Hang on, you said it was all pre-determined. So there's really nothing we can do to be 'reconciled with God' - if he decided at the dawn of time that we were going to heaven, we're in. If not, we're screwed no matter what we do. You can't have it both ways.

And it's where all the cool kids go. Who wants to spend an eternity in heaven with tedious s like Kirkstaller?

OK, we'll put that down to "No, you can't enumerate the minorities you were moaning about".
Just for future reference, you understand, for when you make wild statements with no substance again.

If Jesus is God why did he address himself as father?

Because the notion of the Trinity wasn't in his head at the time.
It ws invented later ... despite all the the dubious "inferences" various people claim to derive from the New Testament.

rlNutters banned from advertising their harmful 'therapies'.rl

From your article:

"Those individuals who are post-gay or ex-gay are a sexual minority suffering discrimination because they are outside the purportedly ‘normative’ homosexual paradigm. It was a mistake to assume these views we were expressing came from entrenched homophobia, and failed to recognise that people who want to walk away from their homosexual feelings are a group in their own right.”

As I argued from the outset - where do you draw the line? Who decides which minorities are OK and eligble to claim discrimination from all corners and which are not and are fair game for discrimination by those who are anti-discrimination?

Additionally, when people use freedom of speech to promote their views but then seek to deny it to others we are getting into dangerous territory.

Except, in this instance, it's not. Anyone who knows anything about the subject - that is, actual doctors and scientists - have repeatedly discredited the idea of 'curing' homosexuality. Indeed, the very idea that it's something that actually requires a 'cure' is both ridiculous and offensive.

So, it's not a freedom of speech issue at all. It's about people promoting a 'therapy' that is not only likely to be psychologically harmful, but that is for a 'condition' that does not require 'therapy' at all. Not only should they not be allowed to advertise such a 'therapy', it should be banned altogether.

See Rock God's comments and ...

Religious fundamentalists themselves should perhaps remember not to attack attack freedom of speech by rioting to close down plays, issuing death threats over [iJerry Springer, stopping poetry readings, burning books and issuing more death threats – and oh so many more such delights.

I've met many people who previously experienced same-sex attraction and called themselves gay. They are now Christians, have changed their ways and have solid heterosexual marriages.

Most armchair experts would say that they were never gay in the first place.

When is a No True Scotsman fallacy not a fallacy? When it's committed by liberal bigots, of course!

No I am afraid it goes much more deeply than homosexuality, it's about the principles on which any sustainable society needs to be based. It's about where lines are drawn. It's about freedom of expression. the fact that you refuse to see that shows that either you cannot see the bigger picture beyond the end of your nose or you just prefer name calling over inconsequential issues.

so long as the freedoms being expressed fit in with your homphobis bigotry, you mean?

Well indeed. They might be/have been bisexual.