What's God's Big Problem with Homosexuality?

[Demonslayer]

Want to make eating boiled turnips a sin? God has the power to do just that.

I wish he would, if anything is an abomination it's a boiled turnip.

 

[Lyndon]

I find it interesting that you refer to Yahweh as female.

Is there a particular reason?

read my signature

 

[Demonslayer]

read my signature

You're just trying to score points with the ladies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because it eliminates the possibility of reproduction?

No, it doesn't.

*Not having sex with the opposite sex* eliminates the possibility of procreation.

... and only then if you ignore the possibility of "procreation miracles", but since the Bible has a bunch of them, I'm not sure why anyone would do this if they take the Bible seriously enough to follow Leviticus would do this.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

read my signature

Eh.....

I see it now but disagree with the reasoning.

Male and female is essential to life.

 

[idav]

Looking at web sites that purport to list all the biblical references to homosexuality it's obvious that many are padding their list. Guess they feel that quantity = truth. In any case, I came away with the following pieces of scripture that can be pretty well construed to condemn homosexuality. God wants us to know that . . .

Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Romans 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

First Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God​

So god's message here is that homosexual acts are "abominations" and "vile affections" and that anyone guilty of preforming them will be "put to death," and "shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Pretty stiff penalty for doing something that doesn't harm to anyone. But then god is the guy in charge and gets to call whatever shots he wants. Want to make eating boiled turnips a sin? God has the power to do just that. And he doesn't need to explain himself. However, it would make one wonder just what's so bad about eating a boiled turnip that god would deem it a sin. As it stands, lacking any such reason, it comes across as pretty irrational.

But as I say, obviously god doesn't feel he needs to explain any of his actions, and often doesn't. All the believer is obligated to do is adhere to his dictates. However, as an exercise in common sense, what might his reason be for condemning homosexual acts? Keep in mind that we now know that homosexuality is not a chosen sexual orientation, as in, "I think I'll be a homosexual rather than a heterosexual." And although there's no scientific consensus as to its cause, the reasons pretty much dove tail into the following. . .

"a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."
(American Academy of Pediatrics )

"a possible biological, psychological, or social effects."
(American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association)

"a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors."
(Royal College of Psychiatrists)
​

Now, if we know this to be true, then god did/does as well. YET, recognizing its unbidden, psychological imposition on the homosexual, god still finds that caving into its demands is worthy of damnation---something I see as irrational as condemning boiled turnips. To be heterosexual is a fortuitous indeed. So, taking all this into consideration, what do you think might be behind god's reason for hating homosexual acts so much, considering them to be abominations and vile affections?

God condemns homosexual acts because ______________________fill in the blank____________________ .​

And, yes, I do know that no one is suppose to be able to fathom god's ways, but give it your best fallible, human shot anyway.


.

I have met people who are not really religious and have a "to each their own attitude" when it is not harming anyone. They even have family members that they love who are homosexual. However despite their open mindedness, they still feel it is wrong because it is what the bible says. Because even the people who fall away from church still believe in god via the bible. It seems like an impossible mind set to change even with hard facts that sexual orientation is essentially out of our biological control.

I don't think it is so much an issue with god, it is more of an issue for whoever wrote the scriptures. Paul was pretty hard on sex in general yet Jesus didn't even really think homosexuality worth mentioning. It becomes an issue as to why god would make us in a way that lies counter to what god actually wants. Paul took it to the point that he felt celibacy was best however there are verses where even Paul felt that marriage is better than living in "sin". On that note I feel the answer, for people who believe in the bible, is to allow same sex marriage otherwise god is tyrant punishing people for things out of our control. Tough enough as it is to even exercise free will in the first place.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

From the Bhagavad Gita to the Lotussutra to the Guru Granth.... Not a single prohibition against homosexuality, but numerous against adultery, incest and non consensual sex.
Now the law books do give weird and extremely outdated verses on it, such as Manusmriti suggests that the penalty of male homosexuality (for Brahmins, Kshatriya and Vaishyas only) is showering with clothes on, fasting for one night or fine of 24 pannas, while female homosexuality is punishable by Head shaving, donkey rides and even death if done with an upper caste woman.
But sadly these same scripture permits horrible Casteist sentiments and much of us are decent enough to put it aside.
Arthashastra of Kautaliya says that male homosexual sex incurs a very low fine as it's a very petty crime, more serious crimes were listed as adultery and inter caste relations.
Now, the Shruti texts... The Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata speaks nothing on same sex interactions... As they are designed for personal growth and rituals.
Kamasutra has numerous encounters of homosexuality with servants and role reversal in heterosexual sex.
While it is true that Vedic sanctions marriages are always in forms of heterosexual couples but since gender is a temporary idea that changes with death... Sex isn't that much of a barrier.
Laws of ancient times suggested that homosexual, impotent, celibate and mentally weak people shouldn't receive inheritance but must be supported with home, food, clothing, etc. Mainly because inheritance was seen as a gift to future generations at that time.
But overall, homosexuality isn't an issue for God, infact on the contrary, Lord Shri Krishna took tge form of Mohini and had sex with Lord Shiva to give birth to Ayyappan, also known as Hari-Hara.
Also legend says that Krishna being pleased with Iravan, son of Arjuna... Married him for one night before he was killed the next day on the battlefield.
Zeus fell in love with a young man whom he later kidnapped.

The primary reality of the universe and Dharma is change. Sex is a part of tge material body that is created, grows old and dies while the soul survives...
So, sex and orientation is temporary.
Not to forget that a Hindu marriage sanctioned by the Vedas lasts for 7 lives or even infinity... So in the later lives one of the two can either be born as the opposite sex, the same sex, an animal, insect, plant or even if different worlds or dimensions... So no love is unnatural as the concept itself is absent in Hinduism.
The Masculine energy that is matter, the feminine energy that is energy together starts creation but there is also a Third sex or Tritiya Prakriti that involves sexes outsude the general male and female.
Since it is not a religion based on a single dogma, a single book, a single deity, a single authority, people are free to be what they wish...
All things in the universe is natural, even the birth of MAHISHASURA that was born of a demon and a bull... But his actions caused him death later.
Whatever is with the body is subjected to change after death and with old age. Dharma is maintained by Karma and ONLY IF THE KARMA IS HARMFUL TOWARDS ANOTHER LIVING BEING, only then it's 'sinful', be it straight marriage, gay marriage...
God doesn't have

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

The Masculine energy that is matter, the feminine energy that is energy

That dichotomy does not work because matter is composed of energy.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

That dichotomy does not work because matter is composed of energy.

Yes... From a scientific point of view it doesn't, but the context was to show the diversity of ideas in the Hindu traditions... Today only about 20-30% Hindus believe in this myth.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Yes... From a scientific point of view it doesn't, but the context was to show the diversity of ideas in the Hindu traditions... Today only about 20-30% Hindus believe in this myth.

Where does it explicatively state that masculine energy is matter and female energy is energy anyways?

It seems like someone trying to force Hinduism and science together.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Where does it explicatively state that masculine energy is matter and female energy is energy anyways?

It seems like someone trying to force Hinduism and science together.

The primary scripture of Hinduism the Rig Veda came out in writing in 1800-1200 BCE. The estimated time of the War of Mahabharata was around 3067 BCE and Ramayana around 8000-7000 BCE.
So, Hinduism and much of its beliefs dont come in writing as the concept of AHIMSA, Moksha, Artha and even Dharma existed long before the Vedic period.
The Linga-yoni which is now a Symbol of Shiva existed in Harappan civilization when Hinduism as it is now, never existed.
Eastern faiths aren't as restrictive as the west thinks every religion to be.

A story of an arrogant Shiva devotee exists where he worshipped Shiva alone without Parvati. When he was asked to take three rounds around Shiva-Parvati, he went round ShivA only three times. Then sarcastically, Parvati granted him a boon (or curse) that since he worships only Purusha without Prakriti or energy of the universe, his body will turn into matter alone.
Then after apologizing, Parvati with Shiva explained how they both created the universe and that Parvati is Prakriti which is the energy.

The war between science and religion that didn't exist in India is a new concept for us.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

The primary scripture of Hinduism the Rig Veda came out in writing in 1800-1200 BCE. The estimated time of the War of Mahabharata was around 3067 BCE and Ramayana around 8000-7000 BCE.
So, Hinduism and much of its beliefs dont come in writing as the concept of AHIMSA, Moksha, Artha and even Dharma existed long before the Vedic period.
The Linga-yoni which is now a Symbol of Shiva existed in Harappan civilization when Hinduism as it is now, never existed.
Eastern faiths aren't as restrictive as the west thinks every religion to be.

A story of an arrogant Shiva devotee exists where he worshipped Shiva alone without Parvati. When he was asked to take three rounds around Shiva-Parvati, he went round ShivA only three times. Then sarcastically, Parvati granted him a boon (or curse) that since he worships only Purusha without Prakriti or energy of the universe, his body will turn into matter alone.
Then after apologizing, Parvati with Shiva explained how they both created the universe and that Parvati is Prakriti which is the energy.

The war between science and religion that didn't exist in India is a new concept for us.

That is only something very vague that can construed as having that meaning.

Also it is probably because in India only the religious people often had any form of education in science, and of course not in any that contradicted their religion.

Besides the war between science in religion is really a war between logic and faith.

Both are mutually exclusive.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

The primary scripture of Hinduism the Rig Veda came out in writing in 1800-1200 BCE. The estimated time of the War of Mahabharata was around 3067 BCE and Ramayana around 8000-7000 BCE.
So, Hinduism and much of its beliefs dont come in writing as the concept of AHIMSA, Moksha, Artha and even Dharma existed long before the Vedic period.
The Linga-yoni which is now a Symbol of Shiva existed in Harappan civilization when Hinduism as it is now, never existed.
Eastern faiths aren't as restrictive as the west thinks every religion to be.

A story of an arrogant Shiva devotee exists where he worshipped Shiva alone without Parvati. When he was asked to take three rounds around Shiva-Parvati, he went round ShivA only three times. Then sarcastically, Parvati granted him a boon (or curse) that since he worships only Purusha without Prakriti or energy of the universe, his body will turn into matter alone.
Then after apologizing, Parvati with Shiva explained how they both created the universe and that Parvati is Prakriti which is the energy.

The war between science and religion that didn't exist in India is a new concept for us.

BTW do you believe the Samudra Manthan to be true?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How did you come to the conclusion that God never explains Himself?

Well...he never seems to post here anymore.

 

[HonestJoe]

God condemns homosexual acts because… he sees everything.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

That is only something very vague that can construed as having that meaning.

Also it is probably because in India only the religious people often had any form of education in science, and of course not in any that contradicted their religion.

Besides the war between science in religion is really a war between logic and faith.

The theory of evolution in Hinduism starts from a Fish (Matsya Avatar) so that doesn't mean that we deny that life originally began with microscopic lives...
The Dashavatara can be given as an example of evolution.
Science believes The universe to be around 14-16 billion years old... While some general Hindus calculate that the universe is 8.67 billion years old, Vedic calculations (again not in any of the Vedas but developed before the Vedic age by the Aryans) say that the universe is 311.40 trillion years old, so surely most of us believe that it's natural for things to begin small and grow big with time like the concept of the golden Embryo in Hindu creation myth that expanded with Purusha and Prakriti.
Most beliefs are philosophical than actual literal interpretation.

Both are mutually exclusive.

BTW do you believe the Samudra Manthan to be true?

Yes and No.
The cosmic ocean which is the Primodial ocean we generally take as the Akash Ganga (the milky way in English) which is the primordial waters described in Hindu cosmology. But I believe Samudra mabthan was possible, not necessarily on the planet earth.
The Hindu cosmology speaks of many planets where there are lands and lives.
Much like that, heaven of swarga in Hinduism is a line of highly developed worlds or planets.
Belief comes with evidence...
Also,

For someone who thinks Hinduism and science don't mix, there is Samkhya, Charvaka schools of Hinduism that are atheistic... You can Google them.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

That is only something very vague that can construed as having that meaning.

Also it is probably because in India only the religious people often had any form of education in science, and of course not in any that contradicted their religion.

Besides the war between science in religion is really a war between logic and faith.

Both are mutually exclusive.

The theory of evolution in Hinduism starts from a Fish (Matsya Avatar) so that doesn't mean that we deny that life originally began with microscopic lives...
The Dashavatara can be given as an example of evolution.
Science believes The universe to be around 14-16 billion years old... While some general Hindus calculate that the universe is 8.67 billion years old, Vedic calculations (again not in any of the Vedas but developed before the Vedic age by the Aryans) say that the universe is 311.40 trillion years old, so surely most of us believe that it's natural for things to begin small and grow big with time like the concept of the golden Embryo in Hindu creation myth that expanded with Purusha and Prakriti.
Most beliefs are philosophical than actual literal interpretation.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Yes and No.
The cosmic ocean which is the Primodial ocean we generally take as the Akash Ganga (the milky way in English) which is the primordial waters described in Hindu cosmology. But I believe Samudra mabthan was possible, not necessarily on the planet earth.
The Hindu cosmology speaks of many planets where there are lands and lives.
Much like that, heaven of swarga in Hinduism is a line of highly developed worlds or planets.
Belief comes with evidence...
Also,

For someone who thinks Hinduism and science don't mix, there is Samkhya, Charvaka schools of Hinduism that are atheistic... You can Google them.

So you think part of the universe is made of churned butter.....

Atheistic =/= Scientific

 

[Muffled]

I believe it insults Him to say that the way He created is wrong. I believe also His love for people wants them to be whole instead of damaged.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I believe it insults Him to say that the way He created is wrong. I believe also His love for people wants them to be whole instead of damaged.

Why did he put that stuff in Leviticus then?