God's opposition to homosexuality. Why?

[Skwim]

never mind

 

[Manahel.Fatima]

I think the only reason behind this is GOD only want a legal relation between male and female you all know that fertility can be enhanced by only relation between male and female that's why to stop any other wrong diseases and society crimes GOD don't like homosexuality.

 

[Pegg]

And this goes right back to my original point. If those who practiced homosexuality were, as you think god considered them, decadent and evil people, then why? Why did god see sexual affection toward someone of the same sex as decadent and evil?

some of the accounts in the bible, such as the account of Sodom and Godmorrah, show that the sex that men were having with each other was not motivated by love

the description is that they were 'violently inflamed in their lust'

in this context, the act is not an act of love and respect...in fact, that account shows the men of Sodom wanted to rape two strangers. I hate to think of what life must have been like for young boys in such an environment.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Ok, but then we'd still be back at the original question, "Why?" Why would the mutual sexual expression between people of the same sex damage spiritual progress? Simply claiming a possible outcome isn't enough.

Fine.

Then I suggest you ask God when you see Him.

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

Because Baha'u'llah said so?

As well as equivalent prohibitions by various other religions, yes.

We're hardly alone on this one!

Bruce

 

[idav]

I think the only reason behind this is GOD only want a legal relation between male and female you all know that fertility can be enhanced by only relation between male and female that's why to stop any other wrong diseases and society crimes GOD don't like homosexuality.

So your saying god doesn't like homosexuality cause it causes "wrong" diseases and crime? Interesting but I don't think that can be supported. First God is responsible for diseases whether they are "wrong" or not. Second there is plenty of crime by heterosexuals that have no correlation with homosexuals existing. What your saying is as bad as saying rape exists because women dress provocatively. We are responsible for our own choices despite the influences.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

As well as equivalent prohibitions by various other religions, yes.

We're hardly alone on this one!

Well, I think you're wrong, alone or together, and I think that attitude does harm to humanity.

But I realize it's just Baha'u'llah's word against mine. I wish he were here to debate it with us.

 

[McBell]

I hate to think of what life must have been like for young boys in such an environment.

I figure it was much like being a female back then...

 

[CaptainBritain]

Well, I think you're wrong, alone or together, and I think that attitude does harm to humanity.

But I realize it's just Baha'u'llah's word against mine. I wish he were here to debate it with us.

I wouldnt debate it with him if he were here, I would just call him a bigot and leave it at that.
Kind of along the lines of why I wouldnt hold a debate with a racist.
Bigotry and racism come from lack of education, you cant correct that in a debate.

Luckily the World is slowly moving forward and highlighting the backwards primative nature of holy texts in the process, kind of a win/win

 

[Acim]

After further consideration of this thread, and from what was listed in earlier post I wrote, I think the reason why God opposes homosexuality (according to those who think that) is because it (the practice) is seen as lustful, and glorifying the body, rather than giving (all) glory to God.

I'd just like to be clear that I do not believe God opposes homosexuality, but am responding in vein of OP.

Also wish to add that it is not hard to argue (from same Christian view as noted above) that God arguably opposes heterosexuality in all cases but procreation. Somewhere in neighborhood of 1 Corinthians 7, we can see passage and instruction of "do not marry." There is more to this than sound bite I am providing, but I truly believe it is saying marriage (presumably between heterosexuals) is not high ideal for true Christians. Instead, give yourself to God, and all glory be to Him. I've heard enough Christians weasel out of this instruction to make me realize the bible is way more flexible on (own) sexuality then some Christians will ever care to admit. In sound bite logic though, I would argue that biblical god (really Paul's god of understanding) apparently hates heterosexual activity almost as much as he (god) hates homosexuality.

God (of my understanding) is incapable of hating humans for any conceivable reason that we might dream up.

 

[waitasec]

After further consideration of this thread, and from what was listed in earlier post I wrote, I think the reason why God opposes homosexuality (according to those who think that) is because it (the practice) is seen as lustful, and glorifying the body, rather than giving (all) glory to God.

do you mean ones own body...sort of why masturbation is frowned upon?

 

[Skwim]

some of the accounts in the bible, such as the account of Sodom and Godmorrah, show that the sex that men were having with each other was not motivated by love

Okay, let's say that god considers homosexual activity not motivated by love to be sinful, would he feel any better if it was heterosexual activity not motivated by love? If so, then there must be something else about homosexuality he's not happy with. If not, then in those passages where homosexuality is condemned why isn't this very important point noted? He doesn't distinguish between homosexuals who are expressing their love and those expressing their lust. He condemns them all.

the description is that they were 'violently inflamed in their lust'
in this context, the act is not an act of love and respect...in fact, that account shows the men of Sodom wanted to rape two strangers. I hate to think of what life must have been like for young boys in such an environment.

But in the other condeming passages this isn't mentioned at all. Surely there were heterosexuals who would have been doing the same and therefore meriting the same condemnation, but there aren't. So violently inflamed lust can't be the lone reason. Something else is compelling god to come down on homosexuality

Fine.

Then I suggest you ask God when you see Him.

That's it? You take a stab that misses the mark so you imply the question is unanswerable by man and that I have to ask god himself. Why not simply say that up front instead of coming up with an "apparently"?

After further consideration of this thread, and from what was listed in earlier post I wrote, I think the reason why God opposes homosexuality (according to those who think that) is because it (the practice) is seen as lustful, and glorifying the body, rather than giving (all) glory to God.

So you don't believe homosexuals can love each other as heterosexuals do?

I'd just like to be clear that I do not believe God opposes homosexuality, but am responding in vein of OP.

And I don't believe the Bible shows he is against homosexual attraction, just the expression of it.

Also wish to add that it is not hard to argue (from same Christian view as noted above) that God arguably opposes heterosexuality in all cases but procreation.

Argue, not at all. A decent argument? well that hasn't appeared yet. So we're still sitting here asking the "why?" question.

God (of my understanding) is incapable of hating humans for any conceivable reason that we might dream up.

Fine. Then just come up with the real reason god finds homosexuality "detestable" and worthy of "punishment of eternal fire

 

[Pegg]

Okay, let's say that god considers homosexual activity not motivated by love to be sinful, would he feel any better if it was heterosexual activity not motivated by love? If so, then there must be something else about homosexuality he's not happy with. If not, then in those passages where homosexuality is condemned why isn't this very important point noted? He doesn't distinguish between homosexuals who are expressing their love and those expressing their lust. He condemns them all.

But in the other condeming passages this isn't mentioned at all. Surely there were heterosexuals who would have been doing the same and therefore meriting the same condemnation, but there aren't. So violently inflamed lust can't be the lone reason. Something else is compelling god to come down on homosexuality

I mentioned the love because people do use it as a justification for homosexual activity. they think that because they are motivated by love, then God should not have a problem with it.

but it really does run a little deeper then this. Whether you wish to consider it or not, the fact is that sexual relations is designed for procreation. Its purpose is not to give us pleasure. Its purpose is so that Gods purpose can be fulfilled in the earth, namely that the earth become filled with progeny.

homosexuality is directly at odds with Gods purpose because men cannot procreate with men.
Paul mentions this at Romans 1:25-27
"That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males"

Homosexuality opposes Gods plan & purpose.

 

[Pegg]

I figure it was much like being a female back then...

the account about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah show that the men were not interested in females. In the account Lot offered the mob his two daughters, but they refused and said 'no, we want the men'

so I think in those cities, being female would have been safer then being male.

 

[Skwim]

I mentioned the love because people do use it as a justification for homosexual activity. they think that because they are motivated by love, then God should not have a problem with it.

but it really does run a little deeper then this. Whether you wish to consider it or not, the fact is that sexual relations is designed for procreation. Its purpose is not to give us pleasure. Its purpose is so that Gods purpose can be fulfilled in the earth, namely that the earth become filled with progeny.

I take it then that unless two people are trying to conceive, sexual intercourse between them is no better than two homosexuals "getting it on." I assume this is spelled out somewhere in the Bible. Care to guide me to it?

 

[Pegg]

I take it then that unless two people are trying to conceive, sexual intercourse between them is no better than two homosexuals "getting it on." I assume this is spelled out somewhere in the Bible. Care to guide me to it?

sexual intercourse is only permissible within the arrangement of marriage. Unmarried people were not permitted to have sex at all. That was punishable by death. This shows that Gods view is that sex is only allowed within that context.

the bible doesnt have to spell it out because it is very clear in detailing what is acceptable to God and what is not.

If a man deliberately spilled his semen on the ground rather then give it to the womb, he was punished with death. The case of Onis shows that it was not acceptable to prevent the semen from performing its intended use. Because he did not give his semen to his sister-in-law (whose husband had died), he was executed.

 

[McBell]

the account about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah show that the men were not interested in females. In the account Lot offered the mob his two daughters, but they refused and said 'no, we want the men'

so I think in those cities, being female would have been safer then being male.

Move the goal posts much?
Of course, until such time as you can provide a verse that states that females were treated any different in Sodom and Gomorrah than they were any where else at that time, you are merely making an assumption based upon what you want to believe.

 

[McBell]

sexual intercourse is only permissible within the arrangement of marriage. Unmarried people were not permitted to have sex at all. That was punishable by death. This shows that Gods view is that sex is only allowed within that context.

Are you going to answer his question?

the bible doesnt have to spell it out because it is very clear in detailing what is acceptable to God and what is not.

So you are free to make up whatever you like when ever the Bible is silent on a specific thing?

If a man deliberately spilled his semen on the ground rather then give it to the womb, he was punished with death. The case of Onis shows that it was not acceptable to prevent the semen from performing its intended use. Because he did not give his semen to his sister-in-law (whose husband had died), he was executed.

this is taken so far from the context of what the Bible actually says as to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[McBell]

sexual intercourse is only permissible within the arrangement of marriage. Unmarried people were not permitted to have sex at all. That was punishable by death. This shows that Gods view is that sex is only allowed within that context.

Unless of course a him rapes a her.
Then he gets the her he raped as his wife.

 

[Skwim]

sexual intercourse is only permissible within the arrangement of marriage. Unmarried people were not permitted to have sex at all. That was punishable by death. This shows that Gods view is that sex is only allowed within that context.

Because sexual intercourse is only possible between a male and a female his limiting law here should have no bearing on homosexual encounters of any kind, nor proscribe non-intercourse acts between unmarried heterosexuals.

the bible doesnt have to spell it out because it is very clear in detailing what is acceptable to God and what is not.

Then it looks like the acts I just mentioned are alright in as much as they are not clearly prohibited.

If a man deliberately spilled his semen on the ground rather then give it to the womb, he was punished with death.

So, in as much I figure you feel god knows best, are you ready to support a law to lynch all masturbating males? Also, are you aware of what happens to excess semen in the body? If it isn't spontaneously ejaculated a night---a very common occurrence among teens called "wet dreams"---it is absorbed by the body. The male produces far, far, more little wigglers than will ever be used. In fact, the male is pretty darn prolific. Here is what the averages breakdown as:

Typical intercourse ejaculation abilities by age

6-7 times per week for teenagers of age 16-19.
5-6 times per week for young men of age 20-25.
4-5 times per week for young men of age 25-30.
3-4 times per week for men of age 30-45,
source
​

Think an episode of "spilling" one of these opportunities is worth killing a person for? Makes one wonder what god's problem is here.

The case of Onis shows that it was not acceptable to prevent the semen from performing its intended use. Because he did not give his semen to his sister-in-law (whose husband had died), he was executed.

A fine moment of justice served.