God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

[socharlie]

The following are "typical interpretations by religious conservatives" as presented by Religioustolerance.org.

Genesis 19 Condemns all same-sex sexual behavior, whether by two men, two women, within a loving committed relationship or a "one-night stand."

Leviticus 18:22 Condemns all same-sex sexual behavior.

Leviticus 20:13 Condemns all same-sex sexual behavior.

Romans 1:26-27 Condemns all homosexual behavior as unnatural.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Sexually active homosexuals will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death. Once truly saved, homosexuals will become heterosexuals.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 Condemns all same-sex sexual behavior.

Jude 1:7 Sexually active homosexuals will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death.
source​

If one accepts the passages cited as those inspired of god, and their interpretation in accordance with conservative Christian understanding, can anyone explain why the Christian god finds homosexuality "detestable" and worthy of "punishment of eternal fire"?

I know I'm asking people here to second guess god and his reasoning, but because so many Christians are keen to speak for him on numerous issues I figure some here would have a good insight into his thinking. So, Just what is it about showing sexual affection toward someone of the same sex that turns off god? Is it just some eeeeew factor, or does it go deeper than this?

.

God wanted to cultivate a healthy nation, which needed babies, a lot of babies to be workers, parents, soldiers, e.t.c. not caring about recreational sex that was a threat of major infections that would defy the goal of healthy nation. Rom. 1 really is not about homosexuality. NT does not approve many material world practices that would divert one's attention from getting spiritually mature, recreational sex is on top of the list.

 

[Prestor John]

There will be [no] marriage in heaven, nor will there be anyone married in heaven.

I added [no] because I assume that was what you meant to say. If not, I apologize for the edit.

Christ's response to the Sadducees in the Gospels, which you quoted earlier, are more a teaching about the Resurrection than a teaching about marriage.

The Sadducees did not believe there was to be any Resurrection, but Christ boldly testified of the truth that there is to be a literal Resurrection from the dead.

Yet even the examples you shared do not teach against what I have shared,

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matthew 22:30)

"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." (Mark 12:25)

Notice how both of these verses being with references to those who have already been Resurrected or have already "[risen] from the dead" and are therefore not in reference to mortals or spirits in time.

Once a person becomes a Resurrected Being they will be like the ministering angels. They will not marry nor be given in marriage.

Marriage is an ordinance performed in mortality only, within the confines of time.

If a person were to leave this life unmarried, and continue to refuse marriage by proxy in the spirit world until the time when they receive their Resurrection, they will never be able to marry.

There will be no male and female, all will be of one gender. all males. like the angels in heaven.

I see no scriptural basis for this assertion.

We were created in God's likeness and image, both male and female.

There is no where in the scriptures that angels was ever referred to as females or woman.

True, but to assume that this means that all angels are male is such a leap!

The scriptures tend to not mention women at all, because the focus is usually on the heirs of Priesthood authority.

Just because Noah's mother is not mentioned, does that mean he did not have one?

The angels recorded in the scriptures were usually sent to operate within the Priesthood to some capacity, either in judgment, condemnation or guidance.

There are female angels, but they do not hold the Priesthood, therefore they will never be sent to operate in any Priesthood capacity.

The scripture's focus on Priesthood authority does not mean that female angels or mortals do not exist.

 

[Skwim]

If I may butt in, it's not just that He feels that way about homosexual acts (if in fact He does),

This is questionable?

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."(1 Corinthians 6:9-10)​

He feels that way about almost everything that we, as humans, do in our carnal, animal, human nature of selfishness. We NEED to have that self-important self-interest in order to survive as a species in the physical universe--it was not a design flaw--but we also NEED to be able to overcome, put aside, or in Xian vernacular, crucify our human nature and take on the divine nature of love in order to survive in the presence of God for eternity.

So whatever we do out of selfish interest is, to God, so bad that the perpetrators (namely, all of us) deserve to be condemned.

And ain't that nice. In his infinite omniscience wherein he foresaw our fall and subsequent struggles he went ahead anyway, and created us flaws and all so as to be deserving of condemnation. Yet he expects us to praise, worship, trust, and love him.

.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I added [no] because I assume that was what you meant to say. If not, I apologize for the edit.

Christ's response to the Sadducees in the Gospels, which you quoted earlier, are more a teaching about the Resurrection than a teaching about marriage.

The Sadducees did not believe there was to be any Resurrection, but Christ boldly testified of the truth that there is to be a literal Resurrection from the dead.

Yet even the examples you shared do not teach against what I have shared,

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matthew 22:30)

"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." (Mark 12:25)

Notice how both of these verses being with references to those who have already been Resurrected or have already "[risen] from the dead" and are therefore not in reference to mortals or spirits in time.

Once a person becomes a Resurrected Being they will be like the ministering angels. They will not marry nor be given in marriage.

Marriage is an ordinance performed in mortality only, within the confines of time.

If a person were to leave this life unmarried, and continue to refuse marriage by proxy in the spirit world until the time when they receive their Resurrection, they will never be able to marry.

I see no scriptural basis for this assertion.

We were created in God's likeness and image, both male and female.

True, but to assume that this means that all angels are male is such a leap!

The scriptures tend to not mention women at all, because the focus is usually on the heirs of Priesthood authority.

Just because Noah's mother is not mentioned, does that mean he did not have one?

The angels recorded in the scriptures were usually sent to operate within the Priesthood to some capacity, either in judgment, condemnation or guidance.

There are female angels, but they do not hold the Priesthood, therefore they will never be sent to operate in any Priesthood capacity.

The scripture's focus on Priesthood authority does not mean that female angels or mortals do not exist.

Ok, you do know that there's two resurrection ?

There is the resurrection of the spiritual dead.
And there's the resurrection of the living.

The spiritual dead, are those people who do not believe in God or Christ Jesus.
But however if those that are spiritually dead, When they hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live.shall come out of their spiritual darkness, to walk into the Light of Truth.

The living are those people who do believe in God and Christ Jesus. They are spiritual alive to God and Christ Jesus.

 

[james bond]

The following are "typical interpretations by religious conservatives" as presented by Religioustolerance.org.

Genesis 19 Condemns all same-sex sexual behavior, whether by two men, two women, within a loving committed relationship or a "one-night stand."

Leviticus 18:22 Condemns all same-sex sexual behavior.

Leviticus 20:13 Condemns all same-sex sexual behavior.

Romans 1:26-27 Condemns all homosexual behavior as unnatural.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Sexually active homosexuals will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death. Once truly saved, homosexuals will become heterosexuals.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 Condemns all same-sex sexual behavior.

Jude 1:7 Sexually active homosexuals will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death.
source​

If one accepts the passages cited as those inspired of god, and their interpretation in accordance with conservative Christian understanding, can anyone explain why the Christian god finds homosexuality "detestable" and worthy of "punishment of eternal fire"?

I know I'm asking people here to second guess god and his reasoning, but because so many Christians are keen to speak for him on numerous issues I figure some here would have a good insight into his thinking. So, Just what is it about showing sexual affection toward someone of the same sex that turns off god? Is it just some eeeeew factor, or does it go deeper than this?

.

It probably has to do with it leading to promiscuous sex. My homosexual friends and acquaintances died of aids and STD. JMO.

I haven't looked into what creation scientists say, but it could be tied to epigenetic changes, i.e. environment and behavior affects ones genes.

 

[Skwim]

It’s not just same sex but sex in general god of the bible takes issue. Unless it’s the wife of your dead brother Genesis 38:8-10. I digress though. If you go by the Bible, God looks down on man having sex with women 1 Corinthians 7:1.

And ain't that a kicker.

7 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
​

Of course he doesn't say why. So why doesn't he say anything? because it's none of our business. His pronouncements should be good enough.

And the Bible even looks down on sensuality itself Galatians 5:19.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,​

Nothing under the sun angers god more than just being human apparently . . . .

Yet he saw fit to put us here.

.

 

[Skwim]

The same thing that might turn a craftsman off if the stool they made topples over any time someone attempts to sit on it.

So god is angry at himself for creating homosexuals, therefore he takes it out on them? Nice guy.

.

 

[shmogie]

Too many IF's in that sentence. You are using your point of view to construct a so-called question. And you pulled out one passage rather than looking at the whole (see the quote below)

I'll just note that the conservative Christian understanding is just one way of interpreting those passages and one which in no way binds me.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm
Translations and interpretations of Leviticus 18:22; all views

Some interpret the passage literally, arguing that it says men must not lie with men, period, end-of-story. There's historical precedent for literal interpretation. But it seems to me that literalism is an all-or-nothing proposition. If one interprets that passage literally, one must also regard as טמא/tamei (ritually unclean) anyone who touches a weasel, a mouse, a gecko or monitor lizard. (Until sundown, anyway.) When a man dies without a son, the literalist must order his brother to marry the newly-widowed woman so she can bear a son in her deceased husband's name. These are, after all, the laws.
(Re)Reading Leviticus 18:22

The OT frame of reference, and its laws are for historical consideration, and gleaning wisdom. The New covenant fulfilled the old, and is no longer binding as God's standard for our behavior. The law of Christ in the NT, the New Covenant, is. If one is an evolutionist, it is clear that the appeal sex is for the procreation of the species, the sexual organs are designed for that purpose. Homosexuaslity defeats the purpose of the evolutionary goal, and is an evolutionary failure. I am aware of all the twisting machinations of some evolutionists make to try and make homosexuality have some evolutionary value, but it is hogwash. Since I no longer believe in the theory anyway, it is all irrelevant except to point out that the theory ascribed to by many who deny God, deny's any purpose , and thus value, in homosexuality. It is aberrant.

God made sex for the primary purpose of procreation, He designed the sexual organs for that purpose. He further declared that within the confines of the marriage between one man and one woman sex is part of the love involved between the two.

Now we may question God's purposes and ask, why not one man and four women ? That might really be cool if I didn't have to support them. Or why not just uncommitted casual sex between whomever ? That appeals to many. Or how about sex between a deeply devoted man and his loving tortoise ?

Some questions of God we have no business Asking, he is the omnipotent creator, we are simply the created. He ashs many things of us that don't make sense to us. Love your enemy ? I want to hate my enemy. Because I believe God knows what s best I'll will try with his help to do what he asks. No eye for an eye, there have been times when I wanted to execute immediate righteous revenge, but I chose to follow God.
The NT tells we believers that we must respect and love all people, offer them kindness always. It also tells us for our own good what our behavior should be. We have total freedom of choice to demand an explanation why what we desire to do is not acceptable, when we don't get it we are free to choose to do it anyway, God says there are inevitable consequences for these choices, we are totally free to ignore them

Homosexuality violates God's standard, he hasn';t told me why, I accept it in faith because I know he is God. Christians can never judge the relationship between a person and God, we are never called to do that. By Gods standards we are given the right to judge actions.

The pursuance of habitual homosexual actions, or not denying the same, is to result in them being denied membership in the Church, and being denied the benefits of the rites and rituals of the Church. Furthur, the believer is enjoined to not participate in any rite or ritual undertaken by homosexuals that is denied them by the standard.

Do we hate them, no we love them, their behavior is no more sinful than our own, we simply have sought forgiveness, and with God's help doing our best to live by his standard. Should we shun them ? Absolutely not ! Paul says that we would have to leave the world if we chose to avoid every sinner outside the Church.

The bottom line is that their acceptance by God is between they and God, alone. We are told to apply his standard as to what is right and wrong in action by denying them Church membership. It stops there.

 

[Skwim]

Well if you go to Matthew 19:4-5, Christ Jesus said--"Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they Twain shall one flesh"

Note that Jesus said ( have you not read ) that back in the beginning of Adam and Eve God made them male and female.

It doesn't say, God made them male and male Nor female and female,No.
God made them male and female.

God did not create man to be with man Nor did God create woman to be with woman.

God created man to be with woman and woman to be with man.

It was by Satan that homosexualit came to be.
Satan is trying hard to bring a disgrace to the image of God. Seeing how we are created in the image and likeness of God.

So to destroy God's image, Satan will do it through us.seeing how we are created in God's image.

The question is ? When was the first homosexual act committed ?

You can find the first homosexual act being committed in Genesis Chapter 3.

That Satan seduce Eve and then thru Eve Satan seduce Adam, in other words they had a 3 some in sexual relationship.

Then Eve gave birth two sons, Cain and Able.
Cain being the son of Satan, This is why in the Genoelogy of Adam, You do not find Cain in the Genoelogy of Adam's. If you read about the Genoelogy of Adam, is why Cain is not mention.
All because Cain is not the son of Adam, But the son of Satan. This is why in the Bible it is noted "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one"
This being another name for Satan
( the wicked one ) 1 John 3:12.
Therefore Cain is the son of Satan. And not the son of Adam.

This is why you will not find Cain in the Genoelogy of Adam''s.

Okay.

.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It goes much deeper than that. I would say eternally deeper.

The entirety of Mankind, every single man and woman, are the literal children of God and as such have a divine destiny and purpose.

Since the moment of our eternal inception as spirits our Father has nurtured and guided us much like how mortal parents love and teach their children here in mortality.

Mortal parents are supposed to teach their children how to become active and productive members of their societies before they branch out, find their mates and continue the process.

In like manner, God has sought to prepare all of us for eternity. This began when we were yet spirits, and knew that we were different than our Father.

For an indeterminate amount of the time we lived with God and were loved and raised by him.

However, the time of our spiritual maturity eventually came and in order for us to continue to grow and develop as God's children we needed to leave His presence and venture on our own.

Our Father, ever loving and merciful, prepared the ideal place for us to go and He gave us time to live according to our free will without His parental meddling, unless we should desire and seek it out.

We needed to learn and grow on our own.

One of the most important purposes of our time here is to find our eternal mate to whom we can be sealed in marriage for all time and throughout all eternity.

This eternal relationship was one designed by God to help us become more like Him and to continue creating new life which will add to our eternal joy and glory.

Homosexual behavior frustrates God's plan for us and derails our eternal potential.

Nevertheless, salvation has been promised to all of God's children through the Atoning Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Even those who fall prey to homosexual behavior can and will receive eternal joy, however, unless this behavior is repented of in this life, they will have to wade through much affliction in the world to come before eventually being forgiven.

This affliction will come by way of self-reflection and the realization that they had failed to gain an eternal mate and therefore cannot have offspring, which would continue to add to their eternal joy and glory.

This state of being is often referred to as Hell in the scriptures. A temporary period of suffering caused by the memory of our unrepentant sins.

Therefore, those who decided to embrace their homosexual tendencies will receive eternal joy at the moment of their forgiveness and redemption, but they cannot have an increase of joy because they cannot have an eternal posterity.

God loves all of His children and He wants all of us to fulfill our eternal destiny and purpose by becoming like Him and inheriting endless joy.

Except many gay and lesbian people have biological kids of their own or adopt. Do those kids not count? What about infertile people? If adopted kids matter just as much, then your viewpoint seems to not make sense when it comes to the offspring thing. Nevermind that gays and lesbians usually do find a partner to spend their lives with, you just want to declare that somehow illegitimate.

 

[Skwim]

I don't think you're reading them right. When the Bible condemns a homosexual act, it provides a reason. Were that reason to disappear it would no longer be considered a problem. For instance, "Thou shalt not be a homesexual it is detestable." Well, what if later on it wasn't detestable?

Okay, what's the reason homosexual behavior is detestable?

In ancient times, people couldn't stand homosexuality and therefore it was abominable to them as well as the Lord (the Lord because He wanted acceptance).

Au contraire. In ancient Rome and ancient Greece homosexual behavior among males was quite acceptable.

.

 

[Skwim]

God wanted to cultivate a healthy nation, which needed babies, a lot of babies to be workers, parents, soldiers, e.t.c. not caring about recreational sex that was a threat of major infections that would defy the goal of healthy nation. Rom. 1 really is not about homosexuality.

Well, Rom 1:26-27 certainly is.

Romans 1:26-27 (ESV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.​

.

 

[Axe Elf]

I'm struggling to see how homosexual relationships are inherently selfish- at least, any more than heterosexual relationships. These are attractions people can't help; they were born this way. It hardly seems fair from a god of supposed righteous judgement, imo...

I don't know that they ARE inherently selfish--they MAY be, but I don't KNOW that they are--my point was merely that ANYTHING we do out of selfishness separates us from God, and so ALL of us are inherently separated from God by our human nature. The gossipers look down on the liars who look down on the homosexuals, who look down on the adulterers, etc., but nobody here gets out alive (unless of course God has appointed you for salvation). THAT is the righteous judgement of God (and the grace of God).

"Fair" doesn't enter into it--as Romans 9:18-21 explains...

"So then He has mercy on whomever He wills (chooses) and He hardens (makes stubborn and unyielding the heart of) whomever He wills. You will say to me, Why then does He still find fault and blame us [for sinning]? For who can resist and withstand His will? But who are you, a mere man, to criticize and contradict and answer back to God? Will what is formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same mass (lump) one vessel for beauty and distinction and honorable use, and another for menial or ignoble and dishonorable use?" (Amplified Bible)

So it's no more unfair of God to create some people for salvation and some for destruction than it is for you to make a batch of cookies and throw away the ugly ones.

 

[Axe Elf]

Probably the greatest thing about not being Christian is not being weighted down by such notions of self-degradation or believing others are deserving of whatever punishment the various Christians propose. Being LBGT, it only "deserves hellfire" if you actually believe that stuff. To the rest of us, it's just who a person is (and really not even an identity feature worth taking note of) and is nothing worth getting worked up or offended over.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was saying--it's "who we are" that makes us unable to share eternity in God's presence. Homosexuals being who they are is no different from liars being who they are, gossipers being who they are, and people who wear clothing woven from two different fabrics being who they are. So let's all be who we are while we're here, and then those of us appointed for salvation will become something else when we're there.

But I really have to dispute the idea that Xians are weighted down by notions of self-degradation--I'm certainly not. On the contrary, I feel kinda good about the idea that God has chosen to reveal Himself to me and apparently wants me to hang out with Him for eternity. It's not that sin makes us "less" somehow; sin is merely the human condition. But God's grace can make us "more."

 

[Father Heathen]

That's because the biblical authors had no idea of sexual orientation. What they understood was sexual perversion.

And why should the ignorance of ancient goat herders have any bearing on today's world?

 

[socharlie]

Well, Rom 1:26-27 certainly is.

Romans 1:26-27 (ESV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.​

.

only in literal meaning and maybe translation.
14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. I Cor. 2
Natural = psychic = woman = Jew.
Spiritual = pneumatic = man = Gentile.
Psychic and pneumatic form a syzygy - only way to enter Pleroma. Rom, 1 is about psychic - pneumatic relationship not sexual reference. See Elaine Pagels's " The Gnostic Paul " for detailed explanations.
[PDF/ePub Download] the gnostic paul eBook

 

[Skwim]

God created male and female for the purpose of having children. Two men or two women rubbing on each other will not produce children. It is contrary to the reason two sexes were made.

So, unless a male and female have sex for reproduction, they should never have any sex whatsoever. Good luck with that.

.

 

[Axe Elf]

This is questionable?

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."(1 Corinthians 6:9-10)​

Well, not to me, but I have a gay Xian friend who is able to explain it away in his own mind. Is he right? I don't know, but I DO believe it's between him and God--and he's still my friend.

And ain't that nice. In his infinite omniscience wherein he foresaw our fall and subsequent struggles he went ahead anyway, and created us flaws and all so as to be deserving of condemnation. Yet he expects us to praise, worship, trust, and love him.

I wish you would have read the paragraph I wrote before that--which you even quoted.

We NEED to have that self-important self-interest in order to survive as a species in the physical universe--it was not a design flaw--but we also NEED to be able to overcome, put aside, or in Xian vernacular, crucify our human nature and take on the divine nature of love in order to survive in the presence of God for eternity.

You still seem to want to see our inherent separation from God because of our selfish human nature as a design flaw--but as I said, we needed to have that kind of a nature to survive as a species on Earth. We just need to have a different kind of a nature to survive in the presence of God for eternity--and He designed a mechanism by which those who are appointed to salvation can put off their human nature and share in the divine nature. The genius of that IS worth praise, worship, trust and love.

Seeing any of this plan as a "flaw" is merely a sign of not understanding it--but I totally get that, because most believers and unbelievers alike are not used to thinking about any of this rationally. (It only takes a quick perusal of this thread to confirm that fact.) I'm here to try to help undo some of the damage done by irrational blowhards.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No mention of how common homosexual behaviour is in the animal world, and worse - naughty bonobos - Google it if unsure, and it being quite a lot. So, did God decide that when we progressed from our earlier beginnings we just had to leave this nasty immoral behaviour behind?

 

[Stanyon]

God hates gay sex because children do not come from butts, it is a place of filth.