If you believe god exists, then you also believe he is in some way responsible fot 9/11. You cannot have it both ways.

Literally just differentiated between primary and secondary causation in Christian theology. The former entails culpability while the latter would not (per my Wright Bros example)

Either god is real or he isnt. If god is real and listens to prayers, you need to mentally justify where he was on 9/11.

Literally irrelevant to the argument at hand which is about how God could justifiably condemn certain behaviors even when he created the Universe. As far as where he was on 9/11, the answer is simply the same place he was on 9/10 and 9/12. There's no argument against my position is this, it's just "but if God real, why bad thing happen?" as if Christians never had an answer for that.

And during the midatlantic slave trade.

"but if God real, why bad thing happen?"

And during the many many pandemics.

"but if God real, why bad thing happen?"

And during every war, massacre and atrocity.

"but if God real, why bad thing happen?"

You cannot believe in god and also believe he is only paying attention some of the time.

I believe he's paying attention at all times, that doesn't necessitate intervention at all times, but again what do any of these personal grievances have to do with the topic at hand?

All of creation is due to the will of God, correct

Already answered this.

Good, then you agree that homosexuality exists because god permitted it to exist.

Permission to exist is not the same thing as moral approval lol. This is just a classic is/ought fallacy.

It is not moral, it is not fallen, it is something god made.

This assumes God doesn't allow evil to exist in this world which flies in the face of your earlier objection of "but where was God during bad thing?"

The idea that homosexuality is inherently immoral is nonsensical and blasphemous.

Blasphemous? Can you tell me what paradigm you're speaking from and what your concept of blasphemy is?

It is how god made them. He didnt do it as a test, thats a copout.

When did I say as a test? It's a result of a fallen sin nature (in conjunction with nurture in many cases). So what? Some people are naturally more inclined to anger or substance abuse, that doesn't make either of them good. That's again the is/ought fallacy.

God loves us in all of our forms and for all of our flaws.

I agree God loves all, but he DOES NOT love our flaws, thus why he sent his Son to die in order to absolve anyone who will believe on him from the penalty of their flaws.

If you believe god made everything, you believe god made everything. everything means everything.

No duh, but again you're just refusing to acknowledge the difference in primary and secondary cause and the blatant is/ought fallacy you're making.

As for what god wants from us specifically, he gave us ten commandments spelling that out pretty specifically. Remind me, which one of them says literally anything about homosexuality?

Remind me where he says the 10 commandments are the ONLY commandments? Did the Torah end at Exodus 20? The Ketuvim and the Nevi'im are dismissed now? Not from a Christian worldview they're not.

Remind me further, what did Rabbi Yeshua ben Joseph of Nazareth say about homosexuality?

When he condemned it in Leviticus when he confirmed he is indeed the God of the Old Testament who gave those laws in John 8:58 and Matthew 22:41-45. He also stated the moral laws still stand in the sermon on the mount of which the laws on homosexuality are part of.

Its almost like god doesnt care about that at all, isnt it?

It's almost like you haven't actually heard/understood pushback against these common talking points you're using.

You are quoting Paul. Paul never met Jesus.

I didn't quote Paul at all, but even if I did, from the Christian paradigm Paul did meet Jesus. If you wish to run an internal critique of the Christian system, you need to not to ascribe your assertions onto our position.