We are going around in circles because of wordplay. You call it punishment, I call it a test.
No, but it's not wordplay - I don't care if you say it's a test. But by your own logic, it must be a result of a past or future wrong-doings in order to be administered.
One man is born with functioning eyes. Instead of using this gift of sight for constructive purposes he looks at unbecoming things. His sin could prevent him from going to Heaven. Either way as I have said before, those who are handicapped receive a greater reward and hold more of Allah's forgiveness. They experience a "superior heaven" (as there are 7 layers of heaven in Islam).
Hmmm, you have this idea that if the reward is great enough, I can torure you all I want. It really seems to me to be a case of paying someone for punching him. I don't find that moral or loving.
And this other idea that god is somehow shielding you from your own sins by denying you the option to sin is troublesome on many levels. FIrst of all - if that's the case, why is sin being considered at all when considering those that are fit and those that are not? Surely, since god already knew your sins in advance and decided to prevent some from "achieving" those sins, he has already decided in advance who would get in and who wouldn't. And secondly - the concept of free will flies out of the window - not only does god know everything you will do before you are born, he aslo changes your attributes in order to change your, in his eyes, predetermined path.
What do you mean stairway to Heaven. Do you mean the path to Heaven? Obviously, I hold it to be the Qur'an and the teachings stated within it. But we are assuming that Islam is correct aren't we? That is how you can ask me, if Islam is correct, why are there some people born with disadvantages? So in relation to our discussion, this life is nothing as compared to the hereafter.
I was being facetious, just a little anti-religious rant.
To prove to Shaitan, the Angels, and ourselves that humans ultimately follow the path of Islam. There would be sin and there would be punishment to show us all that those who used their reasoning process wrong are punished and those who were right in their faith of Allah are rewarded. You are asking questions that are beyond me. I don't think I nor anyone else can understand why God created us, the Angels, or anything at all in fact. All I do know is that I can play the role I am given.
Yes, to prove to Shaitan, the Angels and ourselves - that's what I find perverse. This little game that serves to prove something - it's irrelevant, god already knows the answer, hell - he controls all the rules and all the moves of the game are predetermined for him. There was no need to play it out - just like when playing Eeny, meeny, miny, moe - I already know what the result is goning to be in advance, only children need to play it out until they finally figure it out.
In my eyes, if god were to exists, he would be far from the attributes you describe. Not unlike North koreans who praise Kim Jong-il as a hero and a loving leader. From the outside - it all seems much different.
Suffering isn't an act of love? Is labor an act of love? Is a dad working two part-time jobs an act of love? Suffering on behalf of someone else is the greatest love one can give. Yet it is not a world of suffering. You are looking at it through only one side. God rewards those who face obstacles as well and this reward far outweighs the suffering.
Choosing to go through something painful because of your love for someone else - that is an act of love. Enduring suffering that has been bestoved upon you by an invisible force in the sky - that's just surviving. There is no choice in the matter and it is certainly not an act of love - neither on the behalf of the one that is suffering, not on the behalf of god.
I don't, as you seem to suggest, think that things are bleak and the world is a horrible place filled with suffering. No, only that if there is a god, then suffering must be his will - and that puts him far from any "merciful" or "loving" attribute.
Statistically speaking even if the gene is not always passed down, there would at least be a trend of some children or even grandchildren inheriting homosexuality. A trend within families. A history of homosexuals. Some genes of a parent won't be passed along, however is some are then it is only a number game until homosexuality is passed down the generations right? Also what do you mean the same trait will emerge in our children? The same homosexual trait?
No, not all genes work in the same way, what you're saying is a gross oversimplification. Although I would find it likely, there needn't be any trend at all. It's not "just a matter of time" before the gay-gene gets passed along. It might even be more likely for a child of two heterosexual parents to be predisposed for homosexuality. Just as in the case of some other traits that get passed along without the parent exibiting the trait - they are the carriers. I mean, you can't just assume things like that without any evidence.
