Ranting to /dev/null

I still don't get it. The issue is not whether we should have the homosexuality debate. The issue is not even if the debate should be compassionate in nature. The real issue here is whether or not you should be forced to furnish your opponent with the property from which he will attack you. And I don't for one second believe that the Biblical definition of "compassion" is to subsidize your enemies' attacks.

As you can probably tell by reading my posts, I tend to agree with you. In fact, I do agree with you. But as a pragmatic matter of policy, the question is how best to take as few hits over this as possible. As far as that goes, ignoring them is probably the best bet, and only getting the authorities involved if they become disruptive.

I am also with Josiah in thinking that Catacombs protesting in the abstract would be absolutely hilarious.

"The real issue here is whether or not you should be forced to furnish your opponent with the property from which he will attack you. And I don't for one second believe that the Biblical definition of "compassion" is to subsidize your enemies' attacks."

Doesn't God subsidize his enemies attacks all the time?

Though I appreciate your insights, that's a rhetorical question, not a real argument. If you've a point to make about emulating God's interactions, you're free to make it, but what you've got so far doesn't constitute a real point.

I don't usually agree with calvinists on much.The "sermon on the plain" was pretty plain. Maybe you have a different reading of luke 6.Regardless of what side of the homosexual matter you fall on, christ was clear about how we are to treat others.
regards

Hey, look who's back. Somebody switched IPs.

The Golden Rule is not "be nice to others as you would have them be nice unto you."

Maybe DHCP ?, I still have the same ISP.
Perhaps a bit of cut and paste would emphasize the validity of calvinist's point.
Luke 6
30
Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.
31
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32
For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.
33
And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same.
34
If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount.
35
But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.

We're moving in the right direction, but I'm not going to make your argument for you. If you think that passage means that something I've said is wrong, tell me how and why, because I'm not seeing it.

Sorry ryan,
I did not read your comments as criticism. I was suprised and elated by my agreement with calvinist's statement about christ's commentary to love your enemies.
regards