Why did god create homosexuality?

[Almustafa]

LOL
God made homosexuals so God could watch us all argure about it....

it gives it something to do, creation is Gods playtime.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

There'd be no argument about homosexuality if everyone could see love is love, regardless under what outward form

 

[sojourner]

So we are in perfect agreement Sojourner, and Yeshua also agrees in that IF one will not listen to what Moses wrote, they will not hear Him. So when Yeshua commands us to Love Elohim and our neighbor, He surely requires of us to love by keeping the commands. And one of those commands is that a man should not lay with a man as with a woman.

Would you advocate for levirate marriage? What about a woman having to marry her rapist? Would you be in favor of slavery to repay debt? What about wearing shirts that are 50/50 cotton/poly? Ever eat shrimp? Death-by-stoning for prostitutes (most of whom are underage girls, kidnapped and forced into the trade)? Are menstruating women "unclean?" How many unknown travelers have you opened your home & family to? Forced circumcision for adult men who are converted into the religion?

And yet Jesus ate with unclean hands, ordered his disciples to work on the Sabbath, and worked, himself, on the Sabbath. I guess Jesus doesn't love God, or expect his disciples to love God, yes?

When love becomes perfunctory and legalistic, it stops being love and becomes something else entirely.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

:sarcastic How come I never get a hug? I'm as cuddly as the Down Bear

Didn't think you were the cuddly type of person. It's sweet, nurturing, and at times can be very romantic.

 

[illykitty]

Didn't think you were the cuddly type of person. It's sweet, nurturing, and at times can be very romantic.

Touché! I wouldn't think he would care for hugs either.

Back on thread, he created everything and I don't believe it being a sin. If love is a sin, then I'm guilty of it too. Homosexuality =/= lust all the time, for a lot of people it means love too. Besides, I know plenty of lustful heterosexuals.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Honestly why argue about a form of love that's just as valid as heterosexual love? I'd call the love two guys can share beautiful, and I've seen two women relationships I'd call beautiful as well- their love

 

[Sha'irullah]

Didn't think you were the cuddly type of person. It's sweet, nurturing, and at times can be very romantic.

Us asexuals require affection and nurturing also! We are a gentle kind people

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Us asexuals require affection and nurturing also! We are a gentle kind people

In case you want one, here's my thread for hug requests: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-discussion/55677-who-wants-big-squishy-hug.html

 

[Ken Brown]

Would you advocate for levirate marriage? What about a woman having to marry her rapist? Would you be in favor of slavery to repay debt? What about wearing shirts that are 50/50 cotton/poly? Ever eat shrimp? Death-by-stoning for prostitutes (most of whom are underage girls, kidnapped and forced into the trade)? Are menstruating women "unclean?" How many unknown travelers have you opened your home & family to? Forced circumcision for adult men who are converted into the religion?

And yet Jesus ate with unclean hands, ordered his disciples to work on the Sabbath, and worked, himself, on the Sabbath. I guess Jesus doesn't love God, or expect his disciples to love God, yes?

When love becomes perfunctory and legalistic, it stops being love and becomes something else entirely.

Hi sojourner, isn't man to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Elohim? And are not those who hear every word and then say in their heart they are just fine to follow their own imaginations in ignoring those words, drunken (Deu 29:14-15, 18-19)? It appears to me that you consider your deity to be quite confused in that he/she speaks out of both sides of the mouth. Or how is it that you think your deity commanded disobedience to the Sabbath on one hand, and then on the other hand asks that you pray your flight from seeing the most abominable event that has ever occurred, not be on the Sabbath? It appears there is much confusion with your deity and he/she can not make up his/her mind. KB

 

[lewisnotmiller]

......... I was born a liar, but I overcame it through Jesus Christ. Did He create a liar I spose in a way He did ,Thats why He sent Him so that we could overcome .

You weren't born a liar, you learnt to lie.

 

[sojourner]

Hi sojourner, isn't man to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Elohim? And are not those who hear every word and then say in their heart they are just fine to follow their own imaginations in ignoring those words, drunken (Deu 29:14-15, 18-19)? It appears to me that you consider your deity to be quite confused in that he/she speaks out of both sides of the mouth. Or how is it that you think your deity commanded disobedience to the Sabbath on one hand, and then on the other hand asks that you pray your flight from seeing the most abominable event that has ever occurred, not be on the Sabbath? It appears there is much confusion with your deity and he/she can not make up his/her mind. KB

First of all, the bible is not "God's words." The bible is humanity's record. The commandments and Law were orally-transmitted and received for centuries before being written down. In other words: They were part of humanity's oral tradition first. Touted as "God's Law?" Yes. By that tradition -- not by my tradition.

Second, read Galatians 3 about "no longer [being] subject to a disciplinarian." [Faith] (Vs. 25)

If Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, and I live my live in Christ, am I not living in fulfillment of the Law, even if I do not observe the letter of the Law?

Someone is confused here, but it's neither God, nor me.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Even the law doesn't necessarily condemn homosexuality. Just to mention here. I've heard several rabbis who argue the context of Leviticus 18 is something related to pagan worship.

 

[sojourner]

Even the law doesn't necessarily condemn homosexuality. Just to mention here. I've heard several rabbis who argue the context of Leviticus 18 is something related to pagan worship.

Quite right! The Law doesn't condemn homosexuality. (I left that out of my post -- trying to do two things at once isn't my strong suit.) since homosexual orientation was unknown at the time, the Law cannot condemn what it does not recognize.

 

[Ken Brown]

First of all, the bible is not "God's words." The bible is humanity's record. The commandments and Law were orally-transmitted and received for centuries before being written down. In other words: They were part of humanity's oral tradition first. Touted as "God's Law?" Yes. By that tradition -- not by my tradition.

Second, read Galatians 3 about "no longer [being] subject to a disciplinarian." [Faith] (Vs. 25)

If Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, and I live my live in Christ, am I not living in fulfillment of the Law, even if I do not observe the letter of the Law?

Someone is confused here, but it's neither God, nor me.

Hi sojourner, I'm surprised you would use Paul's writings to defend your lawless stand. Or would you say that Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth in the same manner as your deity?

2Ti 3:15-17
(15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yeshua.
(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of El, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(17) That the man of El may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

As far as Galatains 3 goes, do you know the difference between a "paedagogue" and a "paidagogos"? KB

 

[Ken Brown]

Quite right! The Law doesn't condemn homosexuality. (I left that out of my post -- trying to do two things at once isn't my strong suit.) since homosexual orientation was unknown at the time, the Law cannot condemn what it does not recognize.

Hi sojourner, hmm? You say the Law does not condemn homosexuality? Then I suppose you feel that when a man layeth with another man as with a woman, that act would not be considered a homosexual act? The Law most assuredly condemns the act of men having sex with men, and anyone can twist and distort the Scriptures to say what ever they want it to say in excusing their sin.

It's absurd to think that sexual "orientation" excuses this sin. If that is the case, then having the genetic disposition for aggression excuses murder. An Italian judge lowered the prison term of a convicted murderer because the defense showed that the murderer was genetically predisposed to murder because of this "aggression" gene. Should we say that this murderer couldn't help himself because he was born that way, and that the orientation towards murder was not know about when the Law was given, so this should excuse the sin of murder in the same way you want to excuse the sin of homosexuality? Use some sound reasoning when you try to determine what is right and want is wrong. KB

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hi sojourner, hmm? You say the Law does not condemn homosexuality? Then I suppose you feel that when a man layeth with another man as with a woman, that act would not be considered a homosexual act? The Law most assuredly condemns the act of men having sex with men, and anyone can twist and distort the Scriptures to say what ever they want it to say in excusing their sin.

It's absurd to think that sexual "orientation" excuses this sin. If that is the case, then having the genetic disposition for aggression excuses murder. An Italian judge lowered the prison term of a convicted murderer because the defense showed that the murderer was genetically predisposed to murder because of this "aggression" gene. Should we say that this murderer couldn't help himself because he was born that way, and that the orientation towards murder was not know about when the Law was given, so this should excuse the sin of murder in the same way you want to excuse the sin of homosexuality? Use some sound reasoning when you try to determine what is right and want is wrong. KB

I think looking at the crime in a manner which negates the victim is wrong. But I think that logic can be equally applied to the Italian judge, and to those condemning homosexuality between consenting adults.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Hi sojourner, hmm? You say the Law does not condemn homosexuality? Then I suppose you feel that when a man layeth with another man as with a woman, that act would not be considered a homosexual act? The Law most assuredly condemns the act of men having sex with men, and anyone can twist and distort the Scriptures to say what ever they want it to say in excusing their sin.

It's absurd to think that sexual "orientation" excuses this sin. If that is the case, then having the genetic disposition for aggression excuses murder. An Italian judge lowered the prison term of a convicted murderer because the defense showed that the murderer was genetically predisposed to murder because of this "aggression" gene. Should we say that this murderer couldn't help himself because he was born that way, and that the orientation towards murder was not know about when the Law was given, so this should excuse the sin of murder in the same way you want to excuse the sin of homosexuality? Use some sound reasoning when you try to determine what is right and want is wrong. KB

Have you ever tried being objective toward this and listening to any alternate views on homosexuality and the Bible? There are plenty of priests, rabbis, and scholars who feel differently. Google is your friend.

And did you just compare homosexuality to murder?

 

[sojourner]

Hi sojourner, I'm surprised you would use Paul's writings to defend your lawless stand. Or would you say that Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth in the same manner as your deity?

2Ti 3:15-17
(15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yeshua.
(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of El, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(17) That the man of El may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

As far as Galatains 3 goes, do you know the difference between a "paedagogue" and a "paidagogos"? KB

Yeah. This passage has absolutely nothing to do with Paul's stand on Mosaic Law, hence his rather fierce stand on the superfluity of circumcision for non-Jews. Most Xtians are non-Jews and are, therefore, not bound to Mosaic Law.

You should know that!

 

[sojourner]

Hi sojourner, hmm? You say the Law does not condemn homosexuality?

Yes. I do.

Then I suppose you feel that when a man layeth with another man as with a woman, that act would not be considered a homosexual act?

No, I don't think that's how the ancients interpreted it at all. Same-sex acts were most likely attributable to rape, which has nothing to do with attraction, but everything to do with coercion and power.

The Law most assuredly condemns the act of men having sex with men, and anyone can twist and distort the Scriptures to say what ever they want it to say in excusing their sin.

Ah! But why does the Law condemn it? What is it condemning? A socially-unacceptable act of coercion, an unnatural act of lust, or an act arising out of mutual love and attraction? Since the ancients didn't know that same-sex attraction was possible, they would have seen any such act as "unnatural." We know better today.

Anyone can distort and twist the scriptures to say whatever they want it to say in excusing their bigotry. It's been done before in this country with other minorities, such as blacks and Jews.

It's absurd to think that sexual "orientation" excuses this sin.

You haven't yet shown that it is a sin. It's absurd to conclude that it is.

If that is the case, then having the genetic disposition for aggression excuses murder.

No. It doesn't. Murder is an act of violence. Homosexual love and same-sex attraction are not acts of violence. Love is not an act of violence.

Use some sound reasoning when you try to determine what is right and want is wrong.

Right back at ya, Skeezix! Last time I checked, homosexuality and mutual, consensual love are not against the law.

You have an Epic Fail here.

 

[rusra02]

It has always brought about great confusion as to why Yahweh/Allah created homosexuality. He permitted all of the world to exist and designed each aspect about it but why would he create a sin which cannot be avoided even on the biological level.
This is easily equated to god punishing people for being of a certain ethnicity. It seems illogical that a god would punish his own creation for his own design

God did not design people to be homosexuals, any more than he designed them to be drunkards, adulterers, liars, thieves, or murderers. These terrible practices are the result of mankind's fall into sin. I believe it is as Genesis 8:21 says, "the inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up." People may have an inborn inclination toward conduct God disapproves, but the Bible shows these practices can and must be conquered. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)