.
on Aug 28, 2007
~dons Christian hat~


~removes Christian hat~


LW: your hats, your head and your hands are getting worn out and tired.   
on Aug 28, 2007
LW: your hats, your head and your hands are getting worn out and tired.


LOL TA
on Aug 28, 2007
What kinda bugs me is so few saw the deliberate lightheartedness of this. I could have approached it so many different ways, but I thought invoking Rain Man as well as Colt, Smith, and Wesson (I have never in my life ownbed a gun!) was pretty damned funny. At least singr got the "Wapner" joke!

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.
on Aug 29, 2007
D'oh!
on Aug 29, 2007
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.
on Aug 29, 2007
Since nature discriminates against gays so heinously, it is up to the government to equal the playing field!!! :~D


     
on Aug 29, 2007
If you think I'm biased and inconsistent it's only because I am.


Awesome. I'm going to steal that for next time I'm in an argument.
on Aug 29, 2007
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."?
on Aug 29, 2007
Oi Jytheir,


'Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either--women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men--all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it--emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.'

What verse is that, Aeryck?


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 ?
on Aug 29, 2007
Anyone wishing to castigate me can now begin. Gid wants to see it, so have at me, ladies...I can take it.


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.
on Aug 29, 2007
You've mentioned that you avoid Locas blog


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".
on Aug 29, 2007
"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.
on Aug 29, 2007
Yes, you have been harsh to Loca.


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.
on Aug 29, 2007
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?


Mutations occur, kingbee

Like Ginger kids!
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6