Why does God hate homosexuals?

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.

Kazobel

God doesn't hate homosexuals, closeted peado clergy hate homosexuals. In most normal, healthy cases most Gays aren't peados and most Peado's aren't gay but within the clergy most are gay and have no other outlet than the peado route so pass the blame because if they make rules that say "Gay's are scum" then they think society will see that as them never being a chance of being Gay, ie: "If I pretend I hate gays then everyone will think I'm straight" so God doesn't make the rules, men do and everything is wrote by the person in control, in this case the Pope, so if he wants to gloss over something, just throw money at it (they make enough), make a rule, hide the problem and then pass the blame to a minority. Thats how it's always worked.

Rev Hellfire

A truly specular piece of generalisation there. bravo. bravo.

DubArk

Kazobel wrote: »

God doesn't hate homosexuals, closeted peado clergy hate homosexuals. In most normal, healthy cases most Gays aren't peados and most Peado's aren't gay but within the clergy most are gay and have no other outlet than the peado route so pass the blame because if they make rules that say "Gay's are scum" then they think society will see that as them never being a chance of being Gay, ie: "If I pretend I hate gays then everyone will think I'm straight" so God doesn't make the rules, men do and everything is wrote by the person in control, in this case the Pope, so if he wants to gloss over something, just throw money at it (they make enough), make a rule, hide the problem and then pass the blame to a minority. Thats how it's always worked.

What in the name of all has this to do with "Does God Hate homosexuals!":rolleyes:

Stark

Kazobel wrote: »

God doesn't hate homosexuals, closeted peado clergy hate homosexuals. In most normal, healthy cases most Gays aren't peados and most Peado's aren't gay but within the clergy most are gay and have no other outlet than the peado route so pass the blame because if they make rules that say "Gay's are scum" then they think society will see that as them never being a chance of being Gay, ie: "If I pretend I hate gays then everyone will think I'm straight" so God doesn't make the rules, men do and everything is wrote by the person in control, in this case the Pope, so if he wants to gloss over something, just throw money at it (they make enough), make a rule, hide the problem and then pass the blame to a minority. Thats how it's always worked.

Next time you post crap like that, it's a ban.

Schuhart

Jannah wrote: »

And yes, there are two options- you either like Muslims or you don't

They were not actually the two options you had presented.

Jannah wrote: »

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.

Indeed, you have missed the point.

Could I suggest that you post a link to the video by Dr Zakir Naik that you feel covers this topic effectively? That would enable us to actually stay on topic while exploring exactly why his view of world is juvenile, to say the least.

Jannah

Schuhart wrote: »

They were not actually the two options you had presented.Indeed, you have missed the point.

Could I suggest that you post a link to the video by Dr Zakir Naik that you feel covers this topic effectively? That would enable us to actually stay on topic while exploring exactly why his view of world is juvenile, to say the least.

Wow, you really are unable to give a straight answer, are you? How sad.

The Catholic perspective:
Genesis XIII, 13: "And the men of Sodom were very wicked, sinners before the face of the Lord, beyond measure"; these Sodomites were in fact homosexuals, as it is proven by Genesis XIX 1-11.

Leviticus 18:22,24-30: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination. (...) Defile not yourselves with any of these things with which all the nations have been defiled, which I will cast out before you. And with which the land is defiled: the abominations of which I will visit, that it may vomit out its inhabitants. Keep ye my ordinances and my judgments, and do not any of these abominations: neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you. For all these detestable things the inhabitants of the land have done, that were before you, and have defiled it. Beware then, lest in like manner, it vomit you also out, if you do the like things, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. Every soul that shall commit any of these abominations, shall perish from the midst of his people. Keep my commandments. Do not the things which they have done, that have been before you, and be not defiled therein. I am the Lord your God".

Leviticus 20:13: "If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them".

Deuteronomy 23:18: "Thou shall not offer the hire of a strumpet, nor the price of a dog, in the house of the Lord thy God, whatsoever be that thou hast vowed: because both these are an abomination to the Lord thy God".

1 Kings 14:24, "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel."

1 Kings 15:11-12, "And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made."

Romans 1: 26-27, 31-32: "For this cause God delivered them up to shameful afflictions. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And in like manner the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have turned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. (...) Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they, who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

Jude 1:7 -“As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the neighboring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after strange flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.”

I Corinthians VI, 9-10: "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers. Nor the effeminate, nor liars with mankind, (...) shall possess the kingdom of God". See Genesis 19:12-29. Consequently, St. Augustine says (1) "that of all these - namely the sins belonging to lust - that which is against nature is the worst," is ”in itself a mortal sin," (2) a sin specifically distinct (3) from all other sins.

II Why is homosexuality an "abomination", excluding from the heavenly kingdom?

A. Because homosexuality is against nature: In the natural order planned by God, the purpose of the carnal union is generation. Now, generation is the natural fruit of the carnal union of man and woman. Therefore the carnal union of two persons of the same sex goes against the natural order planned by God.

B. Because homosexuality is against reason: Reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. Now, in matters of action, it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since the homosexual transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regards to the use of sexual actions, it follows that he acts against reason.

And the Muslim perspective
In both the Qur’an and the Bible, we are told that the first people who started this habit on a national scale were the people of Lot in the old city of Sodom which used to occupy the area where the Dead Sea now exists. (See Genesis 19). The Qur’an says:

In surat ash-Sh`ara', we read: 'The people of Lot rejected the messengers. Their brother Lot said to them: 'Will you not fear God? I am to you a messenger worthy of all trust. so fear God and obey me. No reward do I ask of you for it. My reward is only from the Lord the of worlds. Of all the creatures of the world will you approach males, and leave those whom God has created for you as mates? Nay. You are people transgressing all limits.' They said: 'If you desist not O Lot, you will surely be cast out!'. He said: 'I do detest your doings. O my Lord! Deliver me and my family from such things as they do.' So we delivered him and his family, all except an old woman who lingered behind. The rest we destroyed utterly. We rained down on them a shower; and evil was the shower on those who were admonished.' (Ash-Sh`ara': 160-173)


The Qur’an also says: 'And Lot who said to his people: 'Do you do what is indecent though you see its iniquity? Would you really approach men in your lusts rather than women? You are a people grossly ignorant.' His people gave no answer but this: 'Drive out the followers of Lot from our city. They are indeed men who want to be clean and pure.' But we saved him and his family except his wife: We destined her to be of those who lagged behind. And We raked down on them a shower: and evil was the shower on those who were admonished.' (An-Naml: 54-58)

Then in surat Hud, we read: 'When our messengers came to Lot, he was grieved on their account and felt himself powerless to protect them. He said: 'This is a distressful day.' His people came rushing towards him and they had been long in the habit of practicing abominations. He said: 'O my people! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if you marry). Now fear God and cover me not with disgrace about my guests! Is there not among you a single tight-minded man?' They, however said: 'You know very well we have no need of your daughters. Indeed you know quite well what we want'. He said: 'Would that I had power to suppress you or that I could betake myself to some powerful support'. (The angels) said: 'O Lot! We are messengers from your Lord! By no means shall they reach you. Now travel with your family while yet a part of the night remains, and let not any of you look back; but your wife, to her will happen what will befall them. Morning is their appointed time. Is not the morning near'. When Our decree issued we turned the cities upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay, spread layer on layer, marked from your Lord. Nor are they ever far from those who do wrong." (Hud 11: 77-83)


Let us see now how the Bible depicts this incident. In Genesis 18, Abraham intercedes for Sodom and the Lord accepts his intercession. Then God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah as in Genesis 19. From these texts we notice that both scriptures (the Qur’an and the Bible) mention that Lot, the Prophet and Messenger of God, advised his people to stop this habit and to return to the natural relationship with their wives. Instead they threatened to expel him and those who followed his advice.


According to the Qur'an, Prophet Lot neither despaired nor gave up. He continued to warn his people against this crime of theirs. He faced a lot of hardships. They began to comment sarcastically that he tried and his followers to be pure. Even his wife was inclined towards them. When these people turned deaf ears to Prophet Lot's call, both sides were put to the test. Almighty Allah sent down a group of angels in form of attractive young men. These angels first entered unto Lot as guests.


As soon as his wife saw them, she immediately told her people about them. They rushed to practice their abominations against the guests. Lot reminded his people once again to refrain from this and not make a scandal for him and his guests. As a matter of fact, until this point of time Lot took the guests for ordinary human beings. To his surprise and relief they told him that they were the Messengers of God and that no harm will be caused to him. He even defended his guests physically; but when every attempt to stop them completely failed, Allah sent His punishment from Heaven. The city was turned upside down and brimstone rain was sent against them so that they all perished along with Lot's wife, their collaborator.

The Glorious Qur’an makes the following comment after this tragedy took place. It says: 'Such a punishment is not far from the unjust ones.' (Yunus: 83), which means that the same fate will happen to those who commit this injustice.


We are also told in the Qur’an that Lot's people used to practice this same sex relationship in public. They saw no harm in looking at each other while doing this. They claimed that it is beyond the capacity or human beings to be pure or clean in this area.

Part of the Qur’anic perspective of the universe is that Allah Almighty controls everything in this world. Being the Creator of life and death, He is also the Sovereign and the legislator. He sends messengers to different peoples from among themselves who are role models as well as conveyers of His message to them. If they listen and obey, this is for their own good in this world and the next. Whatever Allah permits is everything that is good, pure and healthy; and whatever He prohibits us to do, it is also for our own sake. This is how the Ever-Glorious Qur’an looks at this issue of homosexuality. It is against human nature; it is harmful to man and it betrays one basic goal of sex, namely: procreation within the limits of marriage only. That is why it is prohibited to practice homosexuality.


It is really sad to remark here that while the Bible condemns homosexuality, it ascribes to Lot, the Prophet of Allah and His Messenger, that he was given wine by his two daughters and that he committed incest with each of them in the cave to which they resorted. This, the Bible says, took place on two consecutive nights! (See Genesis 19). How can this be said about Allah’s Prophets and their daughters? This is not, however, strange for those who are familiar with the present version or rather versions of the Bible. David, the well-known Prophet and King of Israel, is accused of committing adultery with the wife of Uriah, a military commander of his. Several other crimes are also attributed to sons and daughters of Allah’s Prophets.


In the Qur’an, however, we find the image of all Prophets of Allah to be the best images of obedient slaves of the Almighty. In sura Al-Anbiyaa verse 73 and after, we have the following description of Lot as well as other Prophets: 'And We made them leaders, guiding (men) by Our command; We inspired them to do good deeds, establish regular prayers, and to give alms. They constantly worshipped Us.'


Not only this but the Qur’an specifically describes Lot as follows: 'And to Lot, too, We gave wisdom and knowledge; We saved him from the town which practiced abominations. Truly they were a people given to evil, a rebellious people. And We admitted him to Our mercy; for he was one of the righteous.' (Al-Anbiya':74-75)


Two more points deserve our attention. One is that Islam does not consider sex as a sinful deed. It does not look down on this human instinct. On the contrary, it considers it to be rewarding by Allah provided that it is practiced within the limits of marriage. On this the Prophet of Islam says: 'He who gets married has acquired one half of his faith, so let him fear Allah in the other half.'



Make what you will of it

Schuhart

Jannah wrote: »

Wow, you really are unable to give a straight answer, are you? How sad.

Have you a straight question?

Jannah wrote: »

Make what you will of it

I might be missing something, but that material seems to be from Islamonlin.net rather than a video by Dr Zafir Naik. I'm happy to let anyone else comment in whatever way they want on the stuff above. I'm more specifically interested in whatever material of that particular preacher, relevant to homosexuality, you feel is worthy of note.

All you've posted so far is a video where, inter alia, Dr Zakir suggests that polygamy is a necessary response to the surplus of women created by millions of Western men opting for a gay lifestyle. While that is a self-evidently juvenile opinion, it seems a little tangental to the subject in hand.

Have you any material where the bould Dr takes gays head on.

Kazobel

Stark wrote: »

Next time you post crap like that, it's a ban.

And rightly so, I totally retract that comment. I'm sorry I implied all priest's are Peadophiles or gay. My mind was just disillusioned by 350 million quid worth of law suits agains them... well that and 6 series of Father Ted....

Xavi6

Kazobel wrote: »

And rightly so, I totally retract that comment. I'm sorry I implied all priest's are Peadophiles or gay. My mind was just disillusioned by 350 million quid worth of law suits agains them... well that and 6 series of Father Ted....

There were only three series.

Nerin

God/the Gods do not hate anyone.
its the followers that hate people.
its been this way for countless religions. stupid followers get a stupid idea and things get nasty.


*takes of logical hat*