Why did God create homosexuality?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You are deceived brother, there is a wealth of evidence supporting the Bible. I myself have been wading through it for about 6 months now. All you have to do is look for it and be objective. If you enter into it with your decision already made you will miss the truth

Wow, 6 months! Your expertise must be truly phenomenal by now.

You know, Bishop John Shelby Spong (Episcopal, NJ) studied and commented on the Bible for more than 60 years (or about 120 times as long as you).

Spong was one of the first American bishops to ordain a woman into the clergy, in 1977, and he was the first to ordain an openly gay man, Robert Williams in 1989. Later the church followed his lead. An Episcopal court ruled that homosexuality was not counter to its principles in 1996, and the church recognized same-sex marriages in 2015.

It's a pity Spong died a just over a year ago, or we could have asked you to help him see just how wrong he was.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

That is true, because many religious people don't take God's laws seriously. No, that is not what God wants.

According to my beliefs the laws revealed in the older religions have been abrogated. Those old laws might remain relevant to those who still adhere to the older religions, but they do not apply to this new age because God has revealed new laws through Baha'u'llah that are suited to this age. However, regarding sexual morality, the New Testament is pretty much in line with what I believe, since Jesus updated the laws of Moses, which was necessary and prudent.

 

[oldbadger]

The Bible states that if a man lies with another man they should both be stoned to death. It's my belief that homosexuals are born that way and have no choice over who they're attracted to just like a heterosexual. If this is true why would God create homosexuals when he seems so opposed to their nature? I believe in the God of the Old Testament and believe that he is righteous but I'm confused by this. Did God create homosexuals purely to destroy them or is there something else going on? Does he want a homosexual man to be celibate or to go against his nature and procreate with a woman? Is God offering him the chance to make a huge sacrifice to the highest by denying himself? What are your thoughts?

The Laws of Moses needed couples to produce children which would make a stronger people, more likely to survive. Adultery was banned because it could spread illness = weakness. Homosexuality was banned because children were needed and therefore homosexuality would, like adultery, be risky.

Homosexuality was no worse a breach of law than eating dangerous food, or failing to make roofs safe ....both covered in the laws.

And today we don't need a growing population and Gay couples are absolutely fine, because that's just two more contented humans in this world.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

You are right, an omniscient God already knows everything, so the tests are not for God to learn anything, the tests are for humans to learn lessons and so we can distinguish ourselves by our responses to those tests. God already knows what we will do but it has to play out in order for us to become what we will become.

“Meditate profoundly, that the secret of things unseen may be revealed unto you, that you may inhale the sweetness of a spiritual and imperishable fragrance, and that you may acknowledge the truth that from time immemorial even unto eternity the Almighty hath tried, and will continue to try, His servants, so that light may be distinguished from darkness, truth from falsehood, right from wrong, guidance from error, happiness from misery, and roses from thorns. Even as He hath revealed: “Do men think when they say ‘We believe’ they shall be let alone and not be put to proof?” 5 “
Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 8-9

 

[Subduction Zone]

I use history, science, and archeology in support of my stance that the Bible is trustworthy. Things that are used in their respective fields as evidence for whatever claim they are aiming to validate. If the respective fields consider it valid evidence for secular events why would the same thing not be considered evidence if you can show its application elsewhere. You are attacking my intelligence with a baseless claim that I must not understand what evidence really means. That is not debate but merely arguing for the sake of arguing. I have disagreed with several people in my time, but don't have to attack anyone personally to do so. Not all evidence is convincing to all people and that's acceptable for various reasons, but don't presume to know my level of understanding simply because you don't agree with my stance

History and science chuck the first two books of the Bible. We know that there never were only two people. We know that there never was a worldwide flood. Historians and archaeologists have refuted the Exodus story. And no, corrections are not an attack on a person's intelligence. A person may be intelligent but unable to reason in certain areas when there is an emotional attachment to a belief.

When it comes to the creation myth and the Noah's Ark myth there is no scientific evidence for either and endless evidence against. When it comes to the Exodus there is no archaeological evidence for it and evidence against it.

I wonder what you think constitutes "evidence".

 

[Subduction Zone]

And HOW do you know what I want ?
Learn what? What am I going to learn from you?
I don't want to learn, I guess that is why I spent 20 years in college.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well if that's the implication you got that's unfortunate. I do not think sex is an evil disease but a good thing that people should do well. As for learning why this rule has been given it is an object of study, the history is fascinating from every angle.

No, you misunderstood. You appear to have the "sex is evil" disease. I did not say or imply that you believe that sex is an evil disease.

But if sex is not evil then reasonable sex outside of marriage should not be a problem.

 

[Lain]

But if sex is not evil then reasonable sex outside of marriage should not be a problem.

Define "reasonable" and why it should not be a problem? From my perspective what you just said is like "if speech is not evil then lying shouldn't be a problem" or "if defense of the innocents is not evil then murder is not a problem" (defense as in a just war or self-defense or violent defense of others). I do not see the connection. Really more than that it seems (but I am probably wrong) that you have assumed your own view on the matter is reasonable, but that makes sense as otherwise you wouldn't have it. I don't think reasonable sex outside of marriage even exists, so there's that.

I apologize for misunderstanding you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Define "reasonable" and why it should not be a problem? From my perspective what you just said is like "if speech is not evil then lying shouldn't be a problem" or "if defense of the innocents is not evil then murder is not a problem" (defense as in a just war or self-defense or violent defense of others). I do not see the connection. Really more than that it seems (but I am probably wrong) that you have assumed your own view on the matter is reasonable, but that makes sense as otherwise you wouldn't have it. I don't think reasonable sex outside of marriage even exists, so there's that.

I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Reasonable is taking proper precautions to lower the risk of spreading STI's and to prevent unwanted pregnancy. And your analogy fails. Lying can be shown to be harmful. Reasonable sex no so much.

The question is not whether my views ae reasonable. The problem appears to be the other way around. Here is a simple question: Are you pro or anti divorce?

 

[Lain]

Here is a simple question: Are you pro or anti divorce?

Depends on the marriage.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God did not create homosexuals. Homosexuality, as with all other sin, is a product of the disobedient and sinful nature of man. It is our own flawed nature that creates this as well as all other issues contrary to God. As far as ultimately denying himself and abstaining from homosexual desires, well that is the request of God for ALL sin...to deny self and follow God

Perfect rubbish!

Homosexuality, as with a great of other attributes of humans, is the result of a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. Other examples include things like polythelia (multiple nipples, even if only Godly people are supposed to have two), polydactyly (extra toes or fingers), musical genius, autism spectrum disorder, albinism, and many more besides.

Even on your high horse, trust me, you know no more about human nature or God's nature or desires than I do, and perhaps less --- and I'm an atheist.

And gay.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depends on the marriage.

The question is just in general. If actions tend to make a divorce less likely are they preferable?

You probably know that your anti-sex outside of marriage is not a wise stance to take when it comes to the matter of divorce. The groups with the highest divorce rates are also those that do not permit sex outside of marriage. If a couple is sexually incompatible not allowing them to have sex until marriage can result in divorce since they will discover tis too late.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perfect rubbish!

Homosexuality, as with a great of other attributes of humans, is the result of a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. Other examples include things like polythelia (multiple nipples, even if only Godly people are supposed to have two), polydactyly (extra toes or fingers), musical genius, autism spectrum disorder, albinism, and many more besides.

Even on your high horse, trust me, you know no more about human nature or God's nature or desires than I do, and perhaps less --- and I'm an atheist.

And gay.

So you're one of THEM!!

 

[Lain]

The question is just in general. If actions tend to make a divorce less likely are they preferable?

You probably know that your anti-sex outside of marriage is not a wise stance to take when it comes to the matter of divorce. The groups with the highest divorce rates are also those that do not permit sex outside of marriage. If a couple is sexually incompatible not allowing them to have sex until marriage can result in divorce since they will discover tis too late.

They are not necessarily preferable, it depends on the action according to me. Less divorce considered in isolation is a good thing though in every sort of marriage in my view. Not sure if you saw the earlier post I made to Unveiled explaining my stance on morality and how it works but I am not a consequentialist of any sort (unless one holds God in consideration for it which no consequentialist of any sort I've talked to has done).

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are not necessarily preferable, it depends on the action according to me. Less divorce considered in isolation is a good thing though in every sort of marriage in my view. Not sure if you saw the earlier post I made to Unveiled explaining my stance on morality and how it works but I am not a consequentialist of any sort (unless one holds God in consideration for it which no consequentialist of any sort I've talked to has done).

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

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thats correct. But there is no indication that Paul was married. And scholars largely believe he was never married and that's one of the arguments they use to state that the mythicists arguments about Christ who should have been married by 30 or whatever age is a must, is a false premise.

Whom are we counting as scholars? Am I a scholar, too?

Also, I uploaded an image of the bible verse that's a little explicit.

That is a scripture you'll see often to argue about marriage related issues. Its over used and is taken out of context often. The bit there is talking about problem the Corinthians are having during some kind of distressful time, and Paul is talking about a compromise under strange conditions. I can't say anything about extra-canonical resources on Paul such as scholars but generally this verse is the only one in which Paul doubts the importance of marriage. Other church fathers though very much oppose marriage if you can stand to be single, but I am operating under the assumption that Paul predates them and is not influenced by writers such as Jerome. Jerome is very anti-sex. He absolutely believes people should never have sex if we can avoid it, but he's not in the canon. I will continue to believe Paul is pro-marriage.

It doesnt say that. He is speaking generally. Anyway, this is an irrelevant topic. I just wanted to know your source of knowledge. Thanks for that.

Have a good day.

You too.

 

[Lain]

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.

"Caused such strict rules," what is the proof of this? I am well aware of the social conditions at the time and I see no reason why they alone should be the cause of a rule, nor do I understand why a rule being revealed to a person in a specific time necessarily means that the rule does not apply at a later time. These are two unproven assumptions in your statements here, which I of course do not agree with (and nothing has been given to show me why I should agree with them, you merely said them).

Not to mention I am not sure if you are aware of this but under my own beliefs God has told us even yesterday that this rule applies to us right now. God's Speech is not some past event or age to a Catholic Christian, divine inspiration did not stop when Moses died. Some rules or permissions have indeed passed away with a passing age, but which ones those are have been made clear, and which ones to continue in have also been made clear.

Also I reject contraceptive sexual acts but that's obvious, so it has no bearing on sexuality at all to me. Another thing is you calling the rule "strict," to me it's not even strict but different people have different ideas of what is strict or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Caused such strict rules," what is the proof of this? I am well aware of the social conditions at the time and I see no reason why they alone should be the cause of a rule, nor do I understand why a rule being revealed to a person in a specific time necessarily means that the rule does not apply at a later time. These are two unproven assumptions in your statements here, which I of course do not agree with (and nothing has been given to show me why I should agree with them, you merely said them).

Not to mention I am not sure if you are aware of this but under my own beliefs God has told us even yesterday that this rule applies to us right now. God's Speech is not some past event or age to a Catholic Christian, divine inspiration did not stop when Moses died. Some rules or permissions have indeed passed away with a passing age, but which ones those are have been made clear, and which ones to continue in have also been made clear.

Also I reject contraceptive sexual acts but that's obvious, so it has no bearing on sexuality at all to me. Another thing is you calling the rule "strict," to me it's not even strict but different people have different ideas of what is strict or not.

The conditions at the time are the "proof" of that.

What "unproven assumptions" do you think that I made/

And yes, I am well aware of your religious beliefs. You do not seem to be aware of the inherent self contradictions of your beliefs.

Lastly as a Roman Catholic I understand that you make the immoral error of denying contraception. The more I read the more apparent it becomes that the "unproven assumptions" are likely to by yours.

 

[Lain]

The conditions at the time are the "proof" of that.

What "unproven assumptions" do you think that I made/

You do not seem to be aware of the inherent self contradictions of your beliefs.

Show me a contradiction in my beliefs.

The two assumptions I mentioned, that the conditions caused the rule or that a rule being given or taught at a time means it does not apply beyond that time.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If the act has a bad moral object then intending to do it would be bad. The word "evil" has a very broad application to me, from a "white lie" to genocide to the death of a plant, all of this can go under the name "evil" to me. Or it can also be said to be lack of good in anything, or where it is not as good as it could be.

I've actually never tied morality to anything outside of hurting others-speech, body, or mind. Anything outside of that the morality is individual. So, I can't say "this type of sex" is morally bad. It may be taboo and make me uncomfortable (say opposite-sex sex for example ) but nothing to where I call it a sin. It's one thing to say the act is wrong but another to relate to murder and rape. It translate as homosexuals are murderers and rapists-which the latter was highly believed in the past. In the early 1990s during Clinton in the US homosexuals couldn't be boy scout leaders for fear he would molest young boys.

I mean many christians may think LGBTQ is focused on their morals but it really goes beyond theological differences.

The association between a person and their acts is to a degree impossible to avoid, as we only come to know persons through their acts, the acts reveal their existence to us even. Moreover knowing choices that are moral are a kind of "working of the person," in that good persons produce good acts and bad persons produce bad acts. Now bad shouldn't be thought of as some positive quality but only that the person is deficient, or in a sense is not as good of a human person as they could be. One can still say they are entirely good in themselves but they could be better.

I wish this applied in christianity to same-sex couples who wish to touch the people they love. I can't imagine many christians who can't do this. Though, my friend (former girlfriend) is heavily christian and believes god knows her heart.

The negative consequences of it from my view include but are not limited to: a decrease in the goodness of a person, a blindness to the things of God (long in Christian theology has it been said that lust and fornication blinds the intellect) or higher goods at all, the social consequences that occur when a society is filled with this (the whole begins to not direct itself to it's end which is God and virtue, which leads to death and Hell ultimately).

I understand if it were murder but not sex.

The point about Jesus was basically just that He by His good acts had negative consequences but the good ones outweighed the bad ones.

Putting god-says-so aside for a minute what's inherently wrong with same-sex sex that causes negative consequences?

I know you said it separates them from god but from a non-god view how is it wrong (assuming the intentions are healthy and safe sex between both parties involved)?

When a christian says same-sex sex is wrong to many it translates not just from scripture, but medically, morally (from the couple's point of view), legally, and otherwise. Those reasons that hurt people or take people's rights away rather than theological differences.

Those two examples are not a comparison to same-sex sexual acts but just elucidate the point of gravity and the necessity of knowing choice in moral acts.

That's a pretty harsh way to use same-sex sex and murder together with similar gravity. Can you imagine how a christian gay person feels when he sees homosexual align with murder and rape? No matter how a person interprets it, it's not a good feeling.

As for intention: yes it is the position that intention alone is not the most important part of the act. While they may have a good or misplaced intention to do good the act in itself is bad. An example to elucidate that point is how someone can intend to not make a mess but does in fact, they may not even realize they have done it but they in fact did do it, and it objectively has made a mess. The same applies here.

Is it only theologically and morally bad based on christian values?

I know there are christians on this board that mistake their christian values with medical facts in regards to sexual orientation, homosexuals, and same-sex sex. I would say the two are completely separate due to culture, language, bias, laws, and people's personal experiences.

I agree with God's judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah although I personally think it had more to do with the rape than that, but that's a side issue. I am just saying that in judging the world at the end of time those who are saved will participate in that, so there is imitation. I do not think any judgment of God is in error though.

I can see those who engage in sexual promiscuity. Though I'm coming from couples who do not.