Can it be defined such that all interested parties (i.e. Christians and knowledgeable non-believers) agree AND such that it is a useful definition?
Your analogy is still flawed, unless you would care to argue that God damns people to Hell despite their desire to be with Him. And if that’s the case, you can have your God and I’ll take a being with compassion regardless of faults of His/Her/Its/Their followers:mad:
Name a few, then:)
Cite?
No. These are your assertions, not mine or anyone else’s. Your claim, you do the legwork. Trying to say “Here, I’m saying this, you go find out about it” does not fly here.
Why post here at all if you believe your posts are irrelevant?
Not only is it silly, it’s not what was being said at all. You are either deliberately misrepresenting what is being said or you are confused to a rather Gordian degree. I asked if you were able to tell with reasonable certainty that he was specifically addressing you in re: his comment about you saying something about sexuality. And your answer to Homebrew “I never said the guy who wanted to punch me was a Christian.” … well, was he? If he was simply a random gay guy, then this has no bearing re: gay christians vs. straight Christians.
Oh, Poly … damnit, in the roughly 8 pages of posts I’ve had in this thread, you would catch my slip-up:D
As a straight guy, I’m going to have to protest this. If you’re going to make us bathe regularly and dress nicely, that’ll be the end of us! The sheer fabulousity of the cages would ruin our fragile little minds. We’ll have to form a PETA (PETER?) to protect ourselves.
