• 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?

Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
He more than strongly implied that:

Truthseeker9 said: ↑
I believe God did create the conditions so homosexuality could exist. However, homosexual people, like everyone else, is tested by God. It's just that we are all tested in different ways.
Why would homosexuality be a "test"? Once again, context matters.
Click to expand...
Context sure does matter. He said homosexual people, like everyone else, is tested by God."
Heterosexuals are also tested.
Subduction Zone said:
Truthseeker9 said: ↑
Of course, not for you. You don't believe in God, or that Baha'u'llah is a Prophet of God. To you, I recognize it is victimless.

And here he does it again. If it is not victimless who are the victims? How are they victims? He was making disparaging remarks about others far worse than anything that I said about him.
Click to expand...
No comment because I have no idea what he meant by victimless. Maybe he meant victims of their own selves and if so I agree.
 
Last edited:
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Wow I am sorry but your personal prejudices have made your reading comprehension rather poor. There is no need to "quote" his posts tell us that he does not approve of homosexuality. Therefore for him to be involved in such acts would be immoral. Why is that so hard to understand. But immoral for one person is not necessarily immoral for another.
Click to expand...
No, B does not follow from A. Just because Baha'is do not approve of homosexuality that does not mean we are saying it is immoral. For him to be involved in such acts would be immoral but that is because he is a Baha'i and it would be breaking a Baha'i Law but that does not mean it is immoral for non-Baha'is. Immoral for one person is not necessarily immoral for another.

Moreover, he has just as much of a right to disapprove of homosexuality as you have a right to approve of it.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said:
No, B does not follow from A. Just because Baha'is do not approve of homosexuality that does not mean we are saying it is immoral. For him to be involved in such acts would be immoral but that is because he is a Baha'i and it would be breaking a Baha'i Law but that does not mean it is immoral for non-Baha'is. Immoral for one person is not necessarily immoral for another.

Moreover, he has just as much of a right to disapprove of homosexuality as you have a right to approve of it.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that is not how it works in the real world.
 
F

Firelight

Inactive member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
What you believe on the subject is neither here nor there.

A lot of research has been (and is being) done on the relationship between biology and sexual orientation. And though scientists don’t know the exact cause of sexual orientation, they are pretty sure that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. However, it is important to understand that the available hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation are weak, especially for males.

One of the things to take note of is this: so far as anybody can tell, homosexuality occurs at about the same rate among all humans, everywhere, and in any time period we are able to measure (or make reasonable guesses at). This, in itself, really does suggest a biological, rather than a social, origin.

The simple fact is that biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are favored by scientists. These factors, which may be related to the development of a sexual orientation, include genes, the early uterine environment (such as prenatal hormones), and brain structure.
Click to expand...


I was responding to the questions in the OP. What you think of my response is irrelevant.

However, your post demonstrates and supports my belief that God did not create homosexuality.
 
F

Firelight

Inactive member
Unveiled Artist said:
Heterosexuals are homosexuals by biblical definition.

The word is useless and it's a label used to judge people without taking into consideration the people hurt by use of that word alone.

Can be? But do you believe they should?
Click to expand...


It’s the word used in the OP. In order to actually be a part of the discussion, you need to go with the OP. Right now, you are raising your own question or problem within the thread of someone else. Why don’t you go start your own separate thread over the biblical definition of homosexuality or whatever it is you are arguing about? This thread isn’t about that.
 
R

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If a human said I am a man by defined penis ownership.

That status is personal.

Pretty basic human advice.

If humans never shared their sexual consenting choice then no subject would exist to discuss in a group.

The consent of sex said the God advice was to cover up the nakedness.

Why?

A human is born created naked in gods terms factually hence that advice is misread. As humans read the Bible then interpret it.

If you were a natural human first posing theories by a Human choice....then the answers would prove you were a human talking to yourself.

As God the natural status never owned answers. As there was never any question as creation is factually natural.

So if I asked you the theist what makes the world go round. That question posed an answer also

O earth a planet does spin as it's natural function. Having no answer in a human theory as a thesis for a cosmic theist claiming beginnings as just a human.

The idea of why is not yours to answer in other words for what you see....is.
 
Suave

Suave

Simulated character
rational experiences said:
If a human said I am a man by defined penis ownership.

That status is personal.

Pretty basic human advice.

If humans never shared their sexual consenting choice then no subject would exist to discuss in a group.

The consent of sex said the God advice was to cover up the nakedness.

Why?

A human is born created naked in gods terms factually hence that advice is misread. As humans read the Bible then interpret it.

If you were a natural human first posing theories by a Human choice....then the answers would prove you were a human talking to yourself.

As God the natural status never owned answers. As there was never any question as creation is factually natural.

So if I asked you the theist what makes the world go round. That question posed an answer also

O earth a planet does spin as it's natural function. Having no answer in a human theory as a thesis for a cosmic theist claiming beginnings as just a human.

The idea of why is not yours to answer in other words for what you see....is.
Click to expand...
Huh??
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Trailblazer said:
It is good enough for those of us who believe in God and God's Laws.
Click to expand...
Believing in God is one thing.

Believing that laws that can only ever be shown to have been written by humans also just happen to be God's, too, is quite another. And I don't believe it.

One of the reasons, of course, is that there are so very many of "God's laws" that nobody bothers with anymore. They only worry about the ones they personally care for. I can't think that's what a "god" would want.

Think about it -- God actually killed Onan for "spilling his seed on the ground," And Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae" enshrines this in Catholic dogma. How many people, then, masturbate, do you think? And why are there no threads on it? I mean, killing Onan -- God must have thought it was an equal sin to homosexuality.

Ergo: I remain convinced that everything ascribed to "God's Law" is actually man's, and man's alone.
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
He messed up when he tried to claim that homosexuals were immoral:

Why did God create homosexuality?

His outrage is false. I gave him several chances to support his claim.
Click to expand...
The claim can't be defended, except by citing God. And since nobody can cite God, they must be content to cite some human(s) who claim to speak for God -- a claim that seems, on the face of it, a shade dubious.
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Trailblazer said:
Context sure does matter. He said" homosexual people, like everyone else, is tested by God.
Heterosexuals are also tested.
Click to expand...
Why would an omniscient God need tests? Surely He knows. I mean, an omniscient professor wouldn't need to get his students to write exams -- he could just grade them on what he knows they have learned, and be done with it.
 
R

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Man as a theist said first I am a human.

His sex is his penis to say I am a man.

His penis is his to own in other words.

Where he puts his penis is the topic of argument.

God status is stated natural mutual human.

A man and a woman. Equal in sex together makes a human baby.

Holy human baby is the actual topic. As the firstborn of a human is a healthy human baby.

Human life continuance.

The theme a human man baby is holy.

How do you inherit life by God?

Mutual human sex the answer.

Correct answer however is with a woman.

Mutual human sex is not the God answer for a holy baby the read teaching.

As to read was to learn to be taught.

Gods teaching said holy human baby is equal human sex by man and woman.

To be taught.

If you needed to be taught then obviously it owned a reason.
 
R

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Suave said:
Now that I understand.
Click to expand...
God did not create homosexuality is the teaching.

Man by his choice had.

God as a read teaching created mutual human man to female relationship as supported life with garden nature.

When the eviction of life by man's nuclear science occurred man became homosexual.

As man is the seed giver the female did no wrong as she naturally with God o owned the cell

Gods form O. No argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top