• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why did God create homosexuality?

Lain

Well-Known Member
That leads to the question of intent. Straight people can have sane sex sex too so they would depart from God even in marriage for what they do?

Murder, abuse, and take (per scripture) hurts other people. Promisquity I understand it's unclean. There's a scripture that says one can sin even in their thoughts.

I would assume sin needs a thought component or people in self defense would be just as guilty as two people who love each other who is intimate by same sex sex (not specific to gay people).

Does intention matter to the scriptural God?

We have our cultural, generational, and experiential bias but I believe people are confirming their bias by scripture.

One example is God hurting people who disagrees with him. Why believers don't follow that example but they do the good things?

They would also depart. Sin (and a moral action) has all of these components in my view and they are Biblical:

1) The subjective intention of the person who acts. This can be good or evil. Having an evil intention is condemned by the Lord Jesus when He says "do not give your alms to be praised by men," and in many other places. It is the aim you have in your mind when trying to do a thing.

2) The circumstances of the act including the consequences. The "when" or "where" and effects of the act, etc. An act can have some bad consequences but always the good consequences that are reasonably foreseen must outweigh the bad consequences, it is mentioned in Scripture where it says "love does no harm." Now Christ is love and His very coming into the world had bad consequences (the murder of the Holy Innocents in an attempt to kill Him by King Herod for instance), but the good overwhelmingly outweighed the negative consequences according to Christians (the recapitulation of the world, deification of the Elect, etc, all of which goods will be infinite), so the principle is seen. This is also mentioned elsewhere.

3) The most important part: the object of your act. The reason this is the most important is it does not change and is always strictly good or bad, as can be seen with the above two things there is a binary nature to morality in Christian ethics (according to me). Bad moral objects include but are not limited to: indiscriminate destruction of cities in war, adultery, murder, lying, usury, deicide, blasphemy, and so on. Good moral objects include but are not limited to: praising God, almsgiving, burying the dead, defense of the innocent in war, loaning money without usury, freeing slaves, building beautiful things for the public, supporting your parents in their old age, and so on. A bad moral object can never be justified, a good one in itself is always justified but...

For an act to be good all three of these has to be good. If even one of them is bad (bad intention, more bad consequences than good, or bad moral object) then the action chosen is immoral.

These acts also differ in gravity, maliciously stealing $5000 in a family dispute and committing a genocide of millions to me self-evidently differ in gravity, and also God has this opinion for the Lord Jesus spoke of those who had a "greater sin."

There is yet another component (actually two) God cares for and that is what has been repeatedly said throughout: (a) knowing (b) choice.

If a person for some God-known reason genuinely and through no fault of their own does not know that serial adultery is wrong then a severe guilt will not be imputed to them and they will not go to Hell for that in my view. If a person for instance in the heat of a moment does not deliberate (b) and chooses wrongly, which they in hindsight see is wrong then the same things. If they are both saved this will merit a purification (purgatory) but not punishment (Hell).

This last thing (who knows and who chooses what) is a subjective thing, we can only in my view look at outward acts and say "this is a disorder" or "this is a good" but we do not know the state of someone's soul or what their Judgment will be, for as Scripture says "man looks at the outward appearance but God looks at the heart." This is one of the main reasons it is a sin to say "this or that person is going to Hell," for you do not know the state of their soul or what their Judgment will be, it could be that guilt is not imputed due to their ignorance or deficiencies and so they enter the Kingdom before you.

So yes in my view God cares about intention, subjective knowledge, and the ability to choose of person to choose, along with many other factors that He will consider in His Judgment. A story commonly cited about this is the drunken monk.

As for God hurting those who disagree with Him I would disagree with that. I assume you are talking of Eternal Punishment in Hell. As can be seen from the above I laid out in my view I don't actually think it works just like that. The only sin that can damn a person is this: someone freely chooses something they know to be gravely evil and they hold on to it even until death. Note the "they know to be gravely evil," it requires them to co-judge themselves with God (this is what conscience is to me by the way, co-knowledge of good and evil with God in the depths of the soul). Those who go to Hell are self-condemned, they acted evilly in full knowledge with deliberation and they knew it was evil. Why would anyone do this? As is said often in theology "sin is against reason." The person by condemning themselves by doing what they know to be gravely evil and holding on to it without repenting is participating in God's Judgment of them.

But as for participation in this Judgment by believers (who themselves go through a Judgment), we do imitate God in this and will participate in Christ's Judgment of the Universe. He (the Lord Jesus) says "the Father has given all Judgment to me," but the Church is Christ's Body so the Psalms teach in my view:

"Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces as a potter's vessel." (This is said by the Father to Christ Jesus His Son)

"The saints shall rejoice in glory; and shall exult on their beds. The high praises of God shall be in their throat, and two-edged swords in their hands; to execute vengeance on the nations, and punishments among the peoples; to bind their kings with fetters, and their nobles with manacles of iron; to execute on them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints." (This is said of the Church)

So we do imitate in that way, although the time isn't yet.
 

Firelight

Inactive member
[
All English bibles use the term homosexuality to define any person (straight, gay, etc) who engages in same sex sex.


WHERE in all of these English Bibles is the term homosexuality used to define this? Please provide page numbers and references as to where in these Bibles I can find what you claim.
 

Firelight

Inactive member
My original reply to the OP is post #2. Not sure why you're commenting on my discussion with DNB like this. Conversations on RF do change a lot.

What is the inherent point you're trying to make?


You were chattering on and on to DNB about your own definition of homosexuality, which is different from the way the OP is using it. Every time DNB didn’t understand or accept your definition, you kept repeating it over and over again. If you want a long drawn out argument over your own definition of homosexuality, having changed it from the OP, then you should start your own thread.
 
The Bible states that if a man lies with another man they should both be stoned to death. It's my belief that homosexuals are born that way and have no choice over who they're attracted to just like a heterosexual. If this is true why would God create homosexuals when he seems so opposed to their nature? I believe in the God of the Old Testament and believe that he is righteous but I'm confused by this. Did God create homosexuals purely to destroy them or is there something else going on? Does he want a homosexual man to be celibate or to go against his nature and procreate with a woman? Is God offering him the chance to make a huge sacrifice to the highest by denying himself? What are your thoughts?
God did not create homosexuals. Homosexuality, as with all other sin, is a product of the disobedient and sinful nature of man. It is our own flawed nature that creates this as well as all other issues contrary to God. As far as ultimately denying himself and abstaining from homosexual desires, well that is the request of God for ALL sin...to deny self and follow God
 
Be fruitful and multiply might have been considered a blessing for humankind before the population became overpopulated. Okay...I realize homosexuals can father children, but I suspect they do reproduce fewer offspring than the amount of offspring reproduced by heterosexuals. I would consider fewer offspring being reproduced as an ideal solution to solving our world's overpopulation. Hence, God might have objected to homosexuality when the world was underpopulated, but now morally accepts homosexuality as the world has become overpopulated.
It's a bad idea to label something morally acceptable that scripture is VERY clear is not.
 
I dont believe God would do that.

There is no evidence that the Bible is true in my opinion.
You are deceived brother, there is a wealth of evidence supporting the Bible. I myself have been wading through it for about 6 months now. All you have to do is look for it and be objective. If you enter into it with your decision already made you will miss the truth
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Thank you for the full reply. My comments are just really my opinion not meant to say you're wrong in what you believe.

1) The subjective intention of the person who acts. This can be good or evil. Having an evil intention is condemned by the Lord Jesus when He says "do not give your alms to be praised by men," and in many other places. It is the aim you have in your mind when trying to do a thing.

I don't see some forms of sex (from anyone) as an evil intention. If I used the word evil, I'd say its for things like murder, rape, and so forth. Actions that hurt other people. Some sexual practices are taboo while others kind of make me uncomfortable but nonetheless I don't see how they harm self or others.

The problem for me is associating homosexuals (the people) with same-sex behavior.

2) The circumstances of the act including the consequences. The "when" or "where" and effects of the act, etc. An act can have some bad consequences but always the good consequences that are reasonably foreseen must outweigh the bad consequences, it is mentioned in Scripture where it says "love does no harm."

Now Christ is love and His very coming into the world had bad consequences (the murder of the Holy Innocents in an attempt to kill Him by King Herod for instance), but the good overwhelmingly outweighed the negative consequences according to Christians (the recapitulation of the world, deification of the Elect, etc, all of which goods will be infinite), so the principle is seen. This is also mentioned elsewhere.

What are negative consequences of sexual practices outside of vaginal/penis intercourse's between two people (gay, straight, so have you)?

I know god says so but I don't see the inherent "wrongness" of the practice just believers are told its wrong. I see a huge difference between the two. If a parent told me an action was wrong I'd want to know why to make sense of the discrepancy and why I shouldn't do it again (or if an adult, why I should when making my own choices).

I'm not too familiar with christian theology when it comes to resurrection, elect, and what happens to non-believers when god comes back or so have you.

3) The most important part: the object of your act. The reason this is the most important is it does not change and is always strictly good or bad, as can be seen with the above two things there is a binary nature to morality in Christian ethics (according to me).

Bad moral objects include but are not limited to: indiscriminate destruction of cities in war, adultery, murder, lying, usury, deicide, blasphemy, and so on. Good moral objects include but are not limited to: praising God, almsgiving, burying the dead, defense of the innocent in war, loaning money without usury, freeing slaves, building beautiful things for the public, supporting your parents in their old age, and so on. A bad moral object can never be justified, a good one in itself is always justified but...

I know most people view killing in self defense as justified and capitol punishment as justified (saying god doesn't mind humans punishing under god's will), but do you think these things are justified?

For an act to be good all three of these has to be good. If even one of them is bad (bad intention, more bad consequences than good, or bad moral object) then the action chosen is immoral.

How is love, result of that love, and the person(s) involved in that love bad based on the sexes of the parties involved?

Do gay people have a different type of love (intention)?
Since our intentions sometimes drive our actions its a contradiction if a gay couple can form a platonic relationship but once they touch each other their love is invalid.

The moral object-humans?

These acts also differ in gravity, maliciously stealing $5000 in a family dispute and committing a genocide of millions to me self-evidently differ in gravity, and also God has this opinion for the Lord Jesus spoke of those who had a "greater sin."

How does same-sex sex actions in themselves relate to this?

There is yet another component (actually two) God cares for and that is what has been repeatedly said throughout: (a) knowing (b) choice.

If a person for some God-known reason genuinely and through no fault of their own does not know that serial adultery is wrong then a severe guilt will not be imputed to them and they will not go to Hell for that in my view. If a person for instance in the heat of a moment does not deliberate (b) and chooses wrongly, which they in hindsight see is wrong then the same things. If they are both saved this will merit a purification (purgatory) but not punishment (Hell).

But to compare it to same-sex acts (those with good intentions) is horrific.

This last thing (who knows and who chooses what) is a subjective thing, we can only in my view look at outward acts and say "this is a disorder" or "this is a good" but we do not know the state of someone's soul or what their Judgment will be, for as Scripture says "man looks at the outward appearance but God looks at the heart." This is one of the main reasons it is a sin to say "this or that person is going to Hell," for you do not know the state of their soul or what their Judgment will be, it could be that guilt is not imputed due to their ignorance or deficiencies and so they enter the Kingdom before you.

But you're (god) judging one's state of their soul by the sexes of both parties involved and their choice in intimacy rather than their intentions (say of lust) that makes that action more about lust and not about love (changes the context of the action).

Now you personally cannot know the state of the soul of both people in a relationship but I'd assume if they love each other (not superficial) the state of their soul and expression thereof wouldn't be damaged because of their sexual practices.

So yes in my view God cares about intention, subjective knowledge, and the ability to choose of person to choose, along with many other factors that He will consider in His Judgment. A story commonly cited about this is the drunken monk.

However, that intention you care about is invalidated once two people touch each other. That's the problem.

As for God hurting those who disagree with Him I would disagree with that. I assume you are talking of Eternal Punishment in Hell. As can be seen from the above I laid out in my view I don't actually think it works just like that. The only sin that can damn a person is this: someone freely chooses something they know to be gravely evil and they hold on to it even until death. Note the "they know to be gravely evil," it requires them to co-judge themselves with God (this is what conscience is to me by the way, co-knowledge of good and evil with God in the depths of the soul). Those who go to Hell are self-condemned, they acted evilly in full knowledge with deliberation and they knew it was evil. Why would anyone do this? As is said often in theology "sin is against reason." The person by condemning themselves by doing what they know to be gravely evil and holding on to it without repenting is participating in God's Judgment of them.

A lot of believers associated Sodom and Gomorrah with homosexuality. God destroyed all the people in it accusing them of sexual sins and perversion among other things. So I assume you must agree with his decision? (I'm not familiar with hell, actually)

But as for participation in this Judgment by believers (who themselves go through a Judgment), we do imitate God in this and will participate in Christ's Judgment of the Universe. He (the Lord Jesus) says "the Father has given all Judgment to me," but the Church is Christ's Body so the Psalms teach in my view:

You lost me I'm afraid. I read the full bible once years ago but it was hard getting through Revelations if that's your reference?
 
To be honest, when I hear this question I think why do people believe homosexuality doesn't exist or exist based on a humans biological response to other humans.

It's like saying hunger itself doesn't exist if one craves apples but it exists when one sees an orange. Or saying God created hunger for only one type of fruit but that same exact reaction to other fruits either or wrong or non existent.

It assumes the object if attraction determines the nature of the attraction and whether it exists or not.

Say you have a couple with two children. Their children are healthy and emotionally supported. There is no sexual inappropriateness and the family is Christian.

What about this scenario God doesn't like if the same analogy applied to one couple and not another?

It makes me sad, really. The object if attraction has so much influence that it can determine whether the other is a sinner or not.

I'm not sure how that works. No Christian has explained it without scripture quoting.
Being heterosexual is not synonymous with not being a sinner and any Christian who claims otherwise needs to study the Bible more. Homosexuality is a sin according to scripture, but so are a slew of other things too numerous to mention. The call for Christians is to avoid sin, to repent of the sins we don't avoid, to believe in God for our salvation, and to call each other on our sins, but to do so in love
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You were chattering on and on to DNB about your own definition of homosexuality, which is different from the way the OP is using it. Every time DNB didn’t understand or accept your definition, you kept repeating it over and over again. If you want a long drawn out argument over your own definition of homosexuality, having changed it from the OP, then you should start your own thread.

What's this fuss really about?

Do you disagree with what I said or so have you... DNB's belief is missing the point that his/her definition of homosexuality completely makes him/her misunderstand if not genuinely ignorant of what I'm talking about.

It's one thing if you just disagree what I'm saying (if you agree with DNB) it's a whole 'nother to interrupt DNB and I's conversation as if you understand the context of what I'm saying then for some weird spontaneous reason discredit my points in a very inappropriate way as if defending DNB's position somehow invalidates mine.

I'm sure you can approach your concerns much more productively, no?
 

Suave

Simulated character
It's a bad idea to label something morally acceptable that scripture is VERY clear is not.

Old Testament Scripture mentioning homosexuality pertains strictly to ancient Israel. Only Noahide law pertains to us non-Jews, I need not be concerned about God's sacred Covenant with the ancient tribe of Israel. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself never condemns homosexuality. I don't consider scripture written by Paul to have been divinely inspired.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Not sure if it's on the same level, ranking objects like that is difficult for me, but it would be disordered according to me along with those. Basically any sexual act is disordered (or any desire consented to for said sexual acts, which is the definition of lust) which does not conform to God's one rule on the matter, "the only moral sexual act is natural marital relations open to life." This applies universally in my view, so all of these things would be condemned (in the RCC at least).
Ergo, your church condemns sexual relationships between sterile couples, knowing to be sterile. Correct?

ciao

- viole
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Being heterosexual is not synonymous with not being a sinner and any Christian who claims otherwise needs to study the Bible more. Homosexuality is a sin according to scripture, but so are a slew of other things too numerous to mention. The call for Christians is to avoid sin, to repent of the sins we don't avoid, to believe in God for our salvation, and to call each other on our sins, but to do so in love

The problem to me isn't homosexuality is a sin; so be. That's not how it's defined today since we know more than we did when translators were around. It's associating their version of homosexuality with actual people. It's (how to call it) a stereotype or bigotry (lack of more politically correct term). Disagreeing with the act is fine. I'd never compare it to murder as scripture does. However, its affecting actual people whether they love them or not.
 
Old Testament Scripture mentioning homosexuality pertains strictly to ancient Israel. Only Noahide law pertains to us non-Jews, I need not be concerned about God's sacred Covenant with the ancient tribe of Israel. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself never condemns homosexuality. I don't consider scripture written by Paul to have been divinely inspired.
I'm still in the process of studying
The problem to me isn't homosexuality is a sin; so be. That's not how it's defined today since we know more than we did when translators were around. It's associating their version of homosexuality with actual people. It's (how to call it) a stereotype or bigotry (lack of more politically correct term). Disagreeing with the act is fine. I'd never compare it to murder as scripture does. However, its affecting actual people whether they love them or not.
I will have to some research on it being compared to murder and why, but give me some time and I will learn how we are called to address this or will come back and admit if I can't
 
Old Testament Scripture mentioning homosexuality pertains strictly to ancient Israel. Only Noahide law pertains to us non-Jews, I need not be concerned about God's sacred Covenant with the ancient tribe of Israel. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself never condemns homosexuality. I don't consider scripture written by Paul to have been divinely inspired.
So you completely discount at least 7 books of the Bible believed to have been written by Paul, why??? I need a better understanding of your stance to discuss this with you
Old Testament Scripture mentioning homosexuality pertains strictly to ancient Israel. Only Noahide law pertains to us non-Jews, I need not be concerned about God's sacred Covenant with the ancient tribe of Israel. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself never condemns homosexuality. I don't consider scripture written by Paul to have been divinely inspired.
 

Firelight

Inactive member
What's this fuss really about?

Do you disagree with what I said or so have you... DNB's belief is missing the point that his/her definition of homosexuality completely makes him/her misunderstand if not genuinely ignorant of what I'm talking about.

It's one thing if you just disagree what I'm saying (if you agree with DNB) it's a whole 'nother to interrupt DNB and I's conversation as if you understand the context of what I'm saying then for some weird spontaneous reason discredit my points in a very inappropriate way as if defending DNB's position somehow invalidates mine.

I'm sure you can approach your concerns much more productively, no?


I’ve said it twice. If necessary, again read the last sentence of my comment that you quoted. That’s it. It’s all I’ve got for you on the matter.
 

Suave

Simulated character
So you completely discount at least 7 books of the Bible believed to have been written by Paul, why??? I need a better understanding of your stance to discuss this with you

By the way, Welcome to RF.

The Apostle Paul is a Fraud, and Honesty Matters


Posted byJason Hommel 28th July 2019 141 Comments on The Apostle Paul is a Fraud, and Honesty Matters


"More and more people seem to recognize this, but at present, it might only be about 1%. I know of no Christian organization that supports this claim.

I first investigated this issue at jesuswordsonly.com around November 2015. After about 3 days, I realized that I had been wrong, wrong for 17 years, to assume that Paul was an apostle, simply because he wrote most of the books of the New Testament, or because other men compiled his books into the Bible, and that Paul claimed to be an Apostle based on his self proclaimed visions, his signs and wonders, and conversions of others.

There is simply a mountain of evidence that I could not prove wrong, nor ignore. Here is what stood out to me as the strongest.

WE ARE DIRECTLY COMMANDED TO NOT BELIEVE ANY REPORTS LIKE THE ONE PAUL GIVES!

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25 Behold, I have told you before.

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

  1. Paul claimed he saw Jesus in the Desert, on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:1-19, Acts 22:6-21, Acts 26:12-18
  2. Paul claimed he received private revelations from Jesus, as “in the secret chambers”. Galatians 1:11-17, Acts 26:16
  3. Paul claimed to be an apostle, based on “great signs and wonders”. Acts 15:12, 2 Corinthians 12:12
There is a lot more, of course, as follows.

Jesus warned about the Pharisees. Paul was a pharisee.

Jesus warned about blind guides. Paul was literally blinded on the road to Damascus.

Jesus warned about hypocrities. Paul is a hypocrite, thus making him spiritually blind as well.


Jesus, after his resurrection, in Matthew 28:20, said to continue to obey the law. Paul claimed that the law was nailed to the Cross along with Jesus.

Jesus warned about people who add to the law. Paul ads to the law adding commands that men must wear short hair, that women wear long hair, no jewelry, that women can’t speak in Churches, that we can’t obey the law or else be condemned by it, that widows under age 60 should not be financially supported, all sorts of weird non Biblical law utter nonsense. In Jesus’s parable of the lost son, the father puts back on him a gold ring.

So, based on this very limited presentation, in order for me to believe Paul, I have to specifically disobey the direct commands of Jesus to “believe it not”.

To believe Paul, I also have to assume Jesus was so incompetent, that Jesus did not know his law was nailed to the cross, and that Jesus mistakenly commanded obedience to the law after his resurrection. Matthew 28:20

I have to also assume Jesus was so incompetent that Jesus mistakenly chose and mistakenly educated for 3 years, in person, 12 Apostles who were all wrong and had to be corrected by Paul, an admitted blasphemer and killer of Christians, who supposedly got the gospel right from a brief appearance by a vision, when Jesus specifically said he would not ever appear in such a way, and that if others claimed he did, we were to “believe it not”.

So that’s a brief summary of why I cannot believe Paul is a true Apostle. But I think it really comes down to the fact that I’m commanded to not believe him."


https://revealingfraud.com/2019/07/religion/the-apostle-paul-is-a-fraud-and-honesty-matters/

While I agree with Paul regarding how Christians are not obliged to follow all ancient Jewish religious traditions or customs, I do consider Paul as being a false prophet on the basis of him making false claims about having been blinded on the road to Damascus and then of having seen Jesus Christ. I simply don't believe in some of the claims made by Paul. He claims to have been reformed by God against persecuting many Christians,, when its doubtful during his time and where he was, that there could have been many Christians. Please let us keep in mind, Christianity was an obscure cult until Paul had spread around his fabricated version of Christianity.
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
God did not create homosexuals. Homosexuality, as with all other sin, is a product of the disobedient and sinful nature of man. It is our own flawed nature that creates this as well as all other issues contrary to God. As far as ultimately denying himself and abstaining from homosexual desires, well that is the request of God for ALL sin...to deny self and follow God
Does it bother you then when various countries decriminalise homosexuality and even allow gay marriage? Would you think of these countries as being backward - like the UK, for example, and many others?
 
Top