As for the "draw all men", I understand you come from a Calvinistic background and therefore take exception to the notion that God might actually love and draw all men to Himself to accept a salvation He has provided for the sins of the whole world per 1 John 2:2. I gave up that debate because you never really asked a question and, instead, wanted to focus on a single word (PAS) which I stated earlier is not an approach to this topic I'm willing to take since words mean nothing outside the context of a sentence which is also obscure outside the context of a paragraph or unit of thought per the line I paraphrased from William Mounce.

As for the sacred/secular debate, I understand that you again take issue with my approach and I again apologize that my argumentation style offends you, but I'm really not prepared to defend it at this point.

If you understand my strategy then you should also understand it is unapologetically not presuppositional and I have no intention of limiting myself to any single form or method. I use the methods and arguments I think best fit what I am attempting to convey.

I'm actually a programmer, not a "preacher" and I'm glad for that because I would never want to be known as such. I also haven't banned you nor do I plan to but I do grow weary of our encounters as I don't see us getting very far. Perhaps it's just me but if we are to continue talking past each other perhaps it is better if we just agree to disagree.

Joel: Well, at least you're honest.

Wes: If you understand my strategy then you should also understand it is unapologetically not presuppositional and I have no intention of limiting myself to any single form or method. I use the methods and arguments I think best fit what I am attempting to convey.

Joel: Does the Bible ever inform your apologetic method or do you always use a whatever-I-think-best approach?

Wes: I also haven't banned you nor do I plan to but I do grow weary of our encounters as I don't see us getting very far.

Joel: I'll stop commenting, Wes. Thanks for allowing my comments. Perhaps we'll have another exchange some day. God bless.

Joel: This is untrue. I asked you for lexical support for your understanding of "draw" and also asked you to confirm whether everyone without distinction is a legitimate understanding of "all," both points of which you evaded.

Wes: and, instead, wanted to focus on a single word (PAS) which I stated earlier is not an approach to this topic.

Joel: Oh really? Is that why you have a heading in that post titled, "Does all mean all?" With as much charity as I can muster, I must say, Wes, that you are confused. It may not be intentional. I'm sure you're a busy guy and perhaps have forgotten the exchange, but you're confused.

Continued…

Joel: Nor did I find fault with your argument for trying to prove "Jesus." You're introducing an element that was never there. In fact, you stated that it was proof for the existence of God. But how it can possibly be since God is found nowhere in the premises of the argument. Agreed?

Wes: As for the "draw all men", I understand you come from a Calvinistic background and therefore take exception to the notion that God might actually love and draw all men to Himself to accept a salvation.

Joel: You misunderstand. I come from an exegetical perspective and have lexical support for my understanding of "all" and "draw." You have none and when challenged to provide lexical support, you offered none.

Continued…

You assert that the Kalaam Cosmological argument proves the existence of God. I point out that it can't since God isn't anywhere to be found in the premises. Discussion peters off.

I ask you to defend your understanding of "draw" in John 12.32 and I never hear from you on the matter again.

I point out that the sacred/secular dichotomy is unfounded (unless, of course, you can demonstrate that there is an area of life over which God is not Lord) and that your "secular" argument against homosexuality is completely arbitrary with its appeal to population growth and fun vs. more fun. Do you defend it? No. You come back all bent out of shape and give a little lecture of what you think pre-evangelism is.

I do understand your strategy and would even be open to it were you able to put forth a defense. But you're a preacher, not an apologist. Incidentally, is there a reason for why I can't comment from my regular computer anymore?

Perhaps, in the future, if you don't understand someone's strategy it would be best to simply ask and/or hold your peace rather than asserting that you know something you really don't.

BTW: Francis Schaeffer's Truth With Love (http://bit.ly/7tVGZG) would probably be a good read for you regarding the tactics I'm taking here.

As with your Kalaam Cosmological argument, this looks like another arbitrary argument that brings no one in contact with the Christian worldview, let alone the gospel.

Your revised argument – to deal with what I've raised – seems quite arbitrary. Who cares if it requires more effort to undergo in vitro fertilization? Who cares if it's a lot less fun?

As to the second part of your question;

If the historical, pattern were for same-sex couples to receive in vitro fertilization we still face the problem that in vitro requires far more effort than natural conception (which is also a lot more fun, something that works against the evolutionary argument).

Secondly, as I hinted at above, it is not the case historically that same-sex couples seek adoption as a normative course of events.

Rather, like I mentioned in my post, since homosexuality is an inherently selfish act it does not lend itself very well to the selfless and often thankless task of rearing children.

One might argue that more same sex couples would be willing to engage in child rearing if they were afforded proper legal rights and protections but I think the evidence from countries across the pond (as well as up north) tends to indicate that even if such legal amenities were afforded, their effect would not be a resurgence of child-friendly households.

So the short answer to your question is: In theory same-sex couples adopting might offer a significant defeater to the secular argument for population growth I've outlined above, but I highly doubt it will as practice and history don't offer any support to this theory ever being put into normative practice.