Caroline in this post writes that their belief in god demands that they consider homosexuality as objectively immoral.
She goes on to write
The funny thing is, many if not most of those who advocate for the legitimacy, normalcy, and morality of homosexuality also reject God as a moral lawgiver. So they have no objective standard by which to judge its moral status. And without an objective, transcendent standard, they likewise cannot judge the morality of opposing homosexuality.
Religion and by extension, its gods and angels are not the sources of our morality. We act morally because we have reason and are social beings. Without the need to exist in social groups, it is unlikely we would have developed any moral codes.
No man is responsible for his make. So, if we are creatures of god(s), how we turn out is god’s problem, they should deal with it.
It seems Caroline plays fast and loose with her bible to defend whatever position she wants. The good book does says in Luke 6:37, and I am certain Caroline takes these as the words of Jesus
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
In the Euthyphro dilemma, Socrates asks if what is moral is so because god commands it or god commands it because it is moral. Depending on your answer to this question either what is moral depends on god’s whim or god has no control over what is moral.
In a world governed by an omnipotent god, one who only need utter a word and it be done, can one act against such a god’s will? At what point is god freed from being responsible for things done by its minions in a world where it has absolute power and sovereignty?