• 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?

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If a human talks about science then says gods heavens changed did God do the change?

No. But also yes.

Man's choice with machine caused it.

God status of course changed.

If you state sun thesis ended earths conversion was when water sealed off ground attack. Water evaporated. Vacuum voided burning gases the advice is no fallout.

Holy mother space womb owned the body of sacrificed gas alight removed was an origin teaching.

God and the holy mother of God.

First human science natural science advice. Sacrifice was gods and gods mother. Not Jesus story.

Natural lights actual place.

No unholy life sacrificed. Human. No homosexual story.

Man introduced attack himself in nuclear dust science.

Now we discuss behaviour. Human reasoning. Brother versus brother. Control. Manipulation. Coercion today is involved in self destructive male personality disorders.

First.

Why would you believe or want the information to be real as natural God?

Rationally. Answer owns no rationale.

As irradiation of life means gases burning come to the ground. Water evaporation causes it to be met. At times it is not enough water so contradictory is the causes.

So ice melts. Too late for life attacked.

To teach God hence destroys you first before machine control reacts was a teaching.

Yet fault was human man in science practice caused.

So the bible written predicted atmospheric advice said. End of gods irradiation of life sacrifice would end in the year 2012.

Historic past gay relationship review....small population only.

Time is sun is nuclear.

In late 1800s nuclear science study experiments began.

2012 end never occurred.

Bible predictions were previously based on man's non nuclear practice. As they did not own the year 2012.

Evolution was state to allow human healing.

Ignored advice. As you agreed to never practice nuclear science again.

Mind conscious awareness. God is owner fallout and not science. Science lied to himself in modern life aware studies.

Science had not allowed it to stop. It was science activated the teaching.

Fallout was not natural.

Ignored taught God of man scientific stated advice.

Why it was written.

If man mind theories before dust. To know how to react dust then his thought is displaced before dust.

In natural life bio mind and body is after dust.

O circular reasoning then became his own theist conscious possession.

As he tried to convince bio life began after a dust nuclear reaction.

Calling is a machine human designed communication system. Scientists designer tried to convince humanity we were bio mechanical. As if we were doing it.

As his life partner bio life is bio hu man DNA was removed by metallic irradiation causes so he now acts as if he is sexually United with a machine. Why he built robots to have sex with.

God teaching bio mother father mutual human life continuance only. Living in and with the nature garden.

Which he totally ignored as his personality disorder claims his thoughts and his words created life.

Why and how God never owned an intention for homosexual behaviour. As intention is theorised as science in human theorising.

With intent meaning is a purposeful act why God never did it. As first father recorded as Gods voice only was paired with our natural human mother.
 

Neuropteron

Active Member
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?


Hi,

Should not the question be " did God create homosexuality ?"

The answer depends largely on how well a person Knows God.

Those that like to paint God as cruel, unloving, illogical might use homosexuality as an example of his meanspiritidness.

However the progressive drifting away from Godly standard during mankinds history has resulted in a deviation from what is natural.

While it is true that some homosexual are born with this unnatural desire, we should keep in mind that God did not condemn homosexuals but the "act" of homosexuality, just as he condemn the act of promiscuity perpretated by heterosexuals.

The requirement to deny oneself is not something that is only asked of homosexual but of all Christians that desire to follows God's law and principles.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Yet, you haven’t once addressed the thread creator, who was actually long gone after his thread was hijacked.
Ooops, you've confused me with the other poster you were conversing with.

Also, it's kind of difficult to converse with someone "who was actually long gone after his thread was hijacked," wouldn't you say?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Joelr........ I don't do homework for angry members on Tuesdays.
You need to ask me this stuff on Thursdays and Saturday afternoons.:)

However, if you have particular points to raise I'll tell you what I think about them.


You are confusing a simple case of calling you out on a statement for anger. You said the above contained incorrect information. You were referring to an article covering the 7 arguments as to why the Synoptic problem is considered solved and the source is Mark.

Here is the article, please point out what is incorrect:

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

You said it, not me. Your words. "some is junk". Explain what is junk but please provide sources. So far you have only offered opinion based on, I don't know? Beliefs?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
But you think it's all myth, You've written that several times! So you hold all that respect for PhD HJ Historians? That's funny! :D
Nope, I hold that respect for the evidence presented that demonstrates it's all myth. YOu really don't get that? Besides the evidence it's also common sense that stories about magical demigods are fiction. But the evidence also supports it.

All you needed to do was to look up the answer.
0/10 :D
Actually no I don't need to look up the answer. I gave you what I remembered. What's funny is you think I would look up the answer. The question had nothing to do with any point in the discussion. I'm familiar with people who don't have an argument going down weird sidetracks but it's still a facepalm.

Very well....... this might teach you more than you realise. You need to be able to sieve myth out from probable fact to be a proper HJ researcher.

After arriving in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday they went to the Temple, sightseeing...........
Mark {11:11} And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.

There's no need for detail like this if it's all myth.
The fact that these Galilean peasants spent the day sightseeing shows that they didn't frequent the Temple as often as G-John pretends........ You see, tiny half verses can throw so much light upon other factors and parts of the story.
And I can tell you that nobody seems to ever have taken note of that day's events, they all think that the hellraising started on the first day....... Now you've got it you can use it to test any others.


Is what you say when you haven't ever studied mythology. Well, except the Gospel myths.
"When Narada heard that Krishna had many wives, he was intrigued to see how the Lord handled that. ... As he entered one of the palaces, he saw that Krishna was there. ... He was sightseeing around the palaces of Krishna's queens."

Of course you write details in a myth. The final narrative is the entire point of the story, it's going to have detail. Also it isn't sightseeing. Looking around upon all things is a deeper symbolism than "sightseeing" LOL.

Now that you have a shred of a clue feel free to use it to test others.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You are confusing a simple case of calling you out on a statement for anger. You said the above contained incorrect information. You were referring to an article covering the 7 arguments as to why the Synoptic problem is considered solved and the source is Mark.

Here is the article, please point out what is incorrect:

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

You said it, not me. Your words. "some is junk". Explain what is junk but please provide sources. So far you have only offered opinion based on, I don't know? Beliefs?
Oh please! I only had to read the first paragraph!
You need to make your mind up through personal research and investigation rather than grasp any junk that suits your personal prejudices.

Here:-
A. The Literary Interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels
It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition. But the vast bulk of NT scholars today would argue for much more than that.3 There are four crucial arguments which virtually prove literary interdependence.

Don't waste my time, Joel.
G-Mark is a lone deposition featuring the author's own experiences plus the memoirs of a person who clearly was not totally united with others such as Saul/Paul.

That's as easy to to show as your last lesson about what Jesus did on that last Palm Sunday. Go and figure all this stuff out for yourself and then it'll have more value.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Nope, I hold that respect for the evidence presented that demonstrates it's all myth.
I know...... that's selective cherry-picking to fit your own prejudged position, Joel. It's the root of ignorance.

Actually no I don't need to look up the answer.
You do need to look up answers if you want to rise out of ignorance, Joel.
All you have done is show me that you know absolutely nothing about the accounts deposed in the gospels, you just pick up and hug any 'scholar' who fits your theories. :)

Of course you write details in a myth. The final narrative is the entire point of the story, it's going to have detail. Also it isn't sightseeing. Looking around upon all things is a deeper symbolism than "sightseeing" LOL.
Go away Joel. Bother others with your stuff.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
I wonder at humans who claim bible genetic information as written about in human presence is somehow some magical God act!

Oh that is right the egotist human theist claims anyone but their self today is not intelligent.

How they personally relate theirself in our life.

Owning that inability to honour teaching and learning they ignore the related terms discussed by just humans.

Instead claim a special God told me. The teachings state that special God is equal for everyone.

Human special knowledge. Life cannot live without two natural sexual human parents having sex.

If you are a born homosexual human sex natural procreation is not the answer.

The human advice.

So why do we challenge changed states of a human?

Commonsense natural human sex is why we continue in life.

As a human I keep my sexual behaviour private

A huge human population flaunts it. I never asked you to tell me.

So you flaunt your sex behaviours.

Real answer a big whoop.

Unless your behaviour is to harm another human then actually I care less in reality. Sex is just a choice.

No says science see their God status has changed.

What?

Humans still own a penis or a vagina. No it has not.

Behaviours a totally different status with God

Not discussed correctly in natural human genetics.
 

DNB

Christian
So games and riddles are all you have to offer, other than bigoted opinions and bold empty claims?
Thought so.:rolleyes:
...in my opinion, all should stay away from homosexuality, and do their best to deter others from it also, for it is obscene and perverted. If you're over 10 years old, you should be able to understand this.
...but, actually, just to underscore my point, it's usually the adolescent who understand these things more intuitively then those who, through the years, tend to get corrupted and desensitized by either witnessing, or partaking in behaviour that would have repulsed them as a child.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Oh please! I only had to read the first paragraph!
You need to make your mind up through personal research and investigation rather than grasp any junk that suits your personal prejudices.

Here:-
A. The Literary Interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels
It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition. But the vast bulk of NT scholars today would argue for much more than that.3 There are four crucial arguments which virtually prove literary interdependence.

Don't waste my time, Joel.
G-Mark is a lone deposition featuring the author's own experiences plus the memoirs of a person who clearly was not totally united with others such as Saul/Paul.

That's as easy to to show as your last lesson about what Jesus did on that last Palm Sunday. Go and figure all this stuff out for yourself and then it'll have more value.


HA, you just posted a quote saying that the gospels are not independent which backs up my point that the other gospels are copies of Mark? Then it goes on to say MOST NT SCHOLARS ARGUE FOR MORE??? Which means they believe they were ALL copied from Mark.
This is the conclusion of Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman and most NT historians?

Now, you haven't yet explained what part of this article was "junk". You just posted a quote saying the other gospels were indeed reliant on MArk. This is from Bible.org

If you read actual NT historians they believe all were copied from Mark.
Now again, what part was junk and please give sources.

Oh, you failed to respond to the debunking that myths don't contain "sightseeing" as well. Krishna also did some sightseeing. You failed to respond to anything actually?

This is called a "source" -

"
4. “The Gospels”

“This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each Gospel is an independent account of his life.” Nope. See above. Every Gospel is just an embellished redaction of Mark. Even John (OHJ, ch. 10.7)."
Dr Carrier
41 Reasons We're, Like, Totes Sure Jesus Existed! • Richard Carrier

"G-Mark is a lone deposition featuring the author's own experiences plus the memoirs of a person who clearly was not totally united with others such as Saul/Paul."

I already gave sources that the gospels are anonymous. This is consensus even in Christian scholarship never mind historicity. I get you are living in a fantasy world where your beliefs are all true despite what even your own religion thinks but could you at least try?


"Most scholars date Mark to c. 66–74 AD, either shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD.[6] They reject the traditional ascription to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Peter, which probably arose from the desire of early Christians to link the work to an authoritative figure, and believe it to be the work of an author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative."



An author. Anonymous. Using miracle stories, parables ....myths.

Besides copying OT lines verbatim Mark also took Paul's letters and created earthly stories around them. In Paul Jesus is talking to him giving a message to future Christians about how his body is bread and so on. Mark changes it to an actual supper with people and real bread. It's a myth.


"
Another example is “the last supper.” This began as a vision Paul had of Jesus relating to him what he spoke mystically to all future generations of Christians, as we see in 1 Corinthians 11:23-27. As Paul there says, he received this “from the Lord.” Directly. Just as he says he received all his teachings (Galatians 1:11-12; Romans 10:14-15; Romans 16:25-26). In Paul’s version, no one else is present. It is not a “last” supper (as if Jesus had had any others before), but merely “the bread and cup of the Lord.” And Jesus is not speaking to “disciples” but to the whole Christian Church unto the end of time—including Paul and his congregations.

The text in Paul reads as follows (translating the Greek as literally as I can):

For I received from the Lord what I also handed over to you, that the Lord Jesus, during the night he was handed over, took bread, and having given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in the remembrance of me.” Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you might drink it in remembrance of me.” For as often as you might eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-26
Notably, “until he comes,” and not “until he returns.” This becomes in Mark (emphasis added):

While they were eating, having taken bread, and having blessed it, he broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then, having taken a cup, and having given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, that never again shall I drink from the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” And having sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

MARK 14:22-26
Notice what’s changed. Paul is describing Jesus miming some actions and explaining their importance. His audience is future Christians. Mark has transformed this into a narrative story by adding people being present and having Jesus interact with them: now “they were eating” (Paul does not mention anyone actually eating) and Jesus gave the bread “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and instructs them to “take” it (no such instruction in Paul); and Jesus gave the cup “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and “they all drink it” (no such event in Paul); and Jesus describes the meaning of the cup “to them” (no such audience in Paul).

Then Jesus says he will not drink “again” until the kingdom comes, a statement that fits a narrative event, implying Jesus drank, and here drank, and often drank, and will pause drinking until the end times. Likewise Jesus “blesses” the bread (which also doesn’t happen in Paul), implying the actual literal bread he has in his hand is thereby rendered special to the ones about to eat it; whereas in Paul that makes no sense, because no one is there to eat it, Jesus is just depicting and explaining a ritual others will perform in his honor, not that he is performing for them. So it is notable that all of these things are absent from Paul. There is no narrative context of this being the last of many cups Jesus has drunk and of Jesus pausing drinking or of his blessing the bread and giving it to people present. In Paul, the whole scene is an instruction to future followers, not a description of a meal Jesus once had.

This is how Mark reifies a revelation in Paul, relating Jesus’s celestial instructions for performing a sacrament and its meaning, into a narrative historical event. Mark has even taken Paul’s language, about Jesus being “handed over,” which in Paul means by God (Romans 8:32, exact same word) and even by himself (Galatians 2:20, exact same word), not by Judas, and converted it into a whole new narrative of a betrayal by “the Jews” (the meaning of Judas, i.e. Judah, i.e. Judea). Paul has no knowledge of a betrayal. Indeed in Paul, all of “the twelve” get to see Jesus right after his death and are recognized as apostles (1 Corinthians 15:5; see Proving History, pp. 151-55).

Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I know...... that's selective cherry-picking to fit your own prejudged position, Joel. It's the root of ignorance.

Uh, no it's the consensus of historicity and archeology. Also common sense says Hellenistic savior demigods are exactly as real as Zeus or Odin.
The only thing left is apologetics. I've studied CS Lewis, Mike Licone, Gary Habermas and so on, it's incredibly easy to debunk as psuedo-science?


"Generally Moses is seen as a legendary figure, whilst retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE."

The historians who were fundamentalist Christian, like Bart Ehrman, saw the evidence and became non-theist.

You do need to look up answers if you want to rise out of ignorance, Joel.
All you have done is show me that you know absolutely nothing about the accounts deposed in the gospels, you just pick up and hug any 'scholar' who fits your theories. :)
Go away Joel. Bother others with your stuff.

Go away? You are the one responding and failing to produce any evidence. Then getting pissy when your beliefs are clearly fiction.
Again, go ahead, give evidence.
Your last evidence was that it cannot be myth because sightseeing. Besides that you want to overlook all the mythic literary devices, verbatim OT lines, cribbing off Paul, Jesus scores 18 out of 22 on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale (no fictional character scores higher) and Hellenistic sons/daughters of sky Gods were already happening in many religions (only in that area) starting around 300BC.......... Krishna also sightsees.

I'm looking for evidence. If you cannot provide any then stop responding then that's how I will "go away". So simple.
 
Top