Why does God hate homosexuals?

Jannah

We have recently been debating this topic and would be very glad if anyone could put forward their own theories and ideas http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55962877#post55962877

So why DOES God (if a thing does exist) claim to have created all humans, yet despise people of which are his own creation? Is this simply the fabrication of desert nomads who were too ignorant too think otherwise? What are your views on religion in general? Has being gay changed your ideas, or has it always remained the same in your minds?

Contribute!!

Nevyn

Which god ?

Sangre

Its obvious, for the same reason he hates you wearing clothes made from two different cloths.

Boston

Sangre wrote: »

Its obvious, for the same reason he hates you wearing clothes made from two different cloths.

Because he's a closeted homosexual? 'Like oh my god I can't believe you mixed cotton with polyester.'

PDN

He doesn't hate homosexuals.

spurious

'God' doesn't hate homosexuals. 'God' made homosexuals.
Some damaged creations of 'God' have trouble with this and it melts their (communal) brain.
Meanwhile, we dress in lycra and denim and are fabulous.

Cokehead Mother

Well when I play Sim City my aim is mainly just having cities with huge populations and if I found out my sims were engaging homosexual practises I'd be pissed, and want to smite them down. Maybe that's why? You know, "the muslims are pushing out babies by the truckload and if we don't meet or exceed their rate of birth those bitches could pass us out".

cotwold

He doesn't hate homosexuals.
The church does.
Well maybe not hate. Fears.

Jannah

PDN wrote: »

He doesn't hate homosexuals.

Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he doesn't even exist! The important thing is that homosexuals DO very much exist, yet people are willing to lynch them in the name of something nobody is at all sure of.

cotwold wrote: »

He doesn't hate homosexuals.
The church does.
Well maybe not hate. Fears.

Its not really something the church has made up by themselves, if the church makes a major decision on whether something is 'right' or 'wrong' then they base it on the Bible/ Quran/ Torah etc

spurious wrote: »

'God' doesn't hate homosexuals. 'God' made homosexuals.
Some damaged creations of 'God' have trouble with this and it melts their (communal) brain.
Meanwhile, we dress in lycra and denim and are fabulous.

EXACTLY! Why is it stated in so many religion texts that God hates those who are gay and then goes on to say how he has created everybody?! Surely if God is all knowing he wouldn't have made a mistake?

cotwold

Jannah wrote: »

Its not really something the church has made up by themselves, if the church makes a major decision on whether something is 'right' or 'wrong' then they base it on the Bible/ Quran/ Torah etc

Base it on the Bible? Or interpreted the Bible in such a way which reinforces their desired belief?

Cokehead Mother

Jannah wrote: »

EXACTLY! Why is it stated in so many religion texts that God hates those who are gay and then goes on to say how he has created everybody?! Surely if God is all knowing he wouldn't have made a mistake?

God gave us free will. He doesn't force people to have gay sex.

greatgoal

god created everybody,if guys are so ugly that they cant pull girls, fair enough,arseholes are arseholes,if they cant pull girls,well what else is there,squint and male bums look the same as female.

L1011

You believe that people are gay because they're 'so ugly that they cant pull girls'?

Right so....

Elessar

The bible was written in a different time, when it was against god to work on sundays and eat shrimp. God didnt/doesn't hate gay people, the people who wrote the bible did.

Everything is written in context

Boston

Its so obvious.

Roro4Brit

Jannah wrote: »

EXACTLY! Why is it stated in so many religion texts that God hates those who are gay and then goes on to say how he has created everybody?! Surely if God is all knowing he wouldn't have made a mistake?

Your point is slightly flawed in that you are misunderstanding the way in which the Church interprets the Bible. According to most religions it is not bad, wrong or evil to BE gay. It is simply immoral to PRACTICE gay tendancies. It is engaging in Homosexual acts that is evil (in the eyes of many religions.)

So as you see God did create Homosexuals (and not in error), but he also granted them Free Will. They, have the choice as to whether they bear the cross given to them by God, act in a Godly way and abstain from such unholy acts or they can choose to live a live of sin by fulfilling their urges and thus go straight to hell!!

Now before y'all go Jackie Chan on my ass I must stress that these are SOOO NOT my views on Gay people, its only my understanding of the Thread Question which is why God hates Gays.

I'm not a religious person and it is my view that as long as two people are happy together, and they can have love and respect for each other then a trivial thing like gender should not even be considered. Life these days is so full of violence, hatred and war that as long as people can live in peace, they can kick it with/date/marry whoever the f**k they want!!

Preach!!

Marshy

Cokehead Mother wrote: »

God gave us free will. He doesn't force people to have gay sex.

I'd imagine God would have a fair idea that by creating people attracted to the same sex there'll be some people who end up having gay sex.

DubArk

greatgoal wrote: »

god created everybody,if guys are so ugly that they cant pull girls, fair enough,arseholes are arseholes,if they cant pull girls,well what else is there,squint and male bums look the same as female.

:eek:

Someone hasn’t been out and about in a while!! Gay men ugly!?! True they have the same right be as ugly as any straight man but get with it mate!! Unsquint your eyes and get your head out of your arsehole. :rolleyes:


Best not believe in this God that created homosexuals, in the theory that they, have the choice as to whether they bear the cross given to them by God, act in a Godly way and abstain from such unholy acts or they can choose to live a life of sin by fulfilling their urges and thus go straight to hell!!

Live and let live!! Life’s too short to be wasting your time on such tat…:D

Zulu

God doesn't hate gay people.
If there is a god - he made gay people. Why would he make something to hate?
If there is a god, he loves people. And he couldn't give a tupenny fuck what you find attractive.

If god hates anything, it'd more likly be judgmental bigots.

Goodshape

Doesn't "God" hate anyone who engages in pre-martial sex?

I think this God fella's just a bit of a wet blanket tbh. He's so not invited to my next birthday party!

Zulu

Nah, it's just the church that "condem" it. Isn't it?

Jannah

cotwold wrote: »

Base it on the Bible? Or interpreted the Bible in such a way which reinforces their desired belief?

... no, its in there. Black and white. In the Quran too. Tis PRETTY clear

Cokehead Mother wrote: »

God gave us free will. He doesn't force people to have #######.

As has been said before, its pretty obvious that when people of the same sex (much like those of the opposite sex) are sexually attracted to each other, they will have sex

greatgoal wrote: »

god created everybody,if guys are so ugly that they cant pull girls, fair enough,arseholes are arseholes,if they cant pull girls,well what else is there,squint and male bums look the same as female.

Pfft. Someone needs to get out more.

Schuhart

Jannah wrote: »

As has been said before, its pretty obvious that when people of the same sex (much like those of the opposite sex) are sexually attracted to each other, they will have sex

I’m a tad confused. How does this square with what you say on the other thread

Jannah wrote: »

I don't think I'll ever know what 'makes' someone gay- although I was watching a programme with Dr Zakir Naik (who's brilliant btw!) and he was talking about homosexuality in Islam for a short while and how he explained it is that biologically it isn't put in someone's genes that they will be gay (which pretty much sorts out my idea on it!) and that God wouldn't punish someone for a fault that he biologically put in place and because it isn't in one's genes to be gay, it is the same as how it isn't put in our genes to steal or murder which is why it is seen as a sin... needless to say, he said it a lot more clearly! But thats the general gist of it!

Do I take it that your contention is, therefore, that the reason religion tends to prohibit same sex relationships is because people are not born gay, and that therefore pursuing such relationships can be deemed to be sinful as people were not ‘made’ that way.

I’m not particularly saying you are right or wrong in this contention – I’m just trying to figure out what you are saying. That said, I’d regard Dr Zakir Naik as a space cadet with arguments that only go down well with a friendly audience, so while I don’t know which particular video of his you have in mind I’ve a suspicion that it takes us on a journey well into the Twilight Zone.

Incidently, going completely off the point, I really have a feeling this is all going to end with you retreating from reality into a Hijab in a few months time.

Boston

The entire notion that god created gays is predicate on the idea that someone is born gay. I'm far from convinced this is the case.

Goodshape

Boston wrote: »

The entire nothing that god created gays is predicate on the idea that someone is born gay. I'm far from convinced this is the case.

Doctor DooM

Of course, God might just be an artificial construct of an ancient society which is used to reflect the thoughts and rules of the men which created it.

So God hates gays because he was told to.


Or something

philologos

Where does it say in the Bible that God hates homosexuals?

These are the references I know of in relation to homosexuality:

Leviticus 18:22 wrote:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

Romans 1:26-27 wrote:

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 recompence of their error which was meet.

God doesn't hate homosexuals at all. How could He hate what He had created? He considers sexual acts with someone of the same gender to be an abomination according to the Biblical text. That isn't the same as hating someone.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Jannah wrote: »

Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he doesn't even exist! The important thing is that homosexuals DO very much exist, yet people are willing to lynch them in the name of something nobody is at all sure of.

People don't lynch gays over God, they do it because they find the practise disgusting/intimidating & through redneck logic think it will benefit them/improve their status in the troop.

Its not really something the church has made up by themselves, if the church makes a major decision on whether something is 'right' or 'wrong' then they base it on the Bible/ Quran/ Torah etc

Don't know where to start on that one

EXACTLY! Why is it stated in so many religion texts that God hates those who are gay and then goes on to say how he has created everybody?! Surely if God is all knowing he wouldn't have made a mistake?

You could apply that logic to anything the bible is opposed to. Cut this simplisticism out immediately!

LegacyUser

Wow I didn't even realize adults believed in god, I thought it was something made up to scare kids like the Bogeyman or Micheal Jackson.

Jannah

Schuhart wrote: »

I’m a tad confused. How does this square with what you say on the other thread

I believe it squares perfectly well with what I have been saying in other threads. I have asked your opinions on the subject, but I don't necessarily agree with all of them. I think it is important that there are many sides to the issue- that includes those of muslims, non muslims, straight people and gay people. Obviously, when a person is attracted to that of the same sex, they will want to sleep with them, but the issue in the other thread to this is whether it is a biological thing to be gay that one is born with or if it is something that just happens to someone through life experiences etc

That may be your opinion of Dr Zakir Naik, but I personally think he is a very intelligent man. You say that his arguments only go down with a friendly audience, but in fact he answers many questions from non-muslims and debates with non-muslims. What do you want him to do? Stick him in a pile of rednecks and see how he gets on then? You have chosen a poor example of his capabilities as it is constantly interrupted by that idiot, who for all we know is incorrect themselves. If you want to see him properly (and answering an atheist, may I add) check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuvux9ase8w&feature=related

Schuhart wrote: »

Incidently, going completely off the point, I really have a feeling this is all going to end with you retreating from reality into a Hijab in a few months time.

Excuse YOU! Thats one of the most ignorant statements I've heard in quite a long time. Just because a woman chooses to wear a hijab doesn't mean she is any further from reality that anybody else. She is respecting her body and her religion, which I think is extremely admirable. If you have a problem with women wearing hijab (which, yes, is going completely off topic, and really is simply an excuse for you to vent your own Islamaphobic beliefs) then that is your problem, and not the woman's.

Schuhart

Jannah wrote: »

That may be your opinion of Dr Zakir Naik, but I personally think he is a very intelligent man.

He may well be intelligent, I really don't care. But I've seen plenty of his work and he trades on misinformation. The link I posted is simply where someone bothered to point out the factual errors in one sequence of argument.

But if you want to be impressed by this sort of thing, clearly that's your choice. I doubt that credulity is genetically determined either

Jannah wrote: »

Just because a woman chooses to wear a hijab doesn't mean she is any further from reality that anybody else.

You're right. That single fact means nothing in isolation, and I haven't suggested it does.

I've simply made a prediction. Only the future will tell if its accurate.

Calibos

Boston wrote: »

The entire notion that god created gays is predicate on the idea that someone is born gay. I'm far from convinced this is the case.

Just Wow!!

You are convinced I gather, that you yourself were 'born straight'. Your biology programmed you at the age of 10 or 11 to just suddenly start to find girls atractive. Like it was the most natural thing in the world which it is of course. It is also natural for there to be genetic errors, or hormonal errors at important stages in pregnancy in a certain percentage of pregnancies. Take for instance Hermaphrodites with both sex organs. Saying that you don't believe homosexuals are born that way and choose to be gay is like saying Hermaphrodites were not born that way but chose to be that way. Homosexuality is just a dna/hormonal error that affects the developing brain rather than the sexual organs themselves.

If I was told I would be subject to a dna coding error or hormone error but I could choose which one. I would pick the error that causes homosexuality.

I am straight and that is simply that. I am what I am and I have always been straight and it is the most natural thing in the world for me. Even if the norm was homosexuality, I would be glad I was straight. How could I imagine it would be any different for a homosexual person in the straight world. They are what they are, it is the most natural thing in the world for them to be. There is nothing 'wrong' with them in the slightest. Sure there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Did these non sentient animals just 'choose' to be gay??

How hard is it to grasp how homosexuals might have had their sexual awakening at the age of 10 or 11 and realised they fancied members of the same sex, just like your sexual awakening when you 'just' realised you fancied girls.

And on the whole religion/bible issue, I always find this clip most appropriate.

Hmm_Messiah

For the record, I don't hate gays ("for me to live is Christ" etc etc )


The thread seems a little pointless in that , to me, it does not seem to be really asking a question , or at least welcoming any answer with an open mind - so whats the point ?


Anyways you would have to identify which God "hates" gays and how exactly you know that.

For the Christian/Jewish folk the bible does not once say God hates gay people, it only contains what are in reality tribal laws which were important in that time and place. It doesn't see to me too unreasonable that any entity, such as society , having its continuation as a priority, might outlaw something which limits procreation . Its also perfectly sensible to me, that if you believe in right and wrong, then some behaviour is "wrong", when it deviates from your true self.

In the end of the day though any God who is so preoccupied with sexuality morality or behaviour, rather than being the greatest, seems very petty and small to me.

And if you look at the Christian tradition, within the gospels Jesus was very far from concerned about who was shagging who.

Is being gay wrong ? Well I dunno, is being left handed ? People really need to get past obsessing on what's wrong - If God gave us life I am damn sure he intended it to be fun

DubArk

Calibos wrote: »

Just Wow!!

You are convinced I gather, that you yourself were 'born straight'. Your biology programmed you at the age of 10 or 11 to just suddenly start to find girls atractive. Like it was the most natural thing in the world which it is of course. It is also natural for there to be genetic errors, or hormonal errors at important stages in pregnancy in a certain percentage of pregnancies. Take for instance Hermaphrodites with both sex organs. Saying that you don't believe homosexuals are born that way and choose to be gay is like saying Hermaphrodites were not born that way but chose to be that way. Homosexuality is just a dna/hormonal error that affects the developing brain rather than the sexual organs themselves.

If I was told I would be subject to a dna coding error or hormone error but I could choose which one. I would pick the error that causes homosexuality.

I am straight and that is simply that. I am what I am and I have always been straight and it is the most natural thing in the world for me. Even if the norm was homosexuality, I would be glad I was straight. How could I imagine it would be any different for a homosexual person in the straight world. They are what they are, it is the most natural thing in the world for them to be. There is nothing 'wrong' with them in the slightest. Sure there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Did these non sentient animals just 'choose' to be gay??

How hard is it to grasp how homosexuals might have had their sexual awakening at the age of 10 or 11 and realised they fancied members of the same sex, just like your sexual awakening when you 'just' realised you fancied girls.

How very insightful of you, as a Gay man I couldn’t have said it better. I remember at such a young age been attracted to the same sex as if a light was turned on in my head, there was no choice I was just programmed that way.
I would never want to anything else but Gay, not because it’s any better then been Straight, it’s because its part of me now and I like that. I like me. Thank God!!:D

Boston

Calibos wrote: »

Just Wow!!

You are convinced I gather, that you yourself were 'born straight'. Your biology programmed you at the age of 10 or 11 to just suddenly start to find girls atractive. Like it was the most natural thing in the world which it is of course. It is also natural for there to be genetic errors, or hormonal errors at important stages in pregnancy in a certain percentage of pregnancies. Take for instance Hermaphrodites with both sex organs. Saying that you don't believe homosexuals are born that way and choose to be gay is like saying Hermaphrodites were not born that way but chose to be that way. Homosexuality is just a dna/hormonal error that affects the developing brain rather than the sexual organs themselves.

If I was told I would be subject to a dna coding error or hormone error but I could choose which one. I would pick the error that causes homosexuality.

I am straight and that is simply that. I am what I am and I have always been straight and it is the most natural thing in the world for me. Even if the norm was homosexuality, I would be glad I was straight. How could I imagine it would be any different for a homosexual person in the straight world. They are what they are, it is the most natural thing in the world for them to be. There is nothing 'wrong' with them in the slightest. Sure there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Did these non sentient animals just 'choose' to be gay??

How hard is it to grasp how homosexuals might have had their sexual awakening at the age of 10 or 11 and realised they fancied members of the same sex, just like your sexual awakening when you 'just' realised you fancied girls.

I'm not straight. Your rant is misdirected.

There is nothing which proves that homosexuality is a result of ones genetic make up. There are several studies which should homosexuals will on average have genetic trends of one type or another, but there is nothing definitive. That is far from saying its a matter of choice.

DubArk

Boston wrote: »

I'm not straight. Your rant is misdirected.

As far as rants, methinks The lady doth protest too much!!

MysticalSoul

Personally I cannot see how "God" could hate homosexuals, same as the reason why I do not believe that "God" sees sex as wrong.

Sexuality, has been something that has been shamed by the Catholic Church (from my experience). However why would God give us organs that have no other function other than in sexual play. On that note, I would liken homosexuality in the same context. Different religions have different interpretations of the Bible, and seeing as the Bible was written in the armanic language (I think), how do we know that some crucial information has not been left out. The fact of the matter is that we do not know.

I believe God created us, and as unique and as individual as we all are, how could he hate us, his own creation.

Calibos

Boston wrote: »

I'm not straight. Your rant is misdirected.

There is nothing which proves that homosexuality is a result of ones genetic make up. There are several studies which should homosexuals will on average have genetic trends of one type or another, but there is nothing definitive. That is far from saying its a matter of choice.

Well then, I'm not sure what your point is? You say you don't think gay people are born that way but you also don't think they made a concious choice. Are you saying you think homosexuality is more down to nuture rather than nature, ie social/cultural environment and how they were raised etc rather then biology? Are you as a gay/bi? person then not supporting the idea that gay people can somehow be de-programmed/ rehabilitated (as if they need or want 'rehabilitation'). Are you against gay couples being allowed to adopt? Sure the kids wont have made a choice but their home environment will make them gay??

On that particular question re adoption by gay couples, my only worry would be that the kid may be singled out and picked on. But then again, a kid with male and female adoptive parents would just as easily be singled out if both parents were obese or if both parents were gingers Do we bar obese and gingers from adopting for fear their kids will be picked on as a result. Appologies to all the gay, obese redheaded couples out there for that analogy

Am I worried about kids adopted by gay couples turning out gay? Well staight couples have gay kids all the time despite a heterosexual home environment because thats just the way biology made them to be. I'm pretty sure biology will ensure the kid is straight if thats what they were meant to be...despite having gay parents and being raised in a homosexual home environment.

Stark

Talk about touchy. I thought it was obvious what he was getting at, that we simply don't have conclusive knowledge on what causes homosexuality, not that it's a choice or that it can be "cured". Since prepubescent children generally don't have sexual preferences, it's hard to say at what point the differences set in between straight people and gay people.

Calibos

Stark wrote: »

Talk about touchy. I thought it was obvious what he was getting at, that we simply don't have conclusive knowledge on what causes homosexuality, not that it's a choice or that it can be "cured". Since prepubescent children generally don't have sexual preferences, it's hard to say at what point the differences set in between straight people and gay people.

Who's being touchy?? Its not like its a sensitive issue for me cause I'm not even gay. I merely wanted to understand what boston actually meant. My interest was piqued because I would have thought it highly unusual for a gay person to come out with a comment like.

'The entire notion that god created gays is predicate on the idea that someone is born gay. I'm far from convinced this is the case'

Jannah

Schuhart wrote: »

But if you want to be impressed by this sort of thing, clearly that's your choice. I doubt that credulity is genetically determined either

Neither is arrogance, but you seem to have it down pretty well

Schuhart wrote: »

I've simply made a prediction. Only the future will tell if its accurate.

Not so much a prediction as an ignorant statement. Whether one chooses to cover or not is none of your business or anyone elses and if you are so incredibly small minded as to think it is a means of escaping from reality, then you are more misinformed than I had previously thought

As for whoever said this thread wasn't relevant, I think that it very much is- people are discussing an important subject, for some it is the first time they've actually thought these things through, which in my view is well worth the few minutes it took to create it

Boston

Calibos wrote: »

Well then, I'm not sure what your point is? You say you don't think gay people are born that way but you also don't think they made a concious choice. Are you saying you think homosexuality is more down to nuture rather than nature, ie social/cultural environment and how they were raised etc rather then biology? Are you as a gay/bi? person then not supporting the idea that gay people can somehow be de-programmed/ rehabilitated (as if they need or want 'rehabilitation').

Are you against gay couples being allowed to adopt? Sure the kids wont have made a choice but their home environment will make them gay??

If homosexuality is indeed genetic, then that must be inherited from one or both parents, however both parents being in all likelihood straight its difficult to see how the gene has been passed on. Additionally children born of Gay parents generally aren't more likely to be homosexual.

Now the nurture case, obviously the argument that gay parents will raise gay children isn't true, since straight parents don't always raise straight kids.

Genetics largely only give you the potential to be something, whereas your environment is what allows you to become the person you ultimately are. Theres no merit to saying its one over the other that causes homosexuality and as such theres little merit is saying "god made me this way".

On that particular question re adoption by gay couples, my only worry would be that the kid may be singled out and picked on. But then again, a kid with male and female adoptive parents would just as easily be singled out if both parents were obese or if both parents were gingers

Thats your only worry? I worry to the deep seeded affects of raising a child without a permanent father or mother figure.

Schuhart

Jannah wrote: »

Neither is arrogance, but you seem to have it down pretty well

Pointing out that a statement or source is clearly wrong is not arrogance.

Jannah wrote: »

Not so much a prediction as an ignorant statement.

If it turns out to be accurate, it will hardly be ignorant.

Jannah wrote: »

Whether one chooses to cover or not is none of your business or anyone elses and if you are so incredibly small minded as to think it is a means of escaping from reality, then you are more misinformed than I had previously thought

Can I point out this is a public discussion board. If you provide a series of posts that suggest you are engaged in an elaborate act of self-delusion, then it most certainly can be commented on.

If you reflect on it, I think you’ll find people have as much right to speculate about the motives of religious converts as they have to speculate about whether homosexuality is genetically determined. And your posts do read to me like you have an eagerness to be deluded, to an extent that I felt moved to comment.

Jannah

Schuhart wrote: »

If it turns out to be accurate, it will hardly be ignorant.

Speculating on other people's private lives without knowing them at all is most definitely ignorant

Schuhart wrote: »

If you provide a series of posts that suggest you are ########## an elaborate act of self-delusion, then it most certainly can be commented on.

If you reflect on it, I think you’ll find people have as much right to speculate about the motives of religious converts as they have to speculate about whether homosexuality is genetically determined. And your posts do read to me like you have an eagerness to be deluded, to an extent that I felt moved to comment.

Oh do enlighten me on my supposed 'deluded' state... I highly doubt that I am so, as I have a mind of my own, which you wouldn't know, given the fact that you are basing pretty far fetched speculations on a ridiculiously small amount of information.

Schuhart

Jannah wrote: »

Speculating on other people's private lives without knowing them at all is most definitely ignorant

Indeed, but formulating hypotheses based on available evidence is what got us to the Moon.

Unless you're suggesting that this whole thread is a bad idea, as presumably we're speculating about the basis for divine displeasure with the private lives of a whole bunch of people that we only know from what they've posted.

I take it the irony of your umbrage in a context where we're discussing stuff that relates in a pretty intimate way to other folk hasn't fully registered yet. Like, you are essentially asking "why might God be unhappy with what you and that other guy were doing last night". Which is perfectly fine, as there's no point in leaving a question unasked. But is it reasonable to say "But I want to put other people under the microscope while avoiding scrutiny myself."?

Jannah wrote: »

Oh do enlighten me on my supposed 'deluded' state... I highly doubt that I am so, as I have a mind of my own, which you wouldn't know, given the fact that you are basing pretty far fetched speculations on a ridiculiously small amount of information.

Indeed, but sometimes a single compelling fact allows us to make a reasonable extrapolation. In this case, its your line

Dr Zakir Naik (who's brilliant btw!)

That single statement is enough to suggest that you've an eagerness to be deluded, because what he's peddling is plausable triteness.

That said, all I've done is made a prediction. Clearly if that prediction comes to pass, my case is made. If it doesn't, then my hypothesis will be demonstrated to be wrong. I'll give you twelve months. If you're agnostic at the end of that period, my reasoning skills will be demonstrated to have made a considerable error.

Jannah

Schuhart wrote: »

Unless you're suggesting that this whole thread is a bad idea, as presumably we're speculating about the basis for divine displeasure with the private lives of a whole bunch of people that we only know from what they've posted.

There's a difference between singling people out and making general discussion on a controvertial topic.

Schuhart wrote: »

That said, all I've done is made a prediction. Clearly if that prediction comes to pass, my case is made. If it doesn't, then my hypothesis will be demonstrated to be wrong. I'll give you twelve months. If you're agnostic at the end of that period, my reasoning skills will be demonstrated to have made a considerable error.

Do you have some kind of anti-Islam vendetta or do you just hate the women? Because for a religion of which you labelled all the women as not in touch with reality, you sure as hell like to philospohise on their message boards.

And if I enjoy the works of Zakir Naik and you don't, thats your problem, not mine

Schuhart

Jannah wrote: »

There's a difference between singling people out and making general discussion on a controvertial topic.

There certainly is. And there's a similarity between poking your nose into someone's sexuality and poking your nose into their religion.

Jannah wrote: »

Do you have some kind of anti-Islam vendetta or do you just hate the women?

How did these come to be the only two options?

Jannah wrote: »

Because for a religion of which you labelled all the women as not in touch with reality, you sure as hell like to philospohise on their message boards.

Except, you'll understand, I didn't label 'all the women' in the way you describe. Can I suggest if you find the only way of keeping a grip on the dialogue is to invent statements and ascribe them to me, you need to start considering your position?

Jannah wrote: »

And if I enjoy the works of Zakir Naik and you don't, thats your problem, not mine

I neither enjoy nor (disenjoy?) them. But they do amount to trite nonsense that only make sense to the gullable. I don't see how recognising that is a problem for anyone.

Jannah

Schuhart wrote: »

There certainly is. And there's a similarity between poking your nose into someone's sexuality and poking your nose into their religion.

So we can't discuss homosexuals generally without being said that we are 'poking our noses in', it it? Maybe if you could be an adult about this people could discuss the topic without getting personal

Schuhart wrote: »

How did these come to be the only two options?Except, you'll understand, I didn't label 'all the women' in the way you describe.

Just the muslim women that wear hijabs then, yes? I don't wear hijab but even I can see how blatantly ridiculious you were being in saying that they were losing contact with reality by wearing it. And yes, there are two options- you either like Muslims or you don't- you, on the other hand, appear to be sitting on the fence and slating hijabs while still partaking in discussions on Islamic works- seems contradictory to me.

Jannah

Schuhart wrote: »

I neither enjoy nor (disenjoy?) them.

Ugh. Just, no. The word is dislike. Not that hard, is it?

Marshy

This thread has wandered slightly off-topic. Don't think Jesus would appreciate this guys...

swiss

Marshy wrote: »

This thread has wandered slightly off-topic. Don't think Jesus would appreciate this guys...

Indeed. Back on topic.

My 2c. God does not hate homosexuals because God does not exist.