WARNING: This blog contains copious amounts of adult GAY material. If that's offensive to you, please leave now. All pix have been gleaned from the internets so, if you see a picture of yourself that you don't wish to have posted here, please leave a comment on the post and I will remove it with my apologies.

I REPEAT: If you see a picture of yourself that you don't wish to have posted here, please leave a comment on the post and I will remove it with my apologies.

Sunday, March 30, 2025

2025.0330.0002...






6 comments:

  1. In addition to all the problems with translation and authentication of the King James version of the Bible, it's pretty well established that king James himself was homosexual. So the modern fundies are venerating a version of the Bible that was commissioned by a gay man. That wouldn't necessarily conflict with their belief that the KJV translation is divinely inspired, but I wonder how many of them are aware of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There was no such thing as a "gay man" in the seventeenth century. At least not as you intend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon@6:03am - Do you REALLY think there weren't homosexuals in the 17th century?!

      Delete
  3. Anon 6:03 there sure as hell was.
    Homosexuals of all kinds have been around for eons, you better get use to it !
    It’s very apparent that you ignore facts and the truth. Strange how many follow the words of a king and his lackeys, and not the word of God they supposedly worship. Just like the bs Bible put out by Trump and his lackeys.
    -CA jock

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Anon is denying the long-term existence of homosexuality. What he has in mind is some form of excruciatingly boring hair-splitting about the exact significance of the word "gay". I've seen that on the net from time to time, but the details are too dull to remember. In any case, I think everybody can tell what I meant.

      Delete

Nice you must be or delete your ass I will.