Why did God create homosexuality?

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

If you want to add to the topic DNB and I are discussing so be. If you just want to interrupt to make an argument, cut it. If he/she has an issue what in saying let DNB bring it up. It's not worth it.

 

[David Weaver]

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.

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.

Thank you for the indepth answer. This gives me a lot of ground to go over. I will get back with you once I decide if I agree or disagree with your statement and why

 

[Firelight]

If you want to add to the topic DNB and I are discussing so be. If you just want to interrupt to make an argument, cut it. If he/she has an issue what in saying let DNB bring it up. It's not worth it.

Too late, I did neither one. I made a perfectly logical suggestion based on the fact that your definition of homosexuality is different than the OP and you’ve hi-jacked this thread. Since you are still presenting your own definition, I will make the suggestion again. You should make your own separate thread on which to argue your own definition of homosexuality. Your definition would reach more people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Possibly top 10 things I never said or implied. But maybe it's true according to your definition. All reading is interpretation after all, by the nature of the thing.

But you did imply it every strongly.

What you should try to understand is why they had those rules, at that time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

There is even more evidence opposing the Bible. You may not have a firm understanding of the concept of evidence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Too late, I did neither one. I made a perfectly logical suggestion based on the fact that your definition of homosexuality is different than the OP and you’ve hi-jacked this thread. Since you are still presenting your own definition, I will make the suggestion again. You should make your own separate thread on which to argue your own definition of homosexuality. Your definition would reach more people.

Change your tone. It's easier to concentrate on what you say and I can actually refer to what you're talking about when I'm not trying to shift though the emotions no matter how they are written.

 

[Lain]

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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

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.

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

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)

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?

If the act has a bad moral object then intending to do it would be bad. The word "evil" has a very broad application to me, from a "white lie" to genocide to the death of a plant, all of this can go under the name "evil" to me. Or it can also be said to be lack of good in anything, or where it is not as good as it could be.

The association between a person and their acts is to a degree impossible to avoid, as we only come to know persons through their acts, the acts reveal their existence to us even. Moreover knowing choices that are moral are a kind of "working of the person," in that good persons produce good acts and bad persons produce bad acts. Now bad shouldn't be thought of as some positive quality but only that the person is deficient, or in a sense is not as good of a human person as they could be. One can still say they are entirely good in themselves but they could be better.

The negative consequences of it from my view include but are not limited to: a decrease in the goodness of a person, a blindness to the things of God (long in Christian theology has it been said that lust and fornication blinds the intellect) or higher goods at all, the social consequences that occur when a society is filled with this (the whole begins to not direct itself to it's end which is God and virtue, which leads to death and Hell ultimately).

The point about Jesus was basically just that He by His good acts had negative consequences but the good ones outweighed the bad ones.

Those two examples are not a comparison to same-sex sexual acts but just elucidate the point of gravity and the necessity of knowing choice in moral acts.

As for intention: yes it is the position that intention alone is not the most important part of the act. While they may have a good or misplaced intention to do good the act in itself is bad. An example to elucidate that point is how someone can intend to not make a mess but does in fact, they may not even realize they have done it but they in fact did do it, and it objectively has made a mess. The same applies here.

I agree with God's judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah although I personally think it had more to do with the rape than that, but that's a side issue. I am just saying that in judging the world at the end of time those who are saved will participate in that, so there is imitation. I do not think any judgment of God is in error though.

 

[Lain]

But you did imply it every strongly.

What you should try to understand is why they had those rules, at that time.

Well if that's the implication you got that's unfortunate. I do not think sex is an evil disease but a good thing that people should do well. As for learning why this rule has been given it is an object of study, the history is fascinating from every angle.

 

[Lain]

Ergo, your church condemns sexual relationships between sterile couples, knowing to be sterile. Correct?

ciao

- viole

No, infertility is not an impediment to marriage or to being able to have natural marital relations open to life (not being able to do a thing at all and not being able for the thing to be productive are two different things), although impotence is. Impotence being a psychological or physical inability to have sex at all (like a guy who got his genitals torn off can't marry in the Church, although if that happens after he is married he will remain married but just be impotent).

 

[Wildswanderer]

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 didn't create homosexuality. Sin did.

 

[David Weaver]

There is even more evidence opposing the Bible. You may not have a firm understanding of the concept of evidence.

I use history, science, and archeology in support of my stance that the Bible is trustworthy. Things that are used in their respective fields as evidence for whatever claim they are aiming to validate. If the respective fields consider it valid evidence for secular events why would the same thing not be considered evidence if you can show its application elsewhere. You are attacking my intelligence with a baseless claim that I must not understand what evidence really means. That is not debate but merely arguing for the sake of arguing. I have disagreed with several people in my time, but don't have to attack anyone personally to do so. Not all evidence is convincing to all people and that's acceptable for various reasons, but don't presume to know my level of understanding simply because you don't agree with my stance

 

[Kooky]

I use history, science, and archeology in support of my stance that the Bible is trustworthy. Things that are used in their respective fields as evidence for whatever claim they are aiming to validate.

I mean, sure, everyone can cherry pick from sources to prop up their worldview, that's not even all that hard to do with access to the Internet and a couple of free afternoons.

 

[David Weaver]

I mean, sure, everyone can cherry pick from sources to prop up their worldview, that's not even all that hard to do with access to the Internet and a couple of free afternoons.

My research is not done in a couple free afternoons as you once again assume. I spend months on research in a single topic looking for ALL information available not just what fits a narrative, that is the essence of quality research

 

[Kooky]

I agree with God's judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah although I personally think it had more to do with the rape than that, but that's a side issue.

Really, I thought it was all about violating the Laws of Hospitality, one of the most important and most sacred laws the ancient people of the Levant and the Mediterranean knew.

 

[Lain]

Really, I thought it was all about violating the Laws of Hospitality, one of the most important and most sacred laws the ancient people of the Levant and the Mediterranean knew.

It's about that too, they did a lot of evil. The Lord Jesus also condemns in some of the harshest words those who violate the hospitality Laws.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think that you want to learn.

And HOW do you know what I want ?
Learn what? What am I going to learn from you?
I don't want to learn, I guess that is why I spent 20 years in college.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Actually yes, as neither is open to procreation.

And naturally, if one doesn't want children, or more children, or can't have children for any reason whatever, one should give up on the idea of physical intimacy altogether -- even with one's spouse.

All good marriages are relieved when they finally get to stop doing that nasty business, eh?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

You keep bringing "the Lord Jesus" into your discussion about sexuality. Am I to suppose that because two-thirds of the world DO NOT BELIEVE IN your Lord Jesus, they should be abstaining from sex -- in your view?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Oh, goodie -- another one!

 

[Lain]

You keep bringing "the Lord Jesus" into your discussion about sexuality. Am I to suppose that because two-thirds of the world DO NOT BELIEVE IN your Lord Jesus, they should be abstaining from sex -- in your view?

I bring it into my view because I am giving my opinion and it is my opinion that the Lord Jesus is authoritative in... everything really.

But it is not my view that non-Christians should abstain from sex, they can have what is called a natural marriage. When two Jews marry they are truly married and can have sex, it's fine and good with God. Same for other groups, atheists, etc. May God bless them and give them 20 kids.