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

[LightHorseman]

I am not going to debate every point, as I have frankly had enough of arguing this... I am in the unfortunate position of being considered wrong by both sides in this , and it gets tiring.

And anyway, by your logic bolded above, I don't exist, so why bother.

Hope I've never said anything to make you think I consider you "on the wrong side".

Praying for ya.

 

[Joykins]

So let me see if I get this logic right.

God created human beings.

I am a human being.

Therefore, God created me.

God did not create sin.

I am a sinner.

Therefore God did not create me.

Have I got that logic just about right now?

 

[Polycarp1]

"All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

By the logic used here, God did not create sinners.

I don't like where this syllogism is going.

Instead, let me note something different:

God loved the world that He sent His only-begotten Son, to atone for sin, so that all who put their faith and trust in Him should not perish (as is the fate of sinners) but have everlasting life.

What all this logic is missing is God's grace. And grace is unearned favor, His gift of unconditional love.

People who put strings on God's love are in error. Because He didn't.

 

[onemessiah]

One of the main problems here is claiming that people are homosexual whereas God obviously doesn’t see people as homosexual. That’s the problem.
So we are having to argue about assumption when the assumption is false.
God created male and female which includes people who identify themselves as homosexuals, but God created male and female to be united, so homosexuals aren’t what God created those people to be.
Therefore when people who claim to be homosexual say God created them, they don’t know who they really are, as His Biblical testimony shows. If they insist on identifying themselves by their sexual attraction which is contrary to God’s purposes then they are not honouring God who made them. Romans 1 is the best example of this.

So to answer tulc's question a little while back,
the answer is human's created the idea which is a result of disobedience and rebellion to God's purposes. [/SIZE][/FONT]

lol....."humans created the idea of homosexuality?"
then that means they also created the idea of heterosexuality.
and the idea of which is moral and which isn't.
You're beginning to sound more and more like a (misinformed) atheist.

 

[IamRedeemed]

This thread is completely derailed and OFF TOPIC.

Sin had not yet entered into the scenario in the events
quoted from Genesis 1 and 2.

So, let's please stick to discussing God's revealed plan for man
which is demonstrated for us in the Scriptures provided in the OP
from Genesis 1 and 2 which took place BEFORE the fall of man, therefore
BEFORE sin entered into the picture.

This is of course giving the benefit of the doubt to those who
are creating all of the strawmen and red herring arguments and derailments, that
it isn't being done on purpose and they are just having difficulty understanding that
there was a time on the earth that man existed without sin and discussing the topic
in alignment with that understanding.

So, I thank you for getting back on topic in the proper context of the topic in advance.

 

[CaDan]

This thread is completely derailed and OFF TOPIC.

Sin had not yet entered into the scenario in the events
quoted from Genesis 1 and 2.

So, let's please stick to discussing God's revealed plan for man
which is demonstrated for us in the Scriptures provided in the OP
from Genesis 1 and 2 which took place BEFORE the fall of man, therefore
BEFORE sin entered into the picture.

This is of course giving the benefit of the doubt to those who
are creating all of the strawmen and red herring arguments and derailments, that
it isn't being done on purpose and they are just having difficulty understanding that
there was a time on the earth that man existed without sin and discussing the topic
in alignment with that understanding.

So, I thank you for getting back on topic in the proper context of the topic in advance.

The problem, of course, is that the passage you cite and have proclaimed is the only passage that is to be discussed says nothing about sin or the fall or really much of anything that you want to discuss. If you want to discuss these things, then it seems a fair rule would be that others may introduce Scripture not in the OP without facing your ill-informed scorn and the happy trigger fingers of some with the old report button.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear tulc,

uhmmm (again) no it's not. It's about where were homosexuals created in the creation account, not where was homosexuality in the creation account. See the difference? It's a common mistake.
tulc(glad we could clear that up!)

Doesnt matter as neither have been answered. The thread is designed to demonstrate there is no record of God creating homosexuals.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear onemessiah,

lol....."humans created the idea of homosexuality?"

Glad you found it funny

then that means they also created the idea of heterosexuality.

well if they didnt and God didnt, who did?

You're beginning to sound more and more like a (misinformed) atheist.

Based on what ?

 

[Joykins]

Can we define terms?

What is off-topic, the creation or the gay?

 

[CaDan]

On the contrary.
The passages explain EVERYTHING the topic was
created to discuss.

As I explained earlier, your ontological theory fails to account for a large number of other things that exist as well. You cannot account for yeast, triangles, Lutherans, or electricity. If you wish to deny those things exist, then I am afraid I cannot help you.

And you are fortunate you were only reported once by me
as the Lord is a witness that you should have probably received
about 10 reports from this thread alone.

I welcome your reports. I welcome all reports. When they are based upon an inability to parse an argument, it tells me a great deal about the reporter.

Do you think it might be time for you to grow up by now CaDan?

Nope.

 

[CaDan]

Can we define terms?

What is off-topic, the creation or the gay?

Definitions?

Sorry, I am not grown up enough to understand those big words.

*off to a Heideggerian contemplation of Dasein*

 

[Joykins]

Well, if God created people (CITE: GENESIS 1) and gay people are people then God created gay people

If God did not create sin and gay people are sin, then God didn't create gay people.

Obviously it is the redefining people as "sin" that leaves me puking.

 

[Crazy Liz]

On the contrary.
The passages explain EVERYTHING the topic was
created to discuss.

Please can we have the same "rules" for everyone as far as what is off-topic?

1) According to Phineas2, the OP is about who created homosexuality. The OP does not use the word "homosexuality." It uses the word "homosexuals." Homosexuals are people. Homosexuality is a concept or a characteristic of people, or perhaps even a behavior. Those of us who have literally stuck with the words of the OP have answered the question quite simply and consistently. According to the creation accounts cited in the OP, God created humanity. All humans are created by God, regardless of their characteristics. Has Phineas2 derailed the thread by bringing up another concept not in the OP? If he has, perhaps we could find some kind staff member to split out his off-topic posts and our responses to him, which seem to frustrate you so much. Alternatively, you could tell us plainly if you meant this thread to be a discussion of who created homosexuality.

2) A4T keeps bringing up Matthew 19. Is that off-topic? Again, if that is off-topic, perhaps we can get those posts split out.

Basically, what we'd like to know is what you think is off-topic and what is not. IIRC, you've made some posts agreeing with posts that seemed to be off-topic, then you complain the thread has been derailed. It appears that you only have a problem with off-topic posts that disagree with you, and have no problem with off-topic posts if you agree with them. The problem is this is a discussion, and people are going to respond to the off-topic posts that agree with you. When that happens, you complain about the thread being derailed. If you want boundaries on what can be discussed in this thread, the boundaries should apply equally to those who agree with you and those who disagree with you.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Crazy Liz,
Thats my interpretation of what the thread ttitle says. It doesnt of course but then neither do the pro-gay interpretations about the Biblical condemnations.

 

[Joykins]

Does the fact that people are created in the image of the Creator mean that people are by nature also creators?

Then the creation of the created can be either original creation or a riff, so to speak on the original design.

If homosexuality is created by people, is it an original creation or a derived creation?

Point contrast, since homosexual behavior is found among animals who were not created creators, can it be considered a creation at all?

 

[kiwimac]

Of course this problem is caused by people reading back into the record the modern meaning of the word homosexual (a word which did not even exist until the 1860s.)
The Bible condemns temple prostitution, Paul condemns the use of slaves for sexual gratification and pederasty and the OT seems to condemn the use by male-male couples of a woman's bed, I fail to see it condemning what we understand today as homosexuality.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Going back to a question the OP actually asked,

So, I will post it yet again, and perhaps this time we can move away from the childish derailments, ad hominems, non sequiturs, red herrings, strawmen ad nauseum and actually answer the question.
Remember, all of the living creations that God said was good, especially mankind, (made in His image) and instructed to be fruitful and multiply was also BEFORE the fall of mankind.

So, again, I ask you....

According to the creation account, humankind did not reproduce at all before the Fall. Guess they disobeyed God's instruction before the Fall.

 

[Texas Lynn]

If Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin fought John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards in a lawyerly sense in the courtroom who would win?

 

[Akathist]

​

Mod Hat Post​

This thread has had a bit of a clean up. Just a reminder to everyone. No matter what you believe about the subject, it is against CF rules to publicly question if someone else is a Christian or not based upon their opinions or personal choices related to homosexuality.​

Not all opinions need to be expressed publicly. Stating that someone is not a Christian because of their choice about homosexuality publicly is consider flaming a group of people. This does not mean that you have to endorse homosexuality or think that it is a good moral choice. It only means that here at CF you can not make statements such as "one can not be homosexual and a Christian".​

Again, you may have that opinion. You merely can not express it publicly at CF.​

Instead, focus on debating the topic without trying to tell someone who says they are a Christian that they are not.​

Also, please do not quote posts that violate this rule as it leads to staff having to do thread clean ups and then posting long winded mod hats .​

 

[Floatingaxe]

Of course this problem is caused by people reading back into the record the modern meaning of the word homosexual (a word which did not even exist until the 1860s.)
The Bible condemns temple prostitution, Paul condemns the use of slaves for sexual gratification and pederasty and the OT seems to condemn the use by male-male couples of a woman's bed, I fail to see it condemning what we understand today as homosexuality.

That is a choice you have made---to fudge words. What does God say about such arguments?

1 Timothy 6:3-5
Some people may contradict our teaching, but these are the wholesome teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. These teachings promote a godly life. Anyone who teaches something different is arrogant and lacks understanding. Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, division, slander, and evil suspicions. These people always cause trouble. Their minds are corrupt, and they have turned their backs on the truth. To them, a show of godliness is just a way to become wealthy.



We all know what God means about "homosexual"...the situation is, of course, that there are those here who refuse to accept what God thinks, and they prefer their own wicked thoughts on the matter. You don't know better than God...you are called to serve Him.