God and his hatred of homosexuality

[The Hammer]

God doesn't approve of any old sexual gratification. God disapproves of any sex outside marriage. God disapproves of adultery, multiple partners, pedophilia, etc.

God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman, and through this union new life can be created. There is sexual complementarity in a marriage, there is the possibility of procreation. If God designed man and woman to be together, who is man to rebel against God and decide that he wants another man, or a woman another woman?

When two people of the same sex have sexual relations, they're putting their pee-pee's in places that were never designed to be, even from a biological perspective we know this from the greatly increased chance of contracting diseases and all sorts of nasty bacteria.

At the heart of it is rebellion against God and what He has designed and ordered. Heterosexuals also get sexual desires, for the opposite sex, and it is wrong to act upon them outside the proper design that God has intended through marriage. It's not like heterosexuals are given free reign to act on whatever comes into their head, we all have to deal with temptations and the desire to sin.

God didn't design marriage, man designed marriage. Marriage is a gov't contract brought in to complicate a social coupling. Just felt my 2 cents were necessary.

 

[The Hammer]

Thats bible.
In islam Allah doesnt hate disbelievers and gays but He has cursed them. The curse means that they are far removed from Allah and that they shall burn in hell for eternal.


67. And they will say: "Our Lord! Surely we obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they caused us to follow a misleading path.



68. "Our Lord! Cause them to suffer the punishment doubled, and curse them with a mighty curse (so that they are utterly excluded, absolutely and eternally, from Your Mercy)!"

As for the muslim with homo/lesbian feelings, it is better for him/her to avoid major sinning and to give up these satanic feelings. Because the act homosexuality(Homosex/lesbiansex) is work of satan and unnatural.


Literal
But perhaps [that] you dislike a thing(Purification, obeying Allah, doing good deeds)and it (is) good for you; and perhaps [that] you love a thing (Homosexual feelings, sinning, immorality, gambling, drugs)and it (is) bad for you. And Allah knows while you (do) not know.

There is nothing in this that besides your "literal" translation, says anything about homosexuality though. Neither quote from the Quran says anything about a man sleeping with a man, or woman on woman.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

There is nothing in this that besides your "literal" translation, that says anything about homosexuality though. Neither quote from the Quran says anything about a man sleeping with a man, or woman on woman.

You are right.
In the Qur'an man sleeping with man or woman with woman is called Sinning.
Two reasons why people of Lot were punished are 1) Kufr(disbelief, following paganism), 2) Homosexuality

 

[The Hammer]

You are right.
In the Qur'an man sleeping with man or woman with woman is called Sinning.
Two reasons why people of Lot were punished are 1) Kufr(disbelief, following paganism), 2) Homosexuality

Ok, well you can't claim a verse says no homosexuality, when in fact all it says is no sinning. Where does it say in the Quran that homosexuality is a sin? Or is it just an assumption based on culture understandings, and it is not actually within the Quran.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

“And (remember) Loot (Lot), when he said to his people: ‘Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the ‘Aalameen (mankind and jinn)?

Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)’”

[al-A’raaf 7:80-81]


Prophet Lut did not speak from his own desires and nor did he condemn homosexuality from his own perspective. It was made forbidden and a major sin by Allah.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Sorry, but there is no biblical prohibition on pedophilia, and the bible approves of relationships that we would define today as child sexual abuse. It also is silent on polygamy, which involves multiple partners. There are very strong commands against adultery, but given the property view of women one finds in the bible, that is neither surprising nor enlightened.

Regarding pedophilia, child abuse and the like, Jesus brought a child before the disciples and said this:
Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

And regarding polygamy, the intent of God for one man and one woman to become one flesh is clear from Jesus' words:
Matthew 19:4-6 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Regarding women being "property", Paul says:
Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I do not deny the headship of a man in a family, nor certain roles that the Bible gives to men and women, but the Bible also stresses the intrinsic equality of man and woman in Christ, which was pretty revolutionary for its time and today is overlooked as a no-brainer.

The problem is that your "design" theory ignores the realities of evolution by natural selection; there is no ascertainable intelligent design behind human biology, including our reproductive systems. And reproductive fitness is quite complex; it is possible that homosexuality can be explained in evolutionary terms by way of kin selection, which would provide ample "justification" for homosexuality.

The OP asked a question that rested on theistic premises, I am explaining from the Christian worldview why God can disapprove of homosexual relationships and approve of heterosexual ones. I am not trying to argue for design, these things are assumed within the Christian worldview.

And yes, "it is possible" to explain anything by any means, really, I am yet to see evidence for said claim.

The other problem with the design argument you are making should be obvious: Oral sex is not condemned, nor is anal heterosexual sex. Yet both actions involve non-reproductive sexuality; oral sex is in many if not most ways less risky than vaginal intercourse (with respect to HIV transmission, certainly). And yet another problem is easy enough to ponder: Anal sex can clearly be pleasurable, which suggests that there may be more to the story here, even if you accept intelligent design and ignore the clear evidence of evolution by natural selection.

Anal sex is dangerous considering the potential bacterial infections, for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, I don't see the appeal of the poop-tube, I don't think there is "more to the story". Heterosexual relationships have the possibility for reproduction, I said, not that everything will cause it. We have many pleasures that we seek to gratify in different ways, not all are correct, we and Creation are fallen.

If the Christian god condemns homosexuality while claiming that all that is created is good, and given that we know that homosexuality exists in nature quite apart from humans, the very existence of homosexuality would seem to call the existence of the Christian god into question.

If the Christian god condemnns cannibalism while claiming that all that is created is good, and given that we know that cannibalism exists in nature quite apart from humans, the very existence of cannibalism would seem to call the existence of the Christian god into question.

I can substitute many terms in here which appear in nature, seeking to answer moral questions with nature is shaky ground. Creation is fallen, it was created good but mankind rebelled and was corrupted.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Note, though, that, according to the bible, women who were barren (unable to produce new life) were also "without God," or "sinful." Yet, today, we don't think of impotency in that condemning way. Why, then, do we continue this barbaric double standard with homosexuality (which the ancients didn't understand as we do, anyway)?

I can't recall the verse you're referring to, regarding barren women, where's this?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

God didn't design marriage, man designed marriage. Marriage is a gov't contract brought in to complicate a social coupling. Just felt my 2 cents were necessary.

Marriage is a holy gift from God, an image of Christ's own relationship with the Church for one thing.

Honestly I would be happy if the government stayed out of marriage. I can see the appeal of marriage benefits but you can call it something else other than marriage, maybe a "legal couple contract" or something, all-inclusive, heterosexual, homosexual, whatever, so people can stop arguing over what "marriage" is and getting the government involved when it's none of the government's business.

 

[sojourner]

I can't recall the verse you're referring to, regarding barren women, where's this?

There is no one "specific verse." But it's fairly common knowledge that this was the thinking, and that thinking is reflected throughout the biblical texts.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

There is no one "specific verse." But it's fairly common knowledge that this was the thinking, and that thinking is reflected throughout the biblical texts.

The "thinking" of the time does not reflect the truth of what is in the Bible. If it is not explicitly stated I don't see why it must be assumed as a Biblical teaching. It's much like many of the Pharisees' own traditions regarding the Sabbath that Jesus rebuked, they were not explicitly taught by God.

 

[gsa]

Regarding pedophilia, child abuse and the like, Jesus brought a child before the disciples and said this:
Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

What does this have to do with the kind of child sexual abuse that the bible appears to either ignore or implicitly approve? Such as Lot offering his daughters to a rape mob?

And regarding polygamy, the intent of God for one man and one woman to become one flesh is clear from Jesus' words:
Matthew 19:4-6 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Any quotation from Jesus regarding the Genesis account must take into account the multiple wives recorded therein, on the part of the major patriarchs. In 2 Sam 12:8, God suggests that if David did not have enough wives he would be provided even more.

So how are you going to square that circle?

Regarding women being "property", Paul says:
Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

You might as well cite this verse to approve of homosexuality, given that gender has no meaning in "Christ Jesus," per Paul. Clearly, Paul felt that the master and male dominance survived the alleged resurrection event.

I do not deny the headship of a man in a family, nor certain roles that the Bible gives to men and women, but the Bible also stresses the intrinsic equality of man and woman in Christ, which was pretty revolutionary for its time and today is overlooked as a no-brainer.

Presumably you are not at liberty to ignore the Hebrew scriptures, which do classify women as property (i.e., Exodus 20, 21 & 22). In commanding people not to "covet," a string of properties is listed, with a clear understanding that wives are the possession of their husbands, just as houses (listed first) and male and female slaves (listed immediately after) and farm animals are.

The OP asked a question that rested on theistic premises, I am explaining from the Christian worldview why God can disapprove of homosexual relationships and approve of heterosexual ones. I am not trying to argue for design, these things are assumed within the Christian worldview.

Presumably, design is an important feature of that; it is even suggested by your use of "complementarity" as a justification for executing homosexuals in Leviticus 20:13. The theistic premise requires a sustainable design argument to be taken seriously.

Anal sex is dangerous considering the potential bacterial infections, for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, I don't see the appeal of the poop-tube, I don't think there is "more to the story". Heterosexual relationships have the possibility for reproduction, I said, not that everything will cause it. We have many pleasures that we seek to gratify in different ways, not all are correct, we and Creation are fallen.

But is anal sex sinful? And if it is not sinful, why is heterosexual anal sex approved, given that it has no functionality? You are a Protestant fundamentalist so you do not have procreative potential as a recourse, since there's nothing fundamentally sinful with non-procreative sex from a Protestant perspective.

If the Christian god condemnns cannibalism while claiming that all that is created is good, and given that we know that cannibalism exists in nature quite apart from humans, the very existence of cannibalism would seem to call the existence of the Christian god into question.

I can substitute many terms in here which appear in nature, seeking to answer moral questions with nature is shaky ground. Creation is fallen, it was created good but mankind rebelled and was corrupted.

Well this is what makes conservative Christianity an intolerably stupid religion from my perspective, as an ex-Christian. And I do think that there is a fundamental disconnect between omnibenevolence and omnipotence that cannot be resolved in light of what we know about the natural world, including things like cannibalism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Honestly I would be happy if the government stayed out of marriage.

But marriage is basically a legal contract, so it's difficult to see how the government could be kept out of it.

 

[The Hammer]

Marriage is a holy gift from God, an image of Christ's own relationship with the Church for one thing.

Honestly I would be happy if the government stayed out of marriage. I can see the appeal of marriage benefits but you can call it something else other than marriage, maybe a "legal couple contract" or something, all-inclusive, heterosexual, homosexual, whatever, so people can stop arguing over what "marriage" is and getting the government involved when it's none of the government's business.

Marriage is not a religious construct, marriage is a neutral term. The religious implications of such act ,depend on where the ceremony is performed and who is officiating it.

You don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married .

And marriage is a gov't contract, so the gov't cannot stay out of what it has created.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

What does this have to do with the kind of child sexual abuse that the bible appears to either ignore or implicitly approve? Such as Lot offering his daughters to a rape mob?

I don't see a verse approving of what Lot did. It records what he did, and the angels blind the men before they could do anything. Lot was declared righteous but it did not make him perfect, he valued the hospitality of his household over his daughters which was wrong.

Any quotation from Jesus regarding the Genesis account must take into account the multiple wives recorded therein, on the part of the major patriarchs. In 2 Sam 12:8, God suggests that if David did not have enough wives he would be provided even more.

So how are you going to square that circle?

Jesus says in Matthew 19:8 regarding divorce - "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."
The same principle can be applied to God's allowance of polygamy in the Old Testament, another marriage-related issue.

In 2 Sam 12 God is speaking to David about his rebellion and the evil he has committed in killing Uriah. He's telling him "I've given you everything, and even more if you had asked for it, and you have gone and done this great evil!" As I said, God allowed polygamy due to the hardness of men's hearts, being sovereign over all He has provided David with everything, even his wives. This seems contradictory to God's disapproval of polygamy, but God's grace allowed for man's hardness here.

You might as well cite this verse to approve of homosexuality, given that gender has no meaning in "Christ Jesus," per Paul. Clearly, Paul felt that the master and male dominance survived the alleged resurrection event.

All are one, equal I didn't say "gender has no meaning", I affirm Paul's other teachings on men and women.

Presumably you are not at liberty to ignore the Hebrew scriptures, which do classify women as property (i.e., Exodus 20, 21 & 22). In commanding people not to "covet," a string of properties is listed, with a clear understanding that wives are the possession of their husbands, just as houses (listed first) and male and female slaves (listed immediately after) and farm animals are.

Men are the head of the family, there is a headship role, but I see no reason to construe this as property, you are adding to the text where there is no explicit mention of such.

Presumably, design is an important feature of that; it is even suggested by your use of "complementarity" as a justification for executing homosexuals in Leviticus 20:13. The theistic premise requires a sustainable design argument to be taken seriously.

Do I also have to establish that Jesus rose from the dead, and that God exists? From a Christian worldview the reasoning for why God disapproves of homosexual activity is clear. And the Levitical Law is not a model for how human governments should work today but rather the holiness of God and how the wages of sin is death, for by the Law we know what sin is, and its severity.

But is anal sex sinful? And if it is not sinful, why is heterosexual anal sex approved, given that it has no functionality? You are a Protestant fundamentalist so you do not have procreative potential as a recourse, since there's nothing fundamentally sinful with non-procreative sex from a Protestant perspective.

The Bible neither condones nor condemns it. Thanks for the label and the assumption that you know everything I believe. The whole "spilling the seed" verse can be construed as a condemnation of acts with no chance of reproduction, though I can't say for sure. Our bodies are also temples of the Holy Spirit, I don't see it as particularly beneficial in that regard, given the health risks.

On the off-chance it is permissible, one would recourse to God's intention of marriage between a man and a woman, it is simply how God intended it to be.

Well this is what makes conservative Christianity an intolerably stupid religion from my perspective, as an ex-Christian. And I do think that there is a fundamental disconnect between omnibenevolence and omnipotence that cannot be resolved in light of what we know about the natural world, including things like cannibalism.

Look at the world around you, it's full of death and war and human greed and selfishness. It makes sense that this world isn't right, and that's not God's fault but ours. God's love was manifested most brilliantly when He died for us on the cross, one can ask for no more than that.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Marriage is not a religious construct, marriage is a neutral term. The religious implications of such act ,depend on where the ceremony is performed and who is officiating it.

You don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married .

And marriage is a gov't contract, so the gov't cannot stay out of what it has created.

It's not just about liking gay marriage and not getting gay married. Because of the government's redefinition of what marriage is this has an impact on what children are taught and how society perceives marriage, as if the government has the authority to declare it so. Your first sentence is demonstrating my point, the term "marriage" itself is really up for debate and people get so tied up in what it means it is better the government stays out of it altogether, presumably by replacing/renaming it to something more truly neutral, and people can call it personally whatever they want.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

But marriage is basically a legal contract, so it's difficult to see how the government could be kept out of it.

A simple change would be to not use the term "marriage". Let marriage be to people what they want it to be, rather than a definition that is forced legally upon the population.

 

[The Hammer]

It's not just about liking gay marriage and not getting gay married. Because of the government's redefinition of what marriage is this has an impact on what children are taught and how society perceives marriage, as if the government has the authority to declare it so. Your first sentence is demonstrating my point, the term "marriage" itself is really up for debate and people get so tied up in what it means it is better the government stays out of it altogether, presumably by replacing/renaming it to something more truly neutral, and people can call it personally whatever they want.

Romans 13:1-2 :: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

EDIT: This to me looks like you are supposed to accept and obey the law. Does this not extend to governmental decisions on what marriage is or is not, for society as a whole?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Let marriage be to people what they want it to be, rather than a definition that is forced legally upon the population.

In the UK a lot of people don't bother with marriage and just cohabit, the problem is that there is no legal protection for the partners with that arrangement, no rights with regard to inheritance, property, all that stuff.
But here marriage is a secular legal contract, which can be done in a registry office by a public official. People can choose to add a religious ceremony if they wish.
Gay marriage passed into law last year. Previously gay couples only had access to civil partnership, a sort of watered-down marriage. Interestingly straight couple and others are now arguing that anyone should be able to do a civil partnership arrangement, not just gay couples, which does make sense.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Romans 13:1-2 :: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

EDIT: This to me looks like you are supposed to accept and obey the law. Does this not extend to governmental decisions on what marriage is or is not, for society as a whole?

We should obey the law, but human law never trumps God's law.

Living in a democracy, I can have an opinion on what governments are and are not supposed to do, and I don't believe they should be ruling on private affairs like marriage, I can't find any good reason why they should be.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

In the UK a lot of people don't bother with marriage and just cohabit, the problem is that there is no legal protection for the partners with that arrangement, no rights with regard to inheritance, property, all that stuff.
But here marriage is a secular legal contract, which can be done in a registry office by a public official. People can choose to add a religious ceremony if they wish.

Where is "here"? I'm guessing the US?

Marriage is also a legal contract over here in Britannia, and can be done in a registry office too, though the word "marriage" still has a lot of historical and religious baggage, why have the huge fuss that we have when we can just replace the word to something far less excitable?