If being homosexual is a sin, then why did God create homosexuals?

[BigBadWlf]

What can I say, people like ignoring the facts.

Well present us with “facts”
provide us all with actual evidence showing that homosexuality is a choice



we are all waiting

 

[Sketcher]

Well present us with “facts”
provide us all with actual evidence showing that homosexuality is a choice



we are all waiting

I did.

 

[OllieFranz]

This passage does not indicate that He creates homosexuals. Sorry, Charlie.

But Jesus does specifically say that they are born that way "from their mother's womb."

Any examination of the use of the Hebrew word "saris" (and its Aramaic cognate) will show that it was used of two totally different groups of men. One is correctly translated eunuch, and refers to someone whose "stones are crushed or privy member cut off." The other is translated eunuch in this passage, but refers to someone who is somewhat effeminate, has no interest whatsoever in sex with women, and who, in the popular stereotype of the day, was fond of seducing comely young men. These are the "eunuchs" that Jesus says are born that way.

Not incompatible with the traditional Christian teaching. Homosexuality is definitely straying from the normal path, and it is said with such condemnation in that passage.

Sorry "Charlie." The fitting punishment is the addiction. Both Plato and Paul agree on that. One does not usually become addicted to gay sex unless one overindulges, And the same type of overindulgence leads to addiction to straight sex, alcoholism, addiction to gambling, tobacco, or almost anything which in moderation is either morally neutral or a "minor vice." The "monkey on one's back" is the "punishment." ("Consequences" would probably be a better translation.)

Paul, when he borrowed this example from Plato, went out of his way to separate the sin being discussed (over-indulgence and addiction) from the trappings of the example (male mating with male and female mating with female). It is your woeful ignorance of the classics of Greek philosophy which Paul often quoted, combined with only knowing this verse through biased translations in English which make all of that re-writing that Paul indulged in to make sure his point was clear to no avail.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I did.

You posed an opinion and an op-ed from the Daily Nebraskan.

Neither of which qualifies as evidence of anything much less evidence that sexual orientation is a choice

 

[David Brider]

The morality of homosexual thoughts and actions is all about how you behave.

No. Sexual orientation is a way of describing who a person is likely to be romantically and physically attracted to. A heterosexual is likely to be attracted to people of the opposite gender to him/herself; a homosexual is likely to be attracted to people of the same gender as him/herself; a bisexual is likely to be attracted to people of either gender; and an asexual person isn't attracted to other people physically/romantically.

It's about attraction. Not behaviour.

David.

 

[David Brider]

This passage does not indicate that He creates homosexuals. Sorry, Charlie.

Actually, God creates everybody. Everybody includes homosexuals.

David.

 

[Jase]

It's so sad to see so many Christians be judgemental and discriminitory. While the exact cause of sexual orientation is not entirely understood, the vast majority of credible sources cite an imbalance of hormones during prenatal development as being a leading cause. Brain scans of homosexual males show many similiarities to that of heterosexual women. Which obviously means there is a biological factor to orientation.

As for the ridiculous notion that homosexuality leads to disease, the real facts indicate that heterosexuals are the leading cause of the spread of HIV, not homosexuals.

Obviously fundamentalist Christians like to ignore Jesus' command to love God and love one another above all. Leviticus laws no longer apply.

And for those that think it's a choice, try talking to somebody who has suffered agonizing torture over being born with something you can't control that makes everyone hate you.

The leading cause of death among LGBT teens is suicide. If sexual orientation is a choice, why do teens choose to be gay only to kill themselves?

 

[Sketcher]

But Jesus does specifically say that they are born that way "from their mother's womb."

Any examination of the use of the Hebrew word "saris" (and its Aramaic cognate) will show that it was used of two totally different groups of men. One is correctly translated eunuch, and refers to someone whose "stones are crushed or privy member cut off." The other is translated eunuch in this passage, but refers to someone who is somewhat effeminate, has no interest whatsoever in sex with women, and who, in the popular stereotype of the day, was fond of seducing comely young men. These are the "eunuchs" that Jesus says are born that way.

A "eunuch of the sun" does not indicate homosexuality. This refers to asexuality.

The fitting punishment is the addiction. Both Plato and Paul agree on that. One does not usually become addicted to gay sex unless one overindulges, And the same type of overindulgence leads to addiction to straight sex, alcoholism, addiction to gambling, tobacco, or almost anything which in moderation is either morally neutral or a "minor vice." The "monkey on one's back" is the "punishment." ("Consequences" would probably be a better translation.)

Paul, when he borrowed this example from Plato, went out of his way to separate the sin being discussed (over-indulgence and addiction) from the trappings of the example (male mating with male and female mating with female). It is your woeful ignorance of the classics of Greek philosophy which Paul often quoted, combined with only knowing this verse through biased translations in English which make all of that re-writing that Paul indulged in to make sure his point was clear to no avail.

When did Paul say that gay sex, either between two males or two females was OK? He never did.

 

[Sketcher]

You posed an opinion and an op-ed from the Daily Nebraskan.

Neither of which qualifies as evidence of anything much less evidence that sexual orientation is a choice

Did you read the experts cited, who have seen the data and in some cases, have contributed data?

 

[Sketcher]

No. Sexual orientation is a way of describing who a person is likely to be romantically and physically attracted to. A heterosexual is likely to be attracted to people of the opposite gender to him/herself; a homosexual is likely to be attracted to people of the same gender as him/herself; a bisexual is likely to be attracted to people of either gender; and an asexual person isn't attracted to other people physically/romantically.

It's about attraction. Not behaviour.

David.

What the Bible condemns is homosexual behavior, and it does so very clearly. It does not condemn people for being tempted in any direction.

Actually, God creates everybody. Everybody includes homosexuals.

David.

He doesn't create them to be homosexual any more than He created me to be short-tempered. Regardless of my genetic makeup, I am accountable for my attitude and behavior. Homosexuals don't get a break.

 

[Allthisworld]

I can not believe some of you guys. Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Now, how do you push this aside and it is written in the bible which is GODS word which is true. More....ok
Romans 1:26-27

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
And like wise 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 recompence of their error which was meet.

Dont tell me all this crap about trranslation. Homosexuality is an abomination. Thats it....nothing else can be said.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).

God did NOT, create homosexuals. He created man in his own image......think about it. You are born and you choose your path. This is one of the NON grey areas of the bible. But people slap their arguments on it about translation and all that jazz. If you truly know jesus and trust in him he will lead you away from Homosexuality.
Fact. Because Jesus said so.
​

 

[oldbetang]

Oh yeah…the Spitzer study.

First off you are aware that this study failed its peer review correct?

Failed its peer review?? How did the study fail its peer review? Spitzer's study was peer reviewed and published.

 

[Jase]

I can not believe some of you guys. Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Now, how do you push this aside and it is written in the bible which is GODS word which is true. More....ok
Romans 1:26-27

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
​

And like wise 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 recompence of their error which was meet.

Dont tell me all this crap about trranslation. Homosexuality is an abomination. Thats it....nothing else can be said.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).

God did NOT, create homosexuals. He created man in his own image......think about it. You are born and you choose your path. This is one of the NON grey areas of the bible. But people slap their arguments on it about translation and all that jazz. If you truly know jesus and trust in him he will lead you away from Homosexuality.
Fact. Because Jesus said so.
​

Jesus never said he would lead anyone away from their inborn sexual orientation. And you can't believe us, and go on quoting Leviticus, yet I bet with 100% confidence you don't follow any other law in Leviticus such as not wearing mixed fabrics. Jesus' command to love one another supercedes any Leviticus law.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Did you read the experts cited, who have seen the data and in some cases, have contributed data?

An opinion remains an opinion and an op-ed piece form a newspaper remains an op-ed piece.

Where are the studies showing that sexual orientation is a choice?

 

[BigBadWlf]

I can not believe some of you guys. Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Now, how do you push this aside and it is written in the bible which is GODS word which is true.

Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

I doubt it
Do you shave?
Wear clothing made of different fabrics?
Allow people with glasses to attend your church?
Keep slaves?

It is interesting how those who don’t follow the laws of Leviticus are so willing to inflict cherry picked verses out of this book to attack a minority and defend prejudice and discrimination.


Even though you personally do not follow the many laws of Leviticus yet you do not seem to have a problem using Leviticus laws to attack a minority.

Using Leviticus to justify prejudice and discrimination has many issues

First – we live under a new covenant. Jesus did away with the law and put in place his commandment
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. John 13:34

Promoting or justifying discrimination against a minority is not loving. And no matter how one tries to twist the justification it is an act of hate.

If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20





A further problem is one of translation. Leviticus has many injunctions against engaging in sex – specifically carnal knowledge. However carnal knowledge is not used in either Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab. It is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) with but there is a problem with that translation. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.


Shakab Means "Rape" not copulation, not carnal relations…rape.


Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

More....ok
Romans 1:26-27

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
​

And like wise 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 recompence of their error which was meet.

Dont tell me all this crap about trranslation. Homosexuality is an abomination. Thats it....nothing else can be said.
​

The various letters of Paul have historically been used to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, religious reformers, and the mentally ill. Currently the popular target of this discrimination are homosexuals

In the original Greek, the phrase for “vile affliction” used in Romans translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, the original meaning was not in reference to passion or the street drug but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by anthropologists (Ref: Mircea Eliade). These ecstatic trances were part of pretty much every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Modern Christian version would be “speaking in tongues” and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer. Originally the condemnation was against any religion but the one Paul was founding, but like so many other non-Christian traditions, ecstasy found their way into Christianity.

As for the reference to “natural.” The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Paul’s audience would have been to force oneself to go against one’s own nature, to pretend to be something one is not. Such relationships are referred to as being unnatural by many writers of the era.

Paul specifically used the Greek word paraphysi here, and contrary to popular belief paraphysi does not mean "to go against the law(s) of nature", as those promoting discrimination against homosexuals often claim, but rather it means to engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic or against the nature of that person or more simply an individual denying his/her true nature. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. To claim that paraphysi means unnatural would indicate that God was acting in an unnatural way. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. And what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against one’s nature. In the verse you cite God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.

The sin here (aside form ecstasy trance work) is pretending to be something you are not.

Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual orientation. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).

translation issues are again at the forefront, here the problem is with the Greek word arsenokoites. It is a compound word that was rarely used in the time Paul wrote.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen.

There is no reason or justification for the translation of arsenokoites to mean homoseuxal

This defense is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is generally a more sound strategy in Greek than English. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy.

The most damming evidence that arsenokoites does not means homosexual is the fact that arsenokoites because of the meanings of its root words the that fact that it is a plural first declension noun. Specifically koitai is feminine. Thus making arsenokoites (if one accepts the compound origin of the definition) a reference to a man in a woman’s bed, not a man in the bed of another man.


Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it either. That aside… the real trouble occurs when one looks at the fact that the words arsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:12, Leviticus 20:15 and a few other places, but none of them are connected to homosexuality. If you're going to use this justification to "prove" arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all the other appearances of arsen and koite and the fact that they were referring to completely separate things

Writers contemporary to Paul used arsenokoites but rarely. Those writings do not support the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual either. What does become clear from those writings is that the word means a man who sexually exploits women for money – IE a man who employees prostitutes.

God did NOT, create homosexuals.

eviodence?

He created man in his own image......think about it. You are born and you choose your path.

What choice are you talking about?

The only “choice” gays and lesbians have is the choice to be honest verses the choice to lie about who they are.

This is one of the NON grey areas of the bible. But people slap their arguments on it about translation and all that jazz. If you truly know jesus and trust in him he will lead you away from Homosexuality.
Fact. Because Jesus said so.

Jesus didn’t say one word about homosexuality.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Failed its peer review?? How did the study fail its peer review? Spitzer's study was peer reviewed and published.

Spitzer published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, 2003, the journal he edits with the notation that it did not pass peer review despite numerous submissions. He prefaced the inclusion of his study with the notice that it was being presented based on specific requests from the scientific community. He went further to include fifty pages of notes from the peer review detailing the many flaws of his study

 

[BigBadWlf]

Did you read the experts cited, who have seen the data and in some cases, have contributed data?

Lets take a look at what you are pretending is evidence:

“An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations”"Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project


the first problem is that the twin studies mention list thelikelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is 53%

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991
Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.
J.M. Bailey , R.C. Pillard, MC Neale, Y. Agyei 1996 “Heritable Factors Influence Sexual Orientation in Women” Archives of general psychiatry
Whitam, F.L., M Diamond and J. Martin (1993)“Homosexual orientation in twins: A report on 61 pairs and three triplet sets” Archives of Sexual Behavior V 22, N.3

a likelihood much higher than thelikelihood that the identical twin of a left-handed person would also be left handed. (48%) Also much higher than thelikelihood that the identical twin of a person with type I diabetes would also be diabetic (32%) and much higher than thelikelihood that the identical twin of a person with autism would likewise be autistic (11%). In fact the only trait with a higher concurrence in identical twins is eye color (98%)


This article was originally posted by NARTH. NARTH , in case you were unaware is a known hate group. Now one might ask what a geneticist, a man who specifically rejects creationism would be doing writing for a known hate group

Dr Collins denounces NARTH for misrepresenting his work “It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a different conclusion. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text. The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality”


So in the end your evidence that sexual orientation is a choice comes from a known hate group that misrepresented the work of a scientist.

 

[visionary]

Homosexuality is only an issue when you are having difficulty with it. When the Lord cleanses your life, I mean truly cleanses it, there will be no homosexuality demon pestering you. Just as the parable about the demon being cleaned out the house, if he comes back and finds it empty, which means the Lord was not reigning in the temple, he will invite his friends back and the soul will in worse condition than before. Don't blame God for that. That was your own choice.

One of the worse things about those defending homosexuality and wanting God's blessing is that they have to realise the argument is not going to be won on this thread, even if you think you have an awesome argument. You are wrestling with God and when like Jacob you realise that is who you are really fighting, let go and let God work His miracles in your life.

 

[oldbetang]

Spitzer published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, 2003, the journal he edits with the notation that it did not pass peer review despite numerous submissions. He prefaced the inclusion of his study with the notice that it was being presented based on specific requests from the scientific community. He went further to include fifty pages of notes from the peer review detailing the many flaws of his study

Sorry, but the fact that the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal suggests that it was indeed peer-reviewed.

 

[David Brider]

What the Bible condemns is homosexual behavior, and it does so very clearly.

Actually, if you read it thoroughly, it doesn't condemn "homosexual behaviour" that clearly (apart from anything else, how do you define "homosexual behaviour"? And how do you believe the Bible defines it?). But it definitely doesn't condemn people for being homosexual, or for being heterosexual, or bisexual, or asexual.

He doesn't create them to be homosexual any more than He created me to be short-tempered.

Homosexuals are people. God creates all people. Therefore God creates homosexuals. Whether He creates them to be homosexual is another matter, I'd agree (it depends on whether sexual orientation is innate or not), but He definitely creates them.

Regardless of my genetic makeup, I am accountable for my attitude and behavior. Homosexuals don't get a break.

In terms of accountability for their attitude and behaviour, I'm not for one minute suggesting that homosexuals do get a break. I am, though, pointing out that sexual orientation (homo, hetero, bi, or a) is not in and of itself either an attitude or a behaviour.

David.