scripture to condemn homosexuality

[Mike182]

God doesn't place spirits in the wrong bodies. Our bodies were chosen specifically for our spirits, and since it's going to be the body we have for all eternity, it would be stupid to place it in the wrong body. It would make moot the entire aspect of gender. That's just what I think, though.

im sorry i thought you were explaining some sort of cycel in which god puts our soul into a new body every time we die or something

i dont believe i am bound to my earthly body for eternity, and i dont think my soul has a gender

but if our souls do have genders, and god chooses bodies to put them in, then if it is god's wish to do so, he could put them into bodies that are not of the same gender as the soul - its a possibility isnt it?

C_P

 

[Aqualung]

i dont believe i am bound to my earthly body for eternity, and i dont think my soul has a gender

I do. I beleive that is why Jesus was resurrected in the flesh. He could just as well have been resurected in the spirit, except, by being resurected in the flesh, he allowed for us to do the same. We will have our bodies resurrected, too.

but if our souls do have genders, and god chooses bodies to put them in, then if it is god's wish to do so, he could put them into bodies that are not of the same gender as the soul - its a possibility isnt it?

C_P

Sure, it's a possibility, but why would God do it? That would create immense confusion that would last all of eternity, not just in this life. That would be very cruel. Then you woudn't just be fighing temptations from the devil, you would be fighting the way you were created, and that's not something God wants to happen.

 

[Fluffy]

So . . . do you want to stop debating that point? I would then make the score Fluffy-1 Aqualung-0, because the way you have presented that point makes it seem that you could be right, and since we both don't know enough to say for sure what the word is, the (what's that word when you don't have sufficient information) for any sort of interpretation gives you the point.

Whilst the argument is strong, it is certainly far more conclusive so until I manage to find a source for that passage it'll have to remain undecided.

It wasn't just sex outside of marriage. That is covered in v 29, when he stops talking about how they were doing homosexual things and started talking about their other sins. It wasn't loveless sex, becuase that it condemned in v 31. drugs aren't even mentioned in the verse, and I think that if it were sex with drugs, the "drugs" part would have been important enough for Paul to mention it. It could very well have been part of a religious ritual, since all throughout the chapter Paul talks about people turning away from god.

Whatever this passage is actually referring to is essentially irrelevant. I am arguing that it is too vague to assume a loving consenting homosexual relationship. I also argue that, in order for a loving consenting homosexual relationship to be wrong, this passage must condemn one. This passage implies that a specific group of people were doing immoral sexual activities. I have listed some alternative possibilities. These alternatives are not referred to explicitly in these are verses which you quote, they are merely alluded to. Furthermore, just because something is condemned in part X of the Bible does not mean that part Y cannot also condemn the same thing.

On a further note, in v.32, Paul states that it is "God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death". This implies that the death of those who commit such acts is justifiable. Do you agree with such a sentiment or do you believe that Paul or God is wrong? If you do not agree then why do you trust anything else which either says?

I ceratainly know it exists, and isn't a mental illness. I however think it is a choice. This choice is either concious or subconcious, but it is a choice.

Surely a choice must be made conciously, otherwise it is no longer a choice? Therefore all homosexuals must be conciously choosing their sexuality. Is such a belief supported in scripture?

There is a very easy way to test such a theory. Pick any person you know who is of the same gender as you and who you are not attracted to. Now try and choose to be attracted to them.

Our spirits had gender and sexuality.

What are the features of gender? It is physiology, psychology and function which determine gender. Gender is a scientific term, though sex is more accurate, and obeys these laws. How can a spirit have any of these things?

Sure, it's a possibility, but why would God do it? That would create immense confusion that would last all of eternity, not just in this life. That would be very cruel. Then you woudn't just be fighing temptations from the devil, you would be fighting the way you were created, and that's not something God wants to happen.

Question God is something which is very difficult to do. Especially if he chooses not to answer as I feel he will decide not to do in the case of this debate. The possibilities are boundless. I propose one, as a population control.

Furthermore, if you argue that putting a female soul into a male body will create "immense confusion", and therefore God would not do it, why would God put souls into severely disabled bodies and force these people to suffer immense pain not just in this life but the next also?

 

[Aqualung]

Whilst the argument is strong, it is certainly far more conclusive so until I manage to find a source for that passage it'll have to remain undecided.

Fine by me.

Whatever this passage is actually referring to is essentially irrelevant. I am arguing that it is too vague to assume a loving consenting homosexual relationship. I also argue that, in order for a loving consenting homosexual relationship to be wrong, this passage must condemn one. This passage implies that a specific group of people were doing immoral sexual activities. I have listed some alternative possibilities. These alternatives are not referred to explicitly in these are verses which you quote, they are merely alluded to. Furthermore, just because something is condemned in part X of the Bible does not mean that part Y cannot also condemn the same thing.

Hmm. Very good point. I guess you conclusively won that one. Fluffy-1, Aqualung-25.

On a further note, in v.32, Paul states that it is "God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death". This implies that the death of those who commit such acts is justifiable. Do you agree with such a sentiment or do you believe that Paul or God is wrong? If you do not agree then why do you trust anything else which either says?

v 32 states "Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." This is not saying that we should go out and kill all the people who commit these sins. It's saying that people who do these things, especially if they know it is against God's commandments, or if they know that it is a reason to be put to death, do it anyway, in spite of all that. That's the key phrase. In spite of all that.

Surely a choice must be made conciously, otherwise it is no longer a choice? Therefore all homosexuals must be conciously choosing their sexuality. Is such a belief supported in scripture?

No. Choices are frequently unconcious. I hear a lot about people who, having been wounded early on by someone they love, or beleiving themselves to be unworthy of love, become angry and push people away. This way, they won't love people, and people won't love them. This is most certainly a choice, and it is definitly a subconcious choice. The person doesn't just wake up one mornign and choose to be hurtfull. But it is a choice. They weren't born that way.

What are the features of gender? It is physiology, psychology and function which determine gender. Gender is a scientific term, though sex is more accurate, and obeys these laws. How can a spirit have any of these things?

Sure, it may be physiology and function as well as psychology, but since we were spirits, we don't have bodies. Therefore, in this case, gender is determined by psychology. And we had a specific gender, not just a 1 in 3 inclination toward a specific gender, because God fully intended to give us the physiolgy and function that matched our psycology.

Question God is something which is very difficult to do. Especially if he chooses not to answer as I feel he will decide not to do in the case of this debate. The possibilities are boundless. I propose one, as a population control.

Why do you feel he won't answer? Do you think for some reason I didn't ask him about this matter before this debate, and perhaps that's where I got my views on homosexuality?

Furthermore, if you argue that putting a female soul into a male body will create "immense confusion", and therefore God would not do it, why would God put souls into severely disabled bodies and force these people to suffer immense pain not just in this life but the next also?

First off, they woudn't suffer immense pain in the next world. They would be resurected with a perfect body. I point out, though, that this will still be their body. People don't switch bodies when they are resurected. The same body is resurected in a perfect state. So that means that if a female soul were put into a male body, it would stay like that for eternity, since you get resurected into the same body. Secondly, people sometimes get put into disabled bodies because they have something to learn. Perhaps they have to learn to be more appreciative of their blessings. Perhaps they have to learn to go against temptations to turn to drugs or other things as a release. Or perhaps they have to teach a family member something. But upon resurection, they won't be in that position anymroe, because the body will be perfected. They won't get a new body, they will just have their's fixed.

 

[Ceridwen018]

First off, they woudn't suffer immense pain in the next world. They would be resurected with a perfect body. I point out, though, that this will still be their body. People don't switch bodies when they are resurected.

Is this discussed in the Bible?

Secondly, people sometimes get put into disabled bodies because they have something to learn. Perhaps they have to learn to be more appreciative of their blessings. Perhaps they have to learn to go against temptations to turn to drugs or other things as a release.

Why does God only teach lessons to handfuls of people, while lots of "bad" people still live the life of Riley. Also, why are there so many good people who are being taught lessons, (or being used to teach a family member a lesson)? Did God mean for their plight to strike a bad person, but he missed?

 

[Aqualung]

Is this discussed in the Bible?

There is that quote 1 cor 15:42 about being sown in corruption and raised in incorruption. I beleive this speaks of being resurected with a perfect body. I guess all the stuff about having the same body as you had on earth, and not switching them around, is all the Book of Mormon. (as far as I could see, but I did a rather brief examination to find them.)

Why does God only teach lessons to handfuls of people, while lots of "bad" people still live the life of Riley. Also, why are there so many good people who are being taught lessons, (or being used to teach a family member a lesson)? Did God mean for their plight to strike a bad person, but he missed?

God teaches lessons to everyone, but not everyone will learn their lesson if they are disabled, so they have to be taught in other ways. Some are tempted by having lots of money. God knew that one of their faults was greed, so he allowed them to get rich to test them. I think it all has to do with what your weaknesses are and which sorts of things will try those weaknesses the best.

 

[JerryL]

If it's not already been mentioned: The Bible lacks a condemnation of Female-Female homoseuality. There is a passage from Paul where it's called "unnatural" (an abomination, much like sacrificing the wrong animal or wearing clothing of mixed materials), but there are no passages which proscribe it nor offer punishment for it.

Male-male homsexual acts are, as has been discussed, strictly prohibited in the OT and stoneable (actually, almost everything is stoneable in the OT).

 

[Aqualung]

If it's not already been mentioned: The Bible lacks a condemnation of Female-Female homoseuality. There is a passage from Paul where it's called "unnatural" (an abomination, much like sacrificing the wrong animal or wearing clothing of mixed materials), but there are no passages which proscribe it nor offer punishment for it.

Remember, though, CAin was condemned for giving an unnatural or abominable sacrifice. Why woudn't God do the same for any unnatural or abominable act?

 

[Fluffy]

No. Choices are frequently unconcious. I hear a lot about people who, having been wounded early on by someone they love, or beleiving themselves to be unworthy of love, become angry and push people away. This way, they won't love people, and people won't love them. This is most certainly a choice, and it is definitly a subconcious choice. The person doesn't just wake up one mornign and choose to be hurtfull. But it is a choice. They weren't born that way.

A choice cannot be subconcious since if I am not aware of a decision being made then I have no more control over it than if it had been the decision of the person standing next to me. If I have no control over the decision then how can I be said to have chosen something?

Sure, it may be physiology and function as well as psychology, but since we were spirits, we don't have bodies. Therefore, in this case, gender is determined by psychology. And we had a specific gender, not just a 1 in 3 inclination toward a specific gender, because God fully intended to give us the physiolgy and function that matched our psycology.

The difference in psychology between the genders is not only the smallest difference, comparably, but it is also completely reliant on the physiology of the body. A extra dash of chemicals here, a few more hormones there and an extra teaspoon of electrical signals and the human brain changes from being female to male. These are physiological changes and it is these which causes the psychological changes. The two are inseperable.

Why do you feel he won't answer? Do you think for some reason I didn't ask him about this matter before this debate, and perhaps that's where I got my views on homosexuality?

Perhaps he will answer. I just think it unlikely that he will answer in this debate and therefore the only meaningful method we had of confirming are questioning of God is lost.

Afterall, it is totally fair enough to base your views on homosexuality from a private message from God. You may even have recieved it with reference to this specific passage. However, if you got a divine message from God telling you that an apple was an orange, it only becomes a valid argument up until the point that you attempt to enter such an argument into a debate.

We are already accepting that the Bible has some validity to it so that we can establish a common ground for debate out of a set of beliefs. However, we cannot then enter more personal beliefs into it since the only way to debate their implications would be to accept that as valid and if your message from God was slightly more clear than Paul's then assumedly this would be a far more difficult task than proving that Paul's messages were not anti-homosexual.

First off, they woudn't suffer immense pain in the next world. They would be resurected with a perfect body. I point out, though, that this will still be their body. People don't switch bodies when they are resurected. The same body is resurected in a perfect state. So that means that if a female soul were put into a male body, it would stay like that for eternity, since you get resurected into the same body. Secondly, people sometimes get put into disabled bodies because they have something to learn. Perhaps they have to learn to be more appreciative of their blessings. Perhaps they have to learn to go against temptations to turn to drugs or other things as a release. Or perhaps they have to teach a family member something. But upon resurection, they won't be in that position anymroe, because the body will be perfected. They won't get a new body, they will just have their's fixed.

Okay but why would the perfect body necessarily have any humanlike qualities? Such as gender for example.

Edit: Keep in mind Aqualung that I am perfectly willing to accept that God believes that homosexuality is wrong. I am also willing to accept that you and other Christian's believe he has communicated this to you directly. I am just not willing to accept he has done so through the Bible.

 

[JerryL]

Remember, though, CAin was condemned for giving an unnatural or abominable sacrifice. Why woudn't God do the same for any unnatural or abominable act?

I thought his condemnation had somethig to do with fratricide. Abominations seem frowned on, but I'm not aware of any prescedent that they are (neccessairily) punished.

I can think of several that are (beastiality for example), but I don't recall a punishment for mixed-fabric clothing; and I doubt highly that you consider it sinful.

 

[Aqualung]

I thought his condemnation had somethig to do with fratricide. Abominations seem frowned on, but I'm not aware of any prescedent that they are (neccessairily) punished.

I made a mistake with that Cain thing. His offering was just not accepted. But if having God say to you "I don't like your sacrifice." isn't punishment, I don't know what it But you're definitely right.

 

[Aqualung]

A choice cannot be subconcious since if I am not aware of a decision being made then I have no more control over it than if it had been the decision of the person standing next to me. If I have no control over the decision then how can I be said to have chosen something?

Choices CAN be subconcious. How do you account for all the people like in my illustration, who behave in ways that perpetuates their misery. For example, people who have self-worth issues will frequenlty make a subcounsious choice to not allow people to get close to them. This is so that they won't be "wrong." Conciously, they want to be wrong, becuase nobdy likes to be hated or to feel worthless. But on a subcouncious level, this sort of thought has been ingrained into their being, so they have to make the subconcious choice to act in a manner that pushes people away, so the deffinition of who they are subconcoiusly isn't destroyed. What is it if it's not a choice? they aren't forced to act that way. (I'm sorry I don't have any sorce to back that up, but I packed away all my books)

The difference in psychology between the genders is not only the smallest difference, comparably, but it is also completely reliant on the physiology of the body. A extra dash of chemicals here, a few more hormones there and an extra teaspoon of electrical signals and the human brain changes from being female to male. These are physiological changes and it is these which causes the psychological changes. The two are inseperable.

Hormones and the like is all physical, and physical is seperable from psychological The psychological is the knowledge of what your gender is. I know what my sex is. That won't change no matter what chemicals or hormones I am pumped full of. I will still be the same gender even if physically I'm not.

Perhaps he will answer. I just think it unlikely that he will answer in this debate and therefore the only meaningful method we had of confirming are questioning of God is lost.

You mean post his answers? That's not what I meant to imply. And I think I've been doing a fairly good job of keeping this strictly bible based. When I lose a point, I have never said "Well, God said so, that's why I'm right!" I may say that I have won more points than you, but I'm really trying to keep this to the Bible.

Afterall, it is totally fair enough to base your views on homosexuality from a private message from God. You may even have recieved it with reference to this specific passage. However, if you got a divine message from God telling you that an apple was an orange, it only becomes a valid argument up until the point that you attempt to enter such an argument into a debate.

Or course that's true. Which is why I never mentioned it, until you did first, and then I only mentioned it to say that I didn't think it was so far-fetched to beleive that God would/had answer/ed my prayers about it. I wasn't trying to use it as proof.

We are already accepting that the Bible has some validity to it so that we can establish a common ground for debate out of a set of beliefs. However, we cannot then enter more personal beliefs into it since the only way to debate their implications would be to accept that as valid and if your message from God was slightly more clear than Paul's then assumedly this would be a far more difficult task than proving that Paul's messages were not anti-homosexual.

Okay. I can definitely see where you're coming from. But for clearification, what stands as "personal beleifs?"

Okay but why would the perfect body necessarily have any humanlike qualities? Such as gender for example.

We were created in our bodily form so we could progress. Our end progression is having a perfect body. Now, where I do I get the image of what a "perfect" body is? By how Jesus was resurected, as he typifies what will happen to us. He was risen in a complete human form, and we will follow that and be resurected with all our human attributes, including gender.

Edit: Keep in mind Aqualung that I am perfectly willing to accept that God believes that homosexuality is wrong. I am also willing to accept that you and other Christian's believe he has communicated this to you directly. I am just not willing to accept he has done so through the Bible.

Don't worry, I'm willing to go with that. I just had to defend the fact that God will answer prayers about this subject.

 

[JerryL]

Hormones and the like is all physical, and physical is seperable from psychological The psychological is the knowledge of what your gender is. I know what my sex is. That won't change no matter what chemicals or hormones I am pumped full of. I will still be the same gender even if physically I'm not.

So you are asserting that physical actions (taking drugs, having strokes, brain surgery, have no effect on your beliefs or psycological makeup. Do I really need to link you to a few dozen examples for you to know that's hogwash?

Or course that's true. Which is why I never mentioned it, until you did first, and then I only mentioned it to say that I didn't think it was so far-fetched to beleive that God would/had answer/ed my prayers about it. I wasn't trying to use it as proof.

God answers questions posed in prayer? Tell me what I'm wearing right now and I'll convert to your religion.

We were created in our bodily form so we could progress. Our end progression is having a perfect body. Now, where I do I get the image of what a "perfect" body is? By how Jesus was resurected, as he typifies what will happen to us. He was risen in a complete human form, and we will follow that and be resurected with all our human attributes, including gender.

Didn't he still have holes in his feet and in his side? So a person who dies burned and with no arms or legs will be risen as a "perfect" charred amputee? That doesn't sound all that great.

 

[Aqualung]

So you are asserting that physical actions (taking drugs, having strokes, brain surgery, have no effect on your beliefs or psycological makeup. Do I really need to link you to a few dozen examples for you to know that's hogwash?

No. I'm not saying that. What I meant was that although physical things can change your psychological state, psychology is more than just physical make up. That's how you can have gender if you don't have a body

God answers questions posed in prayer? Tell me what I'm wearing right now and I'll convert to your religion.

He only answers questions if I ask them in keeping with his will. I don't think it's his will to answer that question. It would either give you a really easy conversion and nobody else would get that same treatment (and I think it's up to faith to convert, too, not some silly "miracle" like the one you propose), or, which I think is more likely, you would tell me it was a lucky guess and distregard it. So I don't think it's in his will to answer that question, but I think it's always in his will to answer questions about doctrine.

Didn't he still have holes in his feet and in his side? So a person who dies burned and with no arms or legs will be risen as a "perfect" charred amputee? That doesn't sound all that great.

He sure did have holes in him. But those holes a great physical reminder of what he did for us. And they weren't painful. And even after all his desciples had there fun sticking their hands in his wounds, they didn't bleed. They weren't wounds anymore - they were symbols. And none of our wounds mean that much.

 

[JerryL]

No. I'm not saying that. What I meant was that although physical things can change your psychological state, psychology is more than just physical make up. That's how you can have gender if you don't have a body

OK. What's your support for this claim? Though I do suppose that this means that you believe that transsexuals (and those that simply idenify with a different gender) will continue to do so after death.

He only answers questions if I ask them in keeping with his will. I don't think it's his will to answer that question. It would either give you a really easy conversion and nobody else would get that same treatment (and I think it's up to faith to convert, too, not some silly "miracle" like the one you propose), or, which I think is more likely, you would tell me it was a lucky guess and distregard it. So I don't think it's in his will to answer that question, but I think it's always in his will to answer questions about doctrine.

Let me see if I follow
1. You don't believe God's will is to convert me.
2. You think God only tells you the things in his will (making the act of asking irrellevent). How do you know it's not God's will that you perform a miricle?
3. Miracles cannot convert people (makes me wonder why Jesus went around performing so many).
4. You assert, noing nothing about me in similar events in the past, that "I won't believe you anyway", apologizing your way out of explaining why you cannot.

He sure did have holes in him. But those holes a great physical reminder of what he did for us. And they weren't painful. And even after all his desciples had there fun sticking their hands in his wounds, they didn't bleed. They weren't wounds anymore - they were symbols. And none of our wounds mean that much.

So then quadrapaligics would be reborn in perfect bodies sans limbs?

I'm also curious what you think happens to people who have personality changes after strokes. Do they loose their new personality or their old one?

 

[Aqualung]

OK. What's your support for this claim? Though I do suppose that this means that you believe that transsexuals (and those that simply idenify with a different gender) will continue to do so after death.

Transsexuals are just confused. When they are resurected, they won't be confused anymore.
What do I use to support my claim? Latter-day teachings.

Let me see if I follow
1. You don't believe God's will is to convert me.

I don't beleive God's will is to try to convert you through some petty "miracle" gotten through a temptation to "prove" to some non-beleiver that God can tell me what you are wearing. There are tons and tons of other things you can look at which would be all the more convincing, but you don't see the divinity in that, how could I or God expect you to see the miracle of telling you what you were wearing. YOu would explain that away like you everything else.

2. You think God only tells you the things in his will (making the act of asking irrellevent). How do you know it's not God's will that you perform a miricle?

God only tells me things if he wills it, but the act of asking is totally relevant. It's like if you ask your dad to buy you a candy bar at the store. Of course he wants to buy you it, and he knows you like candy, but you had to ask, first.

3. Miracles cannot convert people (makes me wonder why Jesus went around performing so many).

Nowhere did I say that miracles cannot convert people. I'm just saying that with all the other stuff you probably witnessed but didn't understand that you won't be converted by just telling you what you were wearing. You would explain that away, because it is one of the most easily explained "miracles" anyone could perform

So then quadrapaligics would be reborn in perfect bodies sans limbs?

I'm also curious what you think happens to people who have personality changes after strokes. Do they loose their new personality or their old one?

Did you bother to read anything that I wrote? I wrote

They weren't wounds anymore - they were symbols. And none of our wounds mean that much

by which I meant, "Jesus only had wounds because they were symbolic of what he did for us. Nobody else's wounds mean anything comparable. We won't have wounds."
As for the stroke, it all depends on what caused the personality change.

 

[JerryL]

Transsexuals are just confused. When they are resurected, they won't be confused anymore.
What do I use to support my claim? Latter-day teachings.

And how does one validate these teachings to be true?

BTW, what about hermoaprodites (people born with both sets of sexual organs)?

I don't beleive God's will is to try to convert you through some petty "miracle" gotten through a temptation to "prove" to some non-beleiver that God can tell me what you are wearing. There are tons and tons of other things you can look at which would be all the more convincing, but you don't see the divinity in that, how could I or God expect you to see the miracle of telling you what you were wearing. YOu would explain that away like you everything else.

So if ther is no God, and it's obvious that your religion is false, you'll just explain it away like everything else?

To be blunt you are simply coping out of the argument. You've asserted that you can ask God a question and get it answered, and been called on it, and found wanting. You are simply making excuses why I should ignore the man behind the curtin.

To add insult to injury, your claims reun contrary to Biblical example. The Bible is rife with God going out of his way to show his power through the performance of miracles. They seem to have stopped about the same time as skepticim appeared. In the olden days, according to the Bible, you could use bitter water to tell if a woman had committed adultry or not. Now it doesn't work. In the olden days, when worshippers of Ball were encountered; God performed miricles on demand to prove that he existed and that Baal did not (or was impotent), but he no longer responds. In the olden days there were prophets left and right, but no one has made clear prophecy in thousands of years (since good record-keeping), and no one has prophecied modern events clearly. In the old days, Jesus wandered around performing one miracle after another, paying special attention to convince the skeptics (Thomas); now you just excuse away why you won' even perform one.

God only tells me things if he wills it, but the act of asking is totally relevant. It's like if you ask your dad to buy you a candy bar at the store. Of course he wants to buy you it, and he knows you like candy, but you had to ask, first.

You've effected our dad's will. Does God's will change?

Nowhere did I say that miracles cannot convert people. I'm just saying that with all the other stuff you probably witnessed but didn't understand that you won't be converted by just telling you what you were wearing. You would explain that away, because it is one of the most easily explained "miracles" anyone could perform

And you could so hold it over my ead (since I said I would convert) and trump me on every discussion everywhere on this board. You could further drive nails in the coffin by repeating it under lab conditions.

Actually, if you cold do it under lab conditions, you would convert millions. If nothing else, you could get millions of theists who hold different religions.

But you can't do it under lab conditions, nor even here. Why? Because you are imagining it.

by which I meant, "Jesus only had wounds because they were symbolic of what he did for us. Nobody else's wounds mean anything comparable. We won't have wounds."

So then it won't be your body anymore.

 

[Aqualung]

And how does one validate these teachings to be true?

Logic, prayer, studying, and things of that nature.

BTW, what about hermoaprodites (people born with both sets of sexual organs)?

You know, I never thought of that. Hermaphrodites, though, woudn't be condemned for going after "the wrong" gender. They woudn't know. They would only know when they were resurected.

So if ther is no God, and it's obvious that your religion is false, you'll just explain it away like everything else?

I don't really understand your question. Could you rephrase it?

To be blunt you are simply coping out of the argument. You've asserted that you can ask God a question and get it answered, and been called on it, and found wanting. You are simply making excuses why I should ignore the man behind the curtin.

I was saying that god can answer questions. You were saying that he would answer the question of what you were wearing. I never, EVEr, said that he WOULD. You're taking what I am saying and projecting it over completely unrelated things.

To add insult to injury, your claims reun contrary to Biblical example. The Bible is rife with God going out of his way to show his power through the performance of miracles. They seem to have stopped about the same time as skepticim appeared. In the olden days, according to the Bible, you could use bitter water to tell if a woman had committed adultry or not. Now it doesn't work. In the olden days, when worshippers of Ball were encountered; God performed miricles on demand to prove that he existed and that Baal did not (or was impotent), but he no longer responds. In the olden days there were prophets left and right, but no one has made clear prophecy in thousands of years (since good record-keeping), and no one has prophecied modern events clearly. In the old days, Jesus wandered around performing one miracle after another, paying special attention to convince the skeptics (Thomas); now you just excuse away why you won' even perform one.

They do still happen, but people disregard them just as much as they did in the olden days. Even though Jesus performed countless miracles in front of many, many skeptics, the skeptics still didn't beleive, and they still killed the Son of God. There were always skeptics, and always miracles. That's still happening. A good thing to keep in mind is how little miracles Jesus did in his home town, where his family still lived. He did very few becuase of unbeleif. Will he suddenly change now and start only doing his miracles to the unbeleiving. In the new testament, it says that miracles will follow the beleivers, not the unbeleivers. Jesus only showed special consideration for Thomas becaause he was a desciple. Did he show special consideration for the Jews that crucified him by showing them that he was alive? No. He doesn't do that, and he still doesn't.

You've effected our dad's will. Does God's will change?

No.

And you could so hold it over my ead (since I said I would convert) and trump me on every discussion everywhere on this board. You could further drive nails in the coffin by repeating it under lab conditions.

Actually, if you cold do it under lab conditions, you would convert millions. If nothing else, you could get millions of theists who hold different religions.

God just doesn't work that way. And I woudn't convert millions. Most of people Jesus did miracles for didn't beleive it. People would brush it off by saying things like "she knew what the question was" "he lied about if she was right" "the lab technitions were in on the hoax," and other such things. It happens and has happened all th etime.

 

[Aqualung]

We're getting kind of off subject. Do you want to move it to a different thread, or perhaps have a one-on-one debate?

 

[JerryL]

Can do. Can you cut and paste yours as the opening and then link me to the thread please?