God's opposition to homosexuality. Why?

[rocketboy]

Only 6-7 ?!?! :areyoucra
Wow am I ever average in anything?

 

[Skwim]

Only 6-7 ?!?! :areyoucra
Wow am I ever average in anything?

You do know don't you, that you only have so much in your life time and if you use it all up early on you won't have any left for your later years, like 28, 29, 30 etc.

 

[Acim]

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

Yes. Not just one's own body. It is related to the don't have other idols before Me sort of thing.

 

[McBell]

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.

Is god honestly that petty?

 

[Acim]

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.

Would you care to cite those passages? Not just with numbers, but with quotes.

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

In my reading of the passages, it is admonishing of anyone filled with lust. More specifically, those in the narrative and not necessarily "anyone" but that is plausible implication and is what we are discussing (I think).

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

You got that from:

Originally Posted by 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.

Again, to be clear, this is not what I believe, but what I reckon conservative Christian types are reading into the bible messages. I do believe same types would say it applies to heterosexuals, at least to some degree. Exception being procreation.

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

Agreed. i even would question / argue the 'against expression of it' part. More to have (fun with) that argument, since I mostly tend to argue it is the activity that is being admonished not the attraction.

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

I feel that was explained with God disliking / not approving of those who glorify the body instead of giving all glory to God. I wholeheartedly believe another way of saying this is those who revere the physical, while seemingly ignoring or spiting the metaphysical / spiritual. I think at this level it has next to nothing to do with homosexuality (specifically).

I again wish to be clear that God (of my understanding) does not hate this about humanity, nor does God oppose it. I find that a challenging understanding to arrive at, but it does make sense to me and I could elaborate on it. Perhaps another time or another thread.

I don't get why biblical god would hate the physical, though do feel that is what the orthodox Christian position ultimately amounts to. Perhaps many stop short of that (extreme) assessment and will purport it is a specific aspect that is being judged against by God, a la "homosexuality is bad." And "we are to hate the sin, as god does, but not the sinner."

IMO, it is somewhat related to the emotional response I sometimes think people who are essentially adherents of philosophical materialism display toward "believers." Hate might be too strong of a word, but it does seem that at a certain level, staunch materialists loathe those in the crowd who are vocal believers of the metaphysical and/or spiritual. Judging harshly against them. To which I am often like, "why you gotta hate?"

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

I believe I have. Again, perhaps you can present the quotes of which you think this is being asserted and specific only to homosexuality.

 

[McBell]

Only 6-7 ?!?! :areyoucra
Wow am I ever average in anything?

Well, you know...
I have heard it said that you should pick one or two things and be the very best at them you can be...

 

[Skwim]

Would you care to cite those passages? Not just with numbers, but with quotes.

See the OP.

You got that from:

It was a question not an accusation

I feel that was explained with God disliking / not approving of those who glorify the body instead of giving all glory to God. I wholeheartedly believe another way of saying this is those who revere the physical, while seemingly ignoring or spiting the metaphysical / spiritual. I think at this level it has next to nothing to do with homosexuality (specifically).

But why can't those who practice homosexuality do as god wants, just as those who practice heterosexuality can?

I again wish to be clear that God (of my understanding) does not hate this about humanity, nor does God oppose it.

Then I suggest you read some of the passages listed in the OP.

I believe I have. Again, perhaps you can present the quotes of which you think this is being asserted and specific only to homosexuality.

Read the passages listed in the OP.

 

[Warren Clark]

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?

Yeah... no. God never "said" anything.
Stop putting words in "His" mouth.

But in their mind its all about procreation.


No abortions and no gays = breeding frenzy = over population

 

[Acim]

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 have considered procreation as the sole reason for sexual relations and find it is inaccurate. Less inaccurate from biblical perspective and for sure inaccurate from perspective of self awareness / free choice. We have (more or less) gotten to a point where 'normal' human sexual relations isn't even needed for reproduction, so knowing that (in advance) would tell me that god couldn't be so blind to realize at a certain level, sexual relations are arguably not necessary.

I think it is entirely within realm of human experience to enjoy sexual relations and not maintain lust. If I am being as fair as I can to the "do not marry" instruction spoken of in 1 Corithinians, it is essentially making this argument. And we surely don't need metaphysical understanding of ourselves to get this. I think we get to the point called maturity where we understand that sex need not be self consuming and overly passionate; where passion or lust outweighs common sense desire for (lasting) companionship.

I further believe, and don't think of this as 'merely opinion,' that sexual relations occur even if bodies are not touching each other. That sex is an energy exchange that is often felt, both as emotional intimacy and (psychological) pleasure. I think this sort of impulse has overlap with spiritual impulse(s), but is a another discussion for another time.

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.

I find this passage challenging to understand, or more so, challenging to arrive at conclusion that homosexuality is opposing God's purpose. Here are my reasons why:

• Paul is not speaking direct language of prophesy. Unlike Gospel, he is taking (concept of) God and speaking in 3rd person. I interpret this as Paul's understanding of God. Spoken as if he is (self appointed) teacher, not divine messenger.

• As I noted earlier in this thread, in consideration of the context, the passage is teaching us that coveting another (thing or person) has consequences of which Paul is moved to speak about. Seeing it as a teaching only about homosexuality is clearing not seeing the forest for the tree. It is missing the spirit of the teaching regarding godlessness. Sexuality (perversions) is subplot, not theme.

• Paul is teaching us what God (of his understanding) does in relation to such persons. Teaching consequences effected by God's wrath against godlessness. Nowhere in here to I find this is something for Christians to be engaging in. We are not asked to carry out God's wrath, nor his Judgment.
  
  And instead can remember that "love your neighbor as yourself" is still one of 2 great commandments. Such that if homosexual neighbor wishes to no longer burn with lust as one's own heterosexual self did, until entering into loving marriage, then it ought to be perfectly acceptable for same Christian to allow homosexual to enter into loving and devoted marriage. And in fact denying this for the homosexual neighbor could be seen as grave disservice. Akin to disallowing heterosexual neighbor from entering into loving marriage because Christian has a personal hangup (judgment) of that person, and so would prefer to see that person 'burn with lust' rather than treating the neighbor with Christian love.

• For me, the most challenging part is the words "God gave them over." I think I get this, but will admit that perhaps I am misreading it, and therefore am about to possibly misrepresent it. I think correct meaning is "god gave up on them" since they gave up on god, and chose godlessness (glorifying the body) instead. I apologize, but the Christian in me can not go along with that type of God that apparently gives up so easily. And is part of reason why I think Paul is poor teacher of Christianity. Another possible interpretation of "god gave them over" is that in Paul's understanding of God's reaction to 'unnatural' human relations, god is that which makes them perverted homosexual. I realize this is perhaps incorrect interpretation, but I think it is in the passage and not a stretch:
  
  "That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites."
  
  I can see it in there, though feel it is challenging to understand what is being said, in vernacular that is chosen. Not to mention that we ought to take into account that this is purportedly an omniscient being we are referring to. Knowingly giving them up TO disgraceful sexual appetites. Imagine a human parent who doesn't like the idea her daughter was kissing boy down the street. Why? Because this parent says it is act of lust and not normal or natural (her thoughts). So, her response is to give up her daughter to disgraceful sexual appetites. Does that sound responsible to you? Or closer to the exact opposite of what a loving, knowing, wise parent would do?

Perhaps not the best note to end on, but it is one of ways I find the teaching to be highly suspect in what is being conveyed.

 

[Acim]

But why can't those who practice homosexuality do as god wants, just as those who practice heterosexuality can?

Then I suggest you read some of the passages listed in the OP.

Read the passages listed in the OP.

I have. I believe you are misrepresenting them when you purport:

Originally Posted by Skwim
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.

 

[averageJOE]

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.

So what's the difference between an infertile hetero couple getting married and enjoying sex and a homosexual couple getting married and have sex?

 

[dust1n]

Gay society is rife with drugs and disease.

Rife? Like widespread? Please don't abuse a perfectly good language for your unfounded generalizations.

They keep neither within their community, but share that gift with us all, for one example

So is heterosexual society. Is it the gay that is wrong, or is it the drugs and disease?

Individually, the very acts that are part of homosexual sex can and do injure the participants, driving our health care costs up.

The very acts that are part of heterosexual sex can do injure the participants, driving our health care costs up.

 

[Skwim]

I have. I believe you are misrepresenting them when you purport:

"Sorry if my shorthand "homosexuality" for "homosexual activity" has thrown you. Here:

"in those passages where homosexual activity is condemned"
​

We good now?

 

[Acim]

"Sorry if my shorthand "homosexuality" for "homosexual activity" has thrown you. Here:

"in those passages where homosexual activity is condemned"
​

We good now?

Not quite. I wish you would quote the words where you see it as specifically condemning homosexual activity (of anyone).

I felt I did some of this in my first post on this thread. But will do that with first passage you gave on this thread, and allow you to speak to it as I have. I welcome you do it with rest, because I truly believe you are misrepresenting it with your blanket assertions.

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

IMO, the whole chapter is too long to quote, and as I stated in earlier post, I think the interpretation of condemnation starts with 19:4-5:

all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

I'll admit that my reaction to this is one of humor. I find it hard to believe people would surround a house and then say, bring those people out so we can have sex with them. As if sex is not what the original text (could've possibly) said. But, I'll go with the idea of this is so.

Sense of admonishing occurs in 19:6-7

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.

To me, it is saying, don't rape. Though admittedly 19:8 confuses me since Lot is apparently willing to throw his daughters to these horn dogs. Strikes me as equally wicked, but then again we are dealing with Lot's assertion, not Lord God's (at this point).

Then in 19:9-11, a scuffle occurs between Lot and men of Sodom. Lot is rescued by the house guests who say in 19:12

Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.

City being destroyed strikes me as punishment being meted out. I would argue on 2 levels that this is not by Creator God, but is tangential to discussion. So for sake of argument, I will assume God is against people of Sodom and is ready to destroy it.

But is it clear that it is because of homosexuality? If yes, where is that stated?

Anyway, city is destroyed by LORD God in 19:24-29,

24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.

29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

Nothing regarding homosexuality there.

And 19:30-38 is on a whole other tangent. Excerpt from 19:32-35

32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

Alrighty then.

 

[WorldCitizen]

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?

You asked for a deeper explaination, which comes from the writings of Baha'u'llah, The Founder of the Baha'i Faith, which IMHO explains far greater issues that the past dispensations could not unravel due to mans infant mindset at those times...

"From the pairing of even the smallest particles in the world of being are the grace and bounty of God made manifest; and the higher the degree, the more momentous is the union ... and above all other unions is that between human beings, .... Thus is the primal oneness made to appear."
​

The primal oneness, the realization of God's kingdom on earth (the unification of mankind), is dependent upon the bonding together of individuals in a common social order. The basic (and strongest) bond within a viable social organization would have to be that bond between men and women, the two most different and complementary aspects of man.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I wonder how agreed upon is such an interpretation among current day Bahais.

Incidentally, while I discourage relying on scriptures anyway, I can't help but notice that the text that you mention does not even make a mention of either hetero or homosexuality, so why mention it?

And:

The basic (and strongest) bond within a viable social organization would have to be that bond between men and women, the two most different and complementary aspects of man.

That may well be how you feel, but it seems to come out of nowhere. There is no good reason to favor heterosexual bonds in detriment of homosexual ones.

 

[Pegg]

Are you going to answer his question?

the answer to skwim's question is that God allows sexual relations to occur between a husband and wife because that is the parameters he set for sex to properly occur.

as soon as anyone takes sex outside of that parameter, then it becomes a sin. 2 unmarried hetro's having sex is a sin, just as 2 men having sex is a sin.

and because the parameters for marriage are one male and one female, then anything outside of that is also a sin. a man with two wives is sin just as a man with a man is a sin....in both cases they are outside the parameters God set.

 

[Pegg]

So what's the difference between an infertile hetero couple getting married and enjoying sex and a homosexual couple getting married and have sex?

the hetro couple are complying with the parameters God has set for sexual relations to be practiced...even though they will never have a child, they can still right have sexual relations as a husband and wife.

the homosexual couple are not within Gods parameters, they are outside of it. That is the difference.

 

[WorldCitizen]

I wonder how agreed upon is such an interpretation among current day Bahais.

Incidentally, while I discourage relying on scriptures anyway, I can't help but notice that the text that you mention does not even make a mention of either hetero or homosexuality, so why mention it?

And:



That may well be how you feel, but it seems to come out of nowhere. There is no good reason to favor heterosexual bonds in detriment of homosexual ones.

Greetings Dantas, and thank you for your reply

although the text does not mention the subject, like every other scriptures in religion, it is however left to individual understanding, for me its clear, for you, not so much, we are just indifferent. the point i want to stress however is that the pattern of creation that is followed in all created things, tangible or intangible, is a result of intercourse with two elements. . . "male" and "female"

 

[LuisDantas]

the answer to skwim's question is that God allows sexual relations to occur between a husband and wife because that is the parameters he set for sex to properly occur.

What do you mean by that? In which sense would sex that is not marital and heterosexual "disallowed" or "unproper"? It sure happens spontaneously enough.

as soon as anyone takes sex outside of that parameter, then it becomes a sin. 2 unmarried hetero's having sex is a sin, just as 2 men having sex is a sin.

I see. Sounds quite arbitrary to me, however. And then there is the matter of how much right one has to actually forbid others from sinning, even assuming that they share the same faith and understanding of sin to begin with.

and because the parameters for marriage are one male and one female, then anything outside of that is also a sin. a man with two wives is sin just as a man with a man is a sin....in both cases they are outside the parameters God set.

Why exactly can't people simply disagree with that interpretation?