• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God's opposition to homosexuality. Why?

tarekabdo12

tarekabdo12

Active Member
waitasec said:
i thought islam was about peace not passive aggressiveness...
very telling.
Click to expand...


This phrase describes those who refuse apparent truth and advocates the dud and deride those who follow the truth. It's related to reckoning in the afterlife and simply aggression against bad people is because of their ow actions and aggressiveness, you see how polite he was and are blaming me.
 
darkendless

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
tarekabdo12 said:
I didn't condemn anybody. Infact you didn't read all my posts. I previously st don't hate anybody and I wish they were very happy and living well. But, that doesn't mean that I will admit that this is a good way to practice sex. There is a difference between discussig facts and treating people. You can know that cancer is lethal ad you can discuss this issue on the net and with your friends but that doesn't mean you'll tell a cancer patient that you will die soon and will suffer a lot of pain. Treating people is different and I don't have the right to push anybody into hell but I was pushed to speak that way because of those who argue away from any logic. I wish that all the people would be happy and I am not caring to just defend my own ideas but rather to search for the truth and help others reach it. But instead of telling them you are great while they are doing disastrous actions, you'd better help them to overcome this terrible disease. Convincing them that they are just alright is just like escaping a problem. It's telling an addict that he is great hoping that you are relieving his distress but in fact you are pushing him to the abyss. There is also a great misconception about God here. I see that you think that God is only present to torture people in hell but this is not true. God forgives people and it's not a great problem if a person does a sin and wants to return to God once more. The most important thing is that you follow him and keen to follow his orders. Religion is the actual stimulant towards tolerance as it teaches people to be patient with others and to help them to face their problems without any callosity. Simply, those who don't follow religion torture themselves in this life but religion teaches people everything good. I also don't think that it's good that you masquerade behind tolerance because discussing a certain basic idea has no relation to tolerance. If you see an addict you can't say that he is good because you are tolerant as you are actually harming him. If you are really tolerant , you'd better help him tom overcome his illness and change his acts.
Click to expand...

I have a few problems with your post here:

1) if God/Allah created everyone and has a role in our lives why would he create homosexuals? The amount of negativity they must endure is surely not part of God's plan?

2) How is a sexual preference a disease? I think you may be using the wrong word to describe homosexuality.

3) You call homosexuality an addiction? How come modern science disagrees wih your assertations? Before 1985 homosexuality was cureable.... that was 26 years ago though.

4) Have you ever considered that your God and his morality is wrong and/or inappropriate for the modern world? Lets face it, religious texts aren't exactly "up to date" with current discoveries and as hard as scholars try to twist the meaning of these texts, they're rather ambiguous at best.
 
tarekabdo12

tarekabdo12

Active Member
averageJOE said:
I have no logic? Your the one who just said that "bad manners" is the reason for the ill effects that exist in heterosexuals
Click to expand...


why is this illogical? Bad manners are the reason for the appearance of homosexuality and other bizarre sexual behaviors.Simply , because sex is addictive, when porn movies arouse they stuck into the minds of those who see them. After that people lost interest in the usual sex acts so they decided to change the pattern and get new devastating ways of sex and people will them be occupied by these acts and will imitate them forcefully because their minds become occupied by these strange things that they see. When people saw the strange ways of practicing sex that where spread through the net, their minds were hacked and did what they see. That's why strange acts flared up like sex torture, etc. But people seldom realize that sex and comfort never come from the materialistic acts only but from the love and passion between two adoring couple. It's the inner sole that shouts: " Help me, I want to escape this abject world to reach moral happiness" Sex is just a translation to inner love.If somebody practices sex without love he feels that it's no meaning and no joy. Love is the real essence of sex and if people taste true love, they won't live without it. But, simply those who traded humans' bodies to have money helped humanity to ebb.
 
earlwooters

earlwooters

Active Member
If you don't like the views of one God, find yourself another. There are lots of them out there. Hundreds to choose from.
 
averageJOE

averageJOE

zombie
tarekabdo12 said:
why is this illogical? Bad manners are the reason for the appearance of homosexuality and other bizarre sexual behaviors.Simply , because sex is addictive, when porn movies arouse they stuck into the minds of those who see them. After that people lost interest in the usual sex acts so they decided to change the pattern and get new devastating ways of sex and people will them be occupied by these acts and will imitate them forcefully because their minds become occupied by these strange things that they see. When people saw the strange ways of practicing sex that where spread through the net, their minds were hacked and did what they see. That's why strange acts flared up like sex torture, etc. But people seldom realize that sex and comfort never come from the materialistic acts only but from the love and passion between two adoring couple. It's the inner sole that shouts: " Help me, I want to escape this abject world to reach moral happiness" Sex is just a translation to inner love.If somebody practices sex without love he feels that it's no meaning and no joy. Love is the real essence of sex and if people taste true love, they won't live without it. But, simply those who traded humans' bodies to have money helped humanity to ebb.
Click to expand...
Hate to break this to you...but homosexuality has been around longer than the internet.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
tarekabdo12 said:
I'm really happy I made you laugh, you don't know how much I adore you dear.

but as the Qur'an says " Let them laugh a little as they will cry a lot"
Click to expand...
Does your chosen deity favour those who rely on falsehoods to support their falsehoods?

I am not sure if you are merely parroting what you want or if you are just flat out telling lies, so I shall give you the benefit of the doubt.
 
Y

Yanni

Active Member
darkendless said:
The burden of proof isn't with us. I'm not in a position to prove anything. I'm not the one making a ludicrous claim of some overlord chilling in the sky but whatever pleases you.

I'm not exactly afraid of some spiritual overlord.

Something you say is awfully disturbing for me though and its not just you, i've seen it many times. Thanking God for things you do yourself is so so awful. Do you have any pride in your success or do you simply attribute everything you do to god?

Do you also blame God for being a sadist when things go wrong?
Click to expand...
You atheists really sadden me. Read this carefully and tell me if you think this universe (in all its brilliance) could have just "happened by itself." From http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/The_Design_Argument_Answers_to_Atheists_Objections.html

The simplest and easiest to understand of all the arguments ever offered by believers is the Argument from Design. The argument is remarkably simple. It goes as follows: The existence of a suit implies the existence of the tailor who made the suit. The existence of a poem on a piece of paper implies the existence of the poet who created that poem. In other words, the suit itself is the proof of the existence of the intelligent creator of the suit, no other evidence is necessary. There are levels of design, sophistication, and functional complexity that the human mind simply refuses to accept could be accounted for by any undirected process. How to precisely define such levels is not our topic of discussion. It is clear, however, that a suit and poem by Robert Frost, and a living bacterium, are certainly well over that line.
The entire plot of the classic film, 2001: A Space Odyssey is based on this obvious principle. At a dramatic moment in the film, when a rectangular monolith is discovered buried on the moon, it is clear to those who discover it (and accepted as absolutely logical and reasonable by everyone watching the movie) that this is unmistakable proof of alien life. After all, a precisely measured monolith couldn't possibly have made itself or "evolved naturally." The rest of the film is about the search for the aliens who constructed and buried the monolith in the first place.
Does the incontrovertibly true Argument from Design apply to living organisms?​
The human body is an incredible piece of machinery; who put it together? It certainly required a great deal more sophistication to build a human being than to construct a rectangular monolith. The existence of highly sophisticated living organisms implies a highly sophisticated designer of these organisms. Believers call this designer, the Creator or God. What could possibly be the flaw in such an argument?
[SIZE=+1]Nobody Disagrees With "The Argument from Design"[/SIZE]
Before we actually deal with the objections raised by atheists and skeptics, I want to stress: Nobody disagrees with the Argument from Design. There is nobody in his right mind who does not understand that the existence of the suit itself proves the existence of the tailor who made the suit and that the poem itself proves the existence of the author of that poem. In the debate between skeptics and believers the disagreement is not about the validity of the Argument from Design. The argument itself is undeniably true. The point of contention is the following: Does the incontrovertibly true Argument from Design apply to living organisms?
 
Last edited:
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
Yanni said:
You atheists really sadden me. Read this carefully and tell me if you think this universe (in all its brilliance) could have just "happened by itself."

The simplest and easiest to understand of all the arguments ever offered by believers is the Argument from Design. The argument is remarkably simple. It goes as follows: The existence of a suit implies the existence of the tailor who made the suit. The existence of a poem on a piece of paper implies the existence of the poet who created that poem. In other words, the suit itself is the proof of the existence of the intelligent creator of the suit, no other evidence is necessary. There are levels of design, sophistication, and functional complexity that the human mind simply refuses to accept could be accounted for by any undirected process. How to precisely define such levels is not our topic of discussion. It is clear, however, that a suit and poem by Robert Frost, and a living bacterium, are certainly well over that line.
The entire plot of the classic film, 2001: A Space Odyssey is based on this obvious principle. At a dramatic moment in the film, when a rectangular monolith is discovered buried on the moon, it is clear to those who discover it (and accepted as absolutely logical and reasonable by everyone watching the movie) that this is unmistakable proof of alien life. After all, a precisely measured monolith couldn't possibly have made itself or "evolved naturally." The rest of the film is about the search for the aliens who constructed and buried the monolith in the first place.
Does the incontrovertibly true Argument from Design apply to living organisms?​
The human body is an incredible piece of machinery; who put it together? It certainly required a great deal more sophistication to build a human being than to construct a rectangular monolith. The existence of highly sophisticated living organisms implies a highly sophisticated designer of these organisms. Believers call this designer, the Creator or God. What could possibly be the flaw in such an argument?
[SIZE=+1]Nobody Disagrees With "The Argument from Design"[/SIZE]
Before we actually deal with the objections raised by atheists and skeptics, I want to stress: Nobody disagrees with the Argument from Design. There is nobody in his right mind who does not understand that the existence of the suit itself proves the existence of the tailor who made the suit and that the poem itself proves the existence of the author of that poem. In the debate between skeptics and believers the disagreement is not about the validity of the Argument from Design. The argument itself is undeniably true. The point of contention is the following: Does the incontrovertibly true Argument from Design apply to living organisms?
Click to expand...
FYI, plagiarism is not only frowned upon but against RF rules.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Yanni said:
You atheists really sadden me. Read this carefully and tell me if you think this universe (in all its brilliance) could have just "happened by itself."

The simplest and easiest to understand of all the arguments ever offered by believers is the Argument from Design. The argument is remarkably simple. It goes as follows: The existence of a suit implies the existence of the tailor who made the suit. The existence of a poem on a piece of paper implies the existence of the poet who created that poem. In other words, the suit itself is the proof of the existence of the intelligent creator of the suit, no other evidence is necessary. There are levels of design, sophistication, and functional complexity that the human mind simply refuses to accept could be accounted for by any undirected process. How to precisely define such levels is not our topic of discussion. It is clear, however, that a suit and poem by Robert Frost, and a living bacterium, are certainly well over that line.
The entire plot of the classic film, 2001: A Space Odyssey is based on this obvious principle. At a dramatic moment in the film, when a rectangular monolith is discovered buried on the moon, it is clear to those who discover it (and accepted as absolutely logical and reasonable by everyone watching the movie) that this is unmistakable proof of alien life. After all, a precisely measured monolith couldn't possibly have made itself or "evolved naturally." The rest of the film is about the search for the aliens who constructed and buried the monolith in the first place.
Does the incontrovertibly true Argument from Design apply to living organisms?​
The human body is an incredible piece of machinery; who put it together? It certainly required a great deal more sophistication to build a human being than to construct a rectangular monolith. The existence of highly sophisticated living organisms implies a highly sophisticated designer of these organisms. Believers call this designer, the Creator or God. What could possibly be the flaw in such an argument?
[SIZE=+1]Nobody Disagrees With "The Argument from Design"[/SIZE]
Before we actually deal with the objections raised by atheists and skeptics, I want to stress: Nobody disagrees with the Argument from Design. There is nobody in his right mind who does not understand that the existence of the suit itself proves the existence of the tailor who made the suit and that the poem itself proves the existence of the author of that poem. In the debate between skeptics and believers the disagreement is not about the validity of the Argument from Design. The argument itself is undeniably true. The point of contention is the following: Does the incontrovertibly true Argument from Design apply to living organisms?
Click to expand...
Tsk Tsk Tsk.
Plagerism is frowned upon on this Forum.

You should have just presented the link.
Here, I can show you:
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Yanni said:
[SIZE=+1]Nobody Disagrees With "The Argument from Design"[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
Really:
Care to try again?
 
Y

Yanni

Active Member
Mestemia said:
Really:Care to try again?
Click to expand...
I have some articles for you too:
A Reasonable Argument for God

Good without God

The Origins of Life

Life by Accident

The Atheist Crusade

http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/The_Design_Argument_Answers_to_Atheists_Objections.html
 
Last edited:
darkendless

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
Yanni said:
You atheists really sadden me. Read this carefully and tell me if you think this universe (in all its brilliance) could have just "happened by itself." From The Design Argument: Answers to Atheists' Objections

The simplest and easiest to understand of all the arguments ever offered by believers is the Argument from Design. The argument is remarkably simple. It goes as follows: The existence of a suit implies the existence of the tailor who made the suit. The existence of a poem on a piece of paper implies the existence of the poet who created that poem. In other words, the suit itself is the proof of the existence of the intelligent creator of the suit, no other evidence is necessary. There are levels of design, sophistication, and functional complexity that the human mind simply refuses to accept could be accounted for by any undirected process. How to precisely define such levels is not our topic of discussion. It is clear, however, that a suit and poem by Robert Frost, and a living bacterium, are certainly well over that line.
The entire plot of the classic film, 2001: A Space Odyssey is based on this obvious principle. At a dramatic moment in the film, when a rectangular monolith is discovered buried on the moon, it is clear to those who discover it (and accepted as absolutely logical and reasonable by everyone watching the movie) that this is unmistakable proof of alien life. After all, a precisely measured monolith couldn't possibly have made itself or "evolved naturally." The rest of the film is about the search for the aliens who constructed and buried the monolith in the first place.
Does the incontrovertibly true Argument from Design apply to living organisms?​
The human body is an incredible piece of machinery; who put it together? It certainly required a great deal more sophistication to build a human being than to construct a rectangular monolith. The existence of highly sophisticated living organisms implies a highly sophisticated designer of these organisms. Believers call this designer, the Creator or God. What could possibly be the flaw in such an argument?
[SIZE=+1]Nobody Disagrees With "The Argument from Design"[/SIZE]
Before we actually deal with the objections raised by atheists and skeptics, I want to stress: Nobody disagrees with the Argument from Design. There is nobody in his right mind who does not understand that the existence of the suit itself proves the existence of the tailor who made the suit and that the poem itself proves the existence of the author of that poem. In the debate between skeptics and believers the disagreement is not about the validity of the Argument from Design. The argument itself is undeniably true. The point of contention is the following: Does the incontrovertibly true Argument from Design apply to living organisms?
Click to expand...

It amuses me how you steal someone elses thoughts to display your sadness :facepalm:

Design is for those too weak to understand the amazing thing that is the evolution from bacteria over time.
 
Y

Yanni

Active Member
darkendless said:
It amuses me how you steal someone elses thoughts to display your sadness :facepalm:

Design is for those too weak to understand the amazing thing that is the evolution from bacteria over time.
Click to expand...
I admit I made a mistake by not realizing that I didn't put in the link. But you really think evolution explains everything? Please take a look at this, FROM The Design Argument: Answers to Atheists' Objections

[SIZE=+1]Darwinian Evolution simply begs the question[/SIZE]
For the truth-seeking individual, the very best that Darwinian evolution can tell us is the following: Once you have in place a fantastically complex piece of molecular machinery called a living cell, which has at it's core an astonishingly sophisticated self-replicating system, which is based on the storage, retrieval, and decoding of enormous amounts of pure digital information – given enough time – the interactions between this nanotool filled organism, its "uncannily computer-like" genetic code and its environment (interactions we call "natural selection") are able to produce an astounding variety of forms of biological organisms. All varieties of life are possible – if, and only if – this amazing piece of machinery is in place. How did it get there?
All varieties of life are possible – if, and only if – this amazing piece of machinery is in place. How did it get there?​
Lest anyone have the impression that the compelling and profoundly significant nature of this line of reasoning can only be appreciated by those with inclinations toward religion, here is distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel (who describes himself as being "just as much an outsider to religion as Richard Dawkins"):
The entire apparatus of evolutionary explanation therefore depends on the prior existence of genetic material with these remarkable properties ... since the existence of this material or something like it is a precondition of the possibility of evolution, evolutionary theory cannot explain its existence. We are therefore faced with a problem ... we have explained the complexity of organic life in terms of something that is itself just as functionally complex as what we originally set out to explain. So the problem is just pushed back a step: how did such a thing come into existence?11
​
 
S

Sententia

Well-Known Member
Yanni said:
I admit I made a mistake by not realizing that I didn't put in the link. But you really think evolution explains everything? Please take a look at this, FROM The Design Argument: Answers to Atheists' Objections

[SIZE=+1]Darwinian Evolution simply begs the question[/SIZE]
For the truth-seeking individual, the very best that Darwinian evolution can tell us is the following: Once you have in place a fantastically complex piece of molecular machinery called a living cell, which has at it's core an astonishingly sophisticated self-replicating system, which is based on the storage, retrieval, and decoding of enormous amounts of pure digital information – given enough time – the interactions between this nanotool filled organism, its "uncannily computer-like" genetic code and its environment (interactions we call "natural selection") are able to produce an astounding variety of forms of biological organisms. All varieties of life are possible – if, and only if – this amazing piece of machinery is in place. How did it get there?
All varieties of life are possible – if, and only if – this amazing piece of machinery is in place. How did it get there?​
Lest anyone have the impression that the compelling and profoundly significant nature of this line of reasoning can only be appreciated by those with inclinations toward religion, here is distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel (who describes himself as being "just as much an outsider to religion as Richard Dawkins"):
The entire apparatus of evolutionary explanation therefore depends on the prior existence of genetic material with these remarkable properties ... since the existence of this material or something like it is a precondition of the possibility of evolution, evolutionary theory cannot explain its existence. We are therefore faced with a problem ... we have explained the complexity of organic life in terms of something that is itself just as functionally complex as what we originally set out to explain. So the problem is just pushed back a step: how did such a thing come into existence?11
​
Click to expand...

This is amusing as your end argument is therefore something more complex... ie... god... created the basis for evolution. Not like LOL amusing but I felt the left side of my mouth tug a bit. Thanks for that.
 
darkendless

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
Yanni said:
I admit I made a mistake by not realizing that I didn't put in the link. But you really think evolution explains everything? Please take a look at this, FROM The Design Argument: Answers to Atheists' Objections

[SIZE=+1]Darwinian Evolution simply begs the question[/SIZE]
For the truth-seeking individual, the very best that Darwinian evolution can tell us is the following: Once you have in place a fantastically complex piece of molecular machinery called a living cell, which has at it's core an astonishingly sophisticated self-replicating system, which is based on the storage, retrieval, and decoding of enormous amounts of pure digital information – given enough time – the interactions between this nanotool filled organism, its "uncannily computer-like" genetic code and its environment (interactions we call "natural selection") are able to produce an astounding variety of forms of biological organisms. All varieties of life are possible – if, and only if – this amazing piece of machinery is in place. How did it get there?
All varieties of life are possible – if, and only if – this amazing piece of machinery is in place. How did it get there?​
Lest anyone have the impression that the compelling and profoundly significant nature of this line of reasoning can only be appreciated by those with inclinations toward religion, here is distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel (who describes himself as being "just as much an outsider to religion as Richard Dawkins"):
The entire apparatus of evolutionary explanation therefore depends on the prior existence of genetic material with these remarkable properties ... since the existence of this material or something like it is a precondition of the possibility of evolution, evolutionary theory cannot explain its existence. We are therefore faced with a problem ... we have explained the complexity of organic life in terms of something that is itself just as functionally complex as what we originally set out to explain. So the problem is just pushed back a step: how did such a thing come into existence?11
​
Click to expand...

It would be nice if for once a creationist could use their own headsinstead of using someone elses work to base their opinions on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top