• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Where is the record of God creating Homosexuals in the Creation Account?

Status
Not open for further replies.

KCKID

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2008
1,867
228
Australia
✟4,479.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Sexual attractions to other things and same-sex came as sin and error because of the fall and disobedience.

Hmmm . . .so Adam - and PARTICULARLY Eve - are responsible for the creation of homosexual desires, eh ...?

The mind boggles.
 
Upvote 0

stumpjumper

Left the river, made it to the sea
Site Supporter
May 10, 2005
21,189
846
✟93,636.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

I suggest you check your Bible.
Colossians 1:16-17
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
 
Upvote 0

Sitswithamouse

I look Time Lord
Mar 6, 2005
3,871
478
56
Devon, UK
✟28,926.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Greens
God created Adam and Eve.
God created the tree of knowledge from there sin entered the world, therefore God created homosexuality because he created the tree of knowledge to cause sin to enter the world..
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟33,375.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Slightly off-topic (but relevant) derail...

In physics, heat has objective reality. It's the rate at which the molecules within a substance are vibrating, a measure of the inherent energy they possess.

"Cold" does not. Cold is definable only in terms of the relative absence of heat, something not true of heat in terms of cold.

Likewise, God [does "create evil" in one very metaphorical, nitpicky sense -- but it's the sense in which Isaiah meant it.

Good is objectively real -- it's what's in accord with God's will. Evil, like cold, does not have distinct objective reality -- it can only be defined in terms of the absence of good. One can identify extreme-case scenarios for almost anything that would normally be tagged as sin: killing in cold blood the man who's about to open fire on a kindergarten class with an automatic weapon, the woman who gave in to sex with her husband's abductor in order to help her husband escape and save his life; etc.

In order for "good" to be meaningful, there must be an alternative. If I say that all thing are "entiant", defining that word as the property which all things whatsoever, whether real or imaginary, have in common, I have done nothing useful, because there is no alternative to that term that might mean anything. Notrhing can be "non-entiant" -- by definition.

Likewise, in order for people to be able to choose the good, evil must exist to make thier choice meaningful. In this sense, and only in this sense, can one say that "God creates evil." He makes choices meaningful, by permitting them to have consequences. Evil results from bad choices -- not from His acts.
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Dear Polycarp1,
The point at hand dividing the two schools of thought here is whether the sinful desires condemned in those passages include the humanly-unchangeable desires felt by people who enter into committed loving romantic-sexual same-sex relationships.
No that’s all assumption and not in the scripture so its false assumption as it contradicts what is in the scripture. Your reasoning is not based on false assumption at the expense of the scripture. Faithful union is mentioned by Jesus as God original creation purpose in creating man and woman.


Just as a man's love for his wife, and his desire for her within the bounds of marriage and her own dignity and integrity, are not condemned by the scriptures against fornication, adultery, incest, etc., etc., is it not possible
No not possible at all.

that the manifest evils God was condemning --patronizing of enslaved boy prostitutes,
assumption! Its doesn’t say that.
use of gay sex for new kicks by ennui-laden aristocrats,
assumption, it doesn’t say that
anal sex with the male priest of the local fertility goddess as part of pagan fertility rites,
assumption! It doesn’t say that
anal gang rape of strangers in town
assumption it doesn’t say that.

... that it was these manifest evils and not the private loving consensual conduct that aroused His ire?
these weren’t the eveils described these are the assumed evils with which you try and ignore the same-sex sex condemnations. Its merely massive disbelief.

Ignore the human "ick factor" and try to focus on God's justice, and have in yourself the mindset with which He judges.
This is the problem, you are advising people who do not think you are focused on God by demonstration of your disbelief in scripture, to focus on God. Your argument seems more focused on getting others to think the way you do than anything to do with God.
 
Upvote 0

stumpjumper

Left the river, made it to the sea
Site Supporter
May 10, 2005
21,189
846
✟93,636.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Good point Polycarp and that's the point I've been trying to make. Plantinga would say that God has allowed a class of evils to exist for a greater good. In that sense, God has created the ability to sin and hence sin even though he does not will or author sin and evil.

The ability to sin, and hence sin itself, exists for a greater good. We would all do well to have that ability end in a false outcome, or an unchosen path, but it still exists nonetheless.
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Dear Stumpjumper,
I suggest you check your Bible.
I have done that’s why I see God created man and woman to be united.

Colossians 1:16-17 “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Yep all things, including men and women but He created woman for man to be united, not homosexuals which is the opposite of what He created. What is your point there is no mention or concept of homosexual or same-sex union in Colossians 1:16:17
I suggest you check your Bible Romans 1:26 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion”
 
Upvote 0

stumpjumper

Left the river, made it to the sea
Site Supporter
May 10, 2005
21,189
846
✟93,636.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

So if the Bible is correct and God created "all things visible and invisible" then you have a problem with arguing that God did not create homosexuals.

Were they uncreated?
Is so, are all homosexuals "begotten and not made"? That seems a bit blasphemous to me...

Perhaps they were created by some other power, then. If so, then you are wandering right back into various shades of dualism and gnosticism.

I think the best route would be to listen, once again, to scripture and realize that God created homosexuals and everything else...
Colossians 1:16-17
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

I don't think scripture could be any more clear. Now, if I were you, I would have to level a charge of disbelief in scripture like you just did to Polycarp but I'll be nice
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Dear Stumpjumper,
So if the Bible is correct and God created "all things visible and invisible" then you have a problem with arguing that God did not create homosexuals.
So if you are suggesting the Bible might not be correct why are you bothered?

God created man and woman, not homosexuals, He created man and woman to be in union so He obviously didn’t create homosexuals who are people who don’t want to be in man woman union. So I cant see how you can assume God might have created something opposite to what he created? And I might add the OP puts the onus on you to show where in the record God is supposed to have created homosexuals, the whole false basis of all the arguments.

Perhaps they were created by some other power, then. If so, then you are wandering right back into various shades of dualism and gnosticism.
I think the best route would be to listen, once again, to scripture and realize that God created homosexuals and everything else...
I think the best bet for you is to address my questions which will show you your questions are meaningless.

I don't think scripture could be any more clear .
Its very clear, no mention of homosexual and there wont be as God created man to be united with woman, the very opposite to the homosexual concept.
 
Upvote 0

Criada

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 6, 2007
67,838
4,093
58
✟138,028.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married

I am homosexual.
I exist.
So if God didn't create me..... to whom else are you ascribing creative power?
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Dear Criada,
I am homosexual.
I exist.
So if God didn't create me..... to whom else are you ascribing creative power?
So you arent a man or a woman? God created men and woman according to His purposes to be united. Thats what you exist for according to the word of God in Genesis 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 that we are discussing. The Bible is full of the man.woman union, no mention of same-sex unions except condmenation.
 
Upvote 0
C

ChaliceThunder

Guest

At the request of David
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,804
69
✟279,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No that’s all assumption and not in the scripture so its false assumption as it contradicts what is in the scripture. (emph. added)

"BANG!!"
Seriously, I need to find a sturdier irony meter!
Aren't YOU making two assumptions in that one statement alone?
1st that Scripture is always right, and 2nd believing your understanding of a Scripture is the only correct one?
tulc(people who assume shouldn't throw assumption stones)
 
Upvote 0

Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2003
17,090
1,106
California
✟23,305.00
Faith
Christian

Let's re-examine the question, then, according to your terms.

Where is the record of God creating black people and white people in the creation account?

You say God obviously created black and white, but if we were to reframe this question back into the exact form of the OP, how would you answer the question?
 
Upvote 0

Criada

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 6, 2007
67,838
4,093
58
✟138,028.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married

Yup, I am a woman.
And married to a man

One's orientation and one's activity are two different thing... despite what some here seem to believe.

However, the OP asks who created homosexuals.... not whose idea were homosexual relationships.
God created gossips too... despite the fact that He condemns gossiping..

The sin and the sinner, you see, are not the same thing
 
Upvote 0

Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2003
17,090
1,106
California
✟23,305.00
Faith
Christian

Who has argued that homosexuals are not men and women?
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟33,375.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat

The point, dear Phinehas, is not whether any of the assumptions I made based on vocabulary, cultural context, allusions, etc., may be valid. The point is that you are doing precisely the same thing in investing the terms of Scripture with the meanings that you prefer. We're agreed that Paul says that arsenokaites (among others) shall not inherit the Kingdom; we disagree on what Paul meant by that word. And you are no more an authority on God's inward thoughts and judgment than I am.




Look. You may disagree with me all you want. But when you post here in flat, unnuanced terms that I am guilty of "massive disbelieve" and "disbelief in Scripture," you are crossing not only the bounds of good taste and honest debate but the rules of this board and the commandments of God.

I believe in God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with every fiber of my being -- or at least strive to do so. I seek to follow His will as summarized in the teachings of Christ according to the guidance of my clergy, my own studies, the advice of those I respect in the faith, and the leading of prayer. I love and honor the Holy Scriptures as the precious and irreplaceable documentation of God's will and work through the ages and most particularly in the life and passion of our Lord and Savior. What I do not believe in is infallibility, whether it be papal infallibility, Scriptural inerrancy, or the self-arrogated certitude smugly voiced in the opinions posted on a message board by people calling themselves Phinehas2, IAmRedeemed, etc.

I disagree with you. Not with God. There is a difference. Just in case no one had yet made you aware of the fact.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Crazy Liz
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.