Why did God create homosexuality?

[Trailblazer]

You constantly demonstrate that you are only looking for excuses to believe and do not heed corrections when they are given to you. After a while people will just give up.

You constantly demonstrate that you are only looking for excuses to disbelieve and do not heed corrections when they are given to you.

As such you constantly demonstrate Psychological projection.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[Trailblazer]

You constantly demonstrate that you are only looking for excuses to believe and do not heed corrections when they are given to you. After a while people will just give up.

I asked some pointed questions:

Trailblazer said: And HOW do you know what I want ?
Learn what? What am I going to learn from you?

Instead of answering my questions you obfuscated and deflected.
That is what certain atheists do when they cannot answer the questions I ask without getting egg all over their faces.

And now I have some more question:

Why would I need an excuse to believe in God?
Do I ever tell you that you need an excuse NOT to believe in God?
Why should I heed corrections from atheists?
Why would atheists know more than I know?

You do not know what I want, only I know what I want and other people know what I want if I tell them what I want.
Sometimes I want to believe in God and sometimes I do not want to believe in God and I already told you that.
If I tell people what I want I expect them to believe me instead of contradicting me but certain atheists cannot help themselves from arrogantly telling me what I want, as if they know what I want better than I know what I want.

Baha'u'llah had a few words to say about people who demonstrate that behavior.

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

 

[Trailblazer]

Alright then the consequences of banning marriage until sex is a high percentage of bad marriages.

Do you have any proof that waiting until marriage to have sex causes a high percentage of bad marriages?
Some actual statistics would be nice.

In a study of 2,035 couples published in Psychology, those who have a "no sex until marriage" principle rated the quality of their marital sex 15% higher than people who had premarital sex. In addition, those who waited until marriage expressed 22% more stability in their marriages with a 20% higher satisfaction rate.

Benefits Of Waiting Until Marriage (& 3 Bad Reasons Not To)

 

[idea]

Just a random question - Jesus (and other spiritual leaders) do not record their marriage (if they were married at all), and do not record having children.

If marriage and having kids is such a big deal, why didn't the record of Jesus' ministry include Jesus getting married and having kids? It seems like the new testament would revolve around marriage and kids - and it does not seem to revolve around that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You constantly demonstrate that you are only looking for excuses to disbelieve and do not heed corrections when they are given to you.

As such you constantly demonstrate Psychological projection.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Nope. I correctly use logic and evidence. How many times have people tried to explain your use of circular reasoning?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have any proof that waiting until marriage to have sex causes a high percentage of bad marriages?
Some actual statistics would be nice.

In a study of 2,035 couples published in Psychology, those who have a "no sex until marriage" principle rated the quality of their marital sex 15% higher than people who had premarital sex. In addition, those who waited until marriage expressed 22% more stability in their marriages with a 20% higher satisfaction rate.

Benefits Of Waiting Until Marriage (& 3 Bad Reasons Not To)

Yes, I do. You should see if you can support your claims without using a highly biased source.

 

[Trailblazer]

When trying to understand the Bible one must understand the limitations at that time. No birth control and no social safety net meant that unplanned pregnancies could be catastrophic. That along with the concept of women as property was what caused such strict rules. Those conditions do not exist today so those rules do not apply today.

The rule of waiting until marriage to have sex is not based upon any of those things. Since God made the rules God would have to change the rules stated in the Bible, but rather than changing the rules God reinstated them.

"It’s easy to think that the Bible doesn’t say anything about premarital sex. But that’s because people usually look for negative statements: a condemnation or “thou shalt not.” But the Bible expresses God’s perspective mainly in positive terms. And Scripture clearly states that sex belongs in marriage, between one man and one woman."
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/the-bible-on-pre-marital-sex-and-sexual-morality/

What does the Bible say about sex before marriage?
It’s pretty straightforward. Thessalonians 4:3 says, “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication…”
Benefits Of Waiting Until Marriage (& 3 Bad Reasons Not To Abstain)

What did Baha'u'llah say about sex before marriage?

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas is Bahá'u'lláh's book of laws, written in Arabic around 1873 while He was still imprisoned within the city of 'Akká. It is considered the Most Holy Book of the Baha’i Faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I asked some pointed questions:

Trailblazer said: And HOW do you know what I want ?
Learn what? What am I going to learn from you?

Instead of answering my questions you obfuscated and deflected.
That is what certain atheists do when they cannot answer the questions I ask without getting egg all over their faces.

And now I have some more question:

Why would I need an excuse to believe in God?
Do I ever tell you that you need an excuse NOT to believe in God?
Why should I heed corrections from atheists?
Why would atheists know more than I know?

You do not know what I want, only I know what I want and other people know what I want if I tell them what I want.
Sometimes I want to believe in God and sometimes I do not want to believe in God and I already told you that.
If I tell people what I want I expect them to believe me instead of contradicting me but certain atheists cannot help themselves from arrogantly telling me what I want, as if they know what I want better than I know what I want.

Baha'u'llah had a few words to say about people who demonstrate that behavior.

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

TLDR. There is no excuse for a response several times the length of a post.

When you agree to use logic and reasoning properly then we can have a discussion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, I do. You should see if you can support your claims without using a highly biased source.

If you have another source please present it.

 

[Trailblazer]

TLDR. There is no excuse for a response several times the length of a post.

I do not need an excuse for what I post, including its length. All I need is a reason, and I had a reason. I wanted to see if you would answer my questions or if you would instead continue to obfuscate and deflect.

I should have known that I would not get any answers to my questions as avoidance is a common atheist tactic.

Of course you just re-demonstrated just what I said in the post. Instead of answering my questions you continued to obfuscate and deflect. You said my post was too long to read as a way of not having to read it and answer my questions. You would not obfuscate and deflect if you could honestly answer the questions I posed without getting egg on your face.

When you agree to use logic and reasoning properly then we can have a discussion.

I could say the same about you but I would not say it because I am not full of myself.
What you are really saying is "When you agree to use logic and reasoning properly like I do then we can have a discussion."

I am not going to bother asking any more questions, like why you think that your logic and reasoning is any better than my logic and reasoning because you will just obfuscate and deflect again since you cannot answer me honestly without getting egg on your face.

Your logic and reasoning is not any better than mine just because you believe it is. If you cannot understand what I am getting at there is nothing more that I can say. I will just have to accept that I cannot penetrate the wall of ego.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope. I correctly use logic and evidence. How many times have people tried to explain your use of circular reasoning?

Evidence for what? You have absolutely no evidence that proves that there is no God -- zero, zilch, nada.

Glad we got that out of the way. As for you believing that you correctly use logic and I don't you have no evidence of that either, you just believe you reason better than me, but that is just a personal opinion with no evidence to back it up, only your own ego.

As for circular reasoning I already addressed that on numerous occasions.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

As for "many people have tried" why would it matter how many people have tried? That does not mean that what they have tried to tell me is actually true.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

[Trailblazer]

If marriage and having kids is such a big deal, why didn't the record of Jesus' ministry include Jesus getting married and having kids? It seems like the new testament would revolve around marriage and kids - and it does not seem to revolve around that.

I don't really know, but in my personal opinion I think that Jesus was too busy to have the time for marriage and a family.
Jesus was a notable exception to the rule since He was sent by God to complete an important mission, to save all of humanity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not need an excuse for what I post, including its length. All I need is a reason, and I had a reason. I wanted to see if you would answer my questions or if you would instead continue to obfuscate and deflect.

I should have known that I would not get any answers to my questions as avoidance is a common atheist tactic.

Of course you just re-demonstrated just what I said in the post. Instead of answering my questions you continued to obfuscate and deflect. You said my post was too long to read as a way of not having to read it and answer my questions. You would not obfuscate and deflect if you could honestly answer the questions I posed without getting egg on your face.

I could say the same about you but I would not say it because I am not full of myself.
What you are really saying is "When you agree to use logic and reasoning properly like I do then we can have a discussion."

I am not going to bother asking any more questions, like why you think that your logic and reasoning is any better than my logic and reasoning because you will just obfuscate and deflect again since you cannot answer me honestly without getting egg on your face.

Your logic and reasoning is not any better than mine just because you believe it is. If you cannot understand what I am getting at there is nothing more that I can say. I will just have to accept that I cannot penetrate the wall of ego.

Nope, you made a bunch of false accusations that I ignored.

Just tell me when you are ready to admit when you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence for what? You have absolutely no evidence that proves that there is no God -- zero, zilch, nada.

Glad we got that out of the way. As for you believing that you correctly use logic and I don't you have no evidence of that either, you just believe you reason better than me, but that is just a personal opinion with no evidence to back it up, only your own ego.

As for circular reasoning I already addressed that on numerous occasions.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

As for "many people have tried" why would it matter how many people have tried? That does not mean that what they have tried to tell me is actually true.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

LOL! Oh my! A classic attempt to shift the burden of proof. I am sorry but you have it backwards. You have no reliable evidence for your beliefs. I do not need evidence when no reliable evidence has been presented. The null hypothesis is disbelief.


And you are misusing logical fallacies. The fact that many people have explained to your is not an argumentum ad populum. You have been wrong. Terribly wrong. We are not debating that. We are discussing how you can have a reasoned discussion with others.

 

[idea]

I don't really know, but in my personal opinion I think that Jesus was too busy to have the time for marriage and a family.
Jesus was a notable exception to the rule since He was sent by God to complete an important mission, to save all of humanity.

WWJD? For those trying to be like Jesus - seems like they would also dedicate their life to ministry and trying to serve others, rather than getting married and having kids?

 

[DNB]

You don't know this. Sex is a behavior. If a straight person wishes not to sin he wouldn't have same sex sex, only have it in marriage, and use his privates only for procreation and using the rest room.

I know you're conservative but how you express yourself...people with this same feelings have hurt so many people.

It goes beyond difference of opinion. But your God killed sinners who engage in sexual perversion. Why would that be different today if you and God think the same?

The only reason that my sentiments may hurt someone, is because there are these constant bleeding-hearts like yourself, that just cannot accept a moral accusation. You construe my views as bigoted or homophobic. Like I said, I'm just as guilty, but admit it.
God's austerity under the Old Covenant, was meant to illustrate the egregious nature opf sin and how desensitized that we have become in, first, discerning it, and secondly, denouncing it. Once that this has been established, i.e. our awareness has been enlightened, God is prepared to be merciful if we repent and refrain from these insidious behaviours - Jesus died for our sins.

 

[DNB]

The bible says same sex sex is wrong. It mentions nothing about sexuality, attraction, and orientation.

So straight people are homosexual according to scripture.

You know what I mean.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The rule of waiting until marriage to have sex is not based upon any of those things. Since God made the rules God would have to change the rules stated in the Bible, but rather than changing the rules God reinstated them.

"It’s easy to think that the Bible doesn’t say anything about premarital sex. But that’s because people usually look for negative statements: a condemnation or “thou shalt not.” But the Bible expresses God’s perspective mainly in positive terms. And Scripture clearly states that sex belongs in marriage, between one man and one woman."
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/the-bible-on-pre-marital-sex-and-sexual-morality/

What does the Bible say about sex before marriage?
It’s pretty straightforward. Thessalonians 4:3 says, “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication…”
Benefits Of Waiting Until Marriage (& 3 Bad Reasons Not To Abstain)

What did Baha'u'llah say about sex before marriage?

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas is Bahá'u'lláh's book of laws, written in Arabic around 1873 while He was still imprisoned within the city of 'Akká. It is considered the Most Holy Book of the Baha’i Faith.

Sorry, but until you prove that your God even exists you are in no position to claim "God made the rules".

Now as a believer you probably should follow those rules but you are in no position to even judge someone for not following those rules.

Your sources, since they are grossly unsupported can all be dismissed with a big "so what?". Those only apply to followers at best. And I am pretty sur that there are quite a few that do not follow those archaic values.

 

[DNB]

Why would you invite someone in your home you openly disrespect?

Strangers are people too and you have been unchristlike in this conversation.

I'm not sure he would stay in your home if he knew you define him as a sinner based on a label.

I said 'engage', not invite in my home.
...I have been overly Christ-like in this conversation. Suffering the incessant and exasperating remarks by you and your cohorts, who prefer to debate over semantics rather than principle and fundamentals - penises were made for vaginas, and men should not dress like woman.

 

[DNB]

Your version of "christian love" is wrong, and I don't endorse it. I've seen it many times -- it's like road-kill, not pretty but hard to look away.

The ability to discern right from wrong, to distinguish between beneficial and harmful acts, is derived from Christian love.