Does God Hate...?

homer911

New "Religious" programme starting on RTE1 on Sunday at 10:30 pm

Of course there is nothing to be found on their website...

Found this on the Radio Times site:

Marian Finucane hosts a new series of discussions in which people from a variety of faiths offer their perspective on controversial religious issues. The panel of David Norris, David Quinn, Brenda Power and Roisin Boyd explore religion's treatment of sex and sexuality, looking at sexual repression, monogamy, sex crimes, adultery and attitudes towards homosexuality.

A gay anglican, a former editor of the Catholic Standard, a catholic barrister turned journalist and a media officer - cant wait!

Heaven help us if David Norris is representing the protestant perspective!

PS - the thread title is the title of the programme

robindch

homer911 wrote: »

the thread title is the title of the programme

...which was possibly lifted from Ophelia Benson's recent book, Does God Hate Women?

Linus67

Why would RTE get David Norris to be a panelist on a Religious programme? A homosexual lifestyle hardly promotes Religious morality. What input could he possibly offer?

Zombrex

The discussion does God hate is a bit of a false start.

The question does God hate homosexuals, or does God hate women, or does God hate shellfish is some what illogical.

People can claim that the authors of the Bible hated these things and thus used the authority of God to justify that.

But to say that God hates homosexuals, or even homosexuality, is paradoxical given the definition of God. So if you believe God exists you can't really say he hates anything. Even the idea that God hates sin doesn't make much sense (before anyone chooses to misinterpret that I'm not saying God likes or approves of sin)

God knows everything, and thus knows what is good for us and what is not good for us. It would be matter of fact for God. God would no more hate homosexuality than a mother would hate her child not wearing a helmet while riding a bike.

So the question of hate only really applies if you are coming from the position of not believing that God actually exists, either entirely or as defined by Christianity.

It is another reason why I think people turn atheist

Linus67

Wicknight wrote: »

The discussion does God hate is a bit of a false start.

The question does God hate homosexuals, or does God hate women, or does God hate shellfish is some what illogical.

People can claim that the authors of the Bible hated these things and thus used the authority of God to justify that.

But to say that God hates homosexuals, or even homosexuality, is paradoxical given the definition of God. So if you believe God exists you can't really say he hates anything. Even the idea that God hates sin doesn't make much sense (before anyone chooses to misinterpret that I'm not saying God likes or approves of sin)

God knows everything, and thus knows what is good for us and what is not good for us. It would be matter of fact for God. God would no more hate homosexuality than a mother would hate her child not wearing a helmet while riding a bike.

So the question of hate only really applies if you are coming from the position of not believing that God actually exists, either entirely or as defined by Christianity.

It is another reason why I think people turn atheist

God does not hate homosexuals. God loves everyone.

Zombrex

Linus67 wrote: »

God does not hate homosexuals. God loves everyone.

Well yes, that was my point.

People say things like "Look at what God says here, isn't that hateful"

The response is No it isn't hateful because God always does things for good reasons.

It is illogical to suppose that God hates something or someone, he simply knows best.

The issue whether these concepts are hateful are not is a different question, and how you approach that depends on whether you believe in God or not. I think Christian attitudes towards homosexuals for example are hateful, but then I don't believe they have the authority of God to back them up. If I did it would be illogical to say that it is hateful.

This is why it is somewhat illogical to say that Christians hate homosexuality or homosexuals. They don't, they are simply repeating what they have been told by someone who they believe knows best. It is no more hateful for a Christian to say homosexuality is wrong than it is for a person to say you shouldn't mix pills with alcohol.

It is the underlying assertion that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and therefore when Christians say there is they must be saying it out of hateful feelings, that is where the idea that Christians hate homosexuals comes from, but that underlying assertion assumes God doesn't exist in the first place (thus Christians are wrong), but then what is the point of asking does God hate homosexuals as if he were real.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

It is the underlying assertion that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and therefore when Christians say there is they must be saying it out of hateful feelings, that is where the idea that Christians hate homosexuals comes from, but that underlying assertion assumes God doesn't exist in the first place (thus Christians are wrong), but then what is the point of asking does God hate homosexuals as if he were real.

No, we say it out of the knowledge that God has decreed it so, not out of hate.

The rest of your assertion makes no sense.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

So the question of hate only really applies if you are coming from the position of not believing that God actually exists, either entirely or as defined by Christianity.

So you can only be an atheist to engage with the question. All other answers should be dismissed? How open-minded of you?

I think a case could be made from either side.

Why is it that every discussion that you engage in on this forum results in: Listen to me, I'm right, your opinion doesn't count and is wrong.

As for the idea of God hating sin, that might be a better place to start, as I would hold this position myself. Indeed, we are told to hate what is evil and hold fast to what is good in the New Testament.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No, we say it out of the knowledge that God has decreed it so, not out of hate.

Yes (again) that is my point.

The argument that God hates homosexuals, or Christianity hates homosexuals, has an underlying assumption that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, thus the Christian instruction not to do it is motived simply by hatred.

You could equally phrase the question "Do does God hate homosexuality when there is nothing wrong with it?"

That is illogical, since (as you say) it is not motivated by hatred it is motivated by a sincere belief that God knows what is best. If a person starts from a position that God doesn't know best or isn't real then they are not starting from the same page as a Christian, thus the answer to the question is going to be distorted by the bias of the person asking it.

The question then is starting off with the assumption that God isn't actually real, which makes the question itself some what pointless.

It is like asking Why do you go out with your girlfriend when she is so stupid? The person can't answer that question without accepting the initial premise that the girlfriend is stupid. A Christian has to accept the premise that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and then answer the question in that context, which becomes oxymoronic for most Christians who believe God has told us there is something wrong with it.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Why is it that every discussion that you engage in on this forum results in: Listen to me, I'm right, your opinion doesn't count and is wrong.

Sorry come again?

I wasn't aware you had expressed an opinion yet ...?

How am I ignoring you and saying you are wrong when you haven't done that yet?

MatthewVII

tbh, I think Wicknight is right on the money. To suppose that 'God' hates somehting (homosexuals, sin etc) is surely incompatible with what 'God' is meant to be (a perfect being who does not hate, only has pure and perfect love etc). For anyone to be arguing about what 'God' hates is to fundamentally misunderstand what 'God' is, or to br willfully ignorant of it. Makes for better TV I guess.

Zombrex

It is sort of like asking is God dead.

There is an implication in the question that God never actually existed in the first place, and it is in fact the concept of God you are talking about.

To genuinely ask is God dead is to, as you say, misunderstand the concept in the first place

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

tbh, I think Wicknight is right on the money. To suppose that 'God' hates somehting (homosexuals, sin etc) is surely incompatible with what 'God' is meant to be (a perfect being who does not hate, only has pure and perfect love etc). For anyone to be arguing about what 'God' hates is to fundamentally misunderstand what 'God' is, or to br willfully ignorant of it. Makes for better TV I guess.

I don't think God never hates. I would consider that God hates our sin, and seeks so desperately for us to overcome it that He provided the sacrifice of all sacrifice so that we may be separated from our sin forever.

I don't think the Bible even says that God never hates anything.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think God never hates. I would consider that God hates our sin, and seeks so desperately for us to overcome it that He provided the sacrifice of all sacrifice so that we may be separated from our sin forever.

I don't think the Bible even says that God never hates anything.

You're right, it explicity states he hates a lot of things, like divorce, graven images etc. The thing is that the idea of 'God' as he is in the Old and New testaments has undergone so much revamping over the years, from Jealous God/Vengeful God to whatever fuzzy image some people think of these days that depending on the upbringing and personal beliefs of the panelists, they may have completely different ideas on the degree to which 'God' can hate.

Of course, the exercise is completely pointless no matter what way you look at it, but it might be a nice way of highlighting percieved inconsistencies and other things in the Bible that your common garden ovine Christian may have missed.

AtomicHorror

Linus67 wrote: »

Why would RTE get David Norris to be a panelist on a Religious programme? A homosexual lifestyle hardly promotes Religious morality.

That depends on the religion I guess. Or does Religion with an "R" mean something specific to you? There are plenty of openly homosexual people who consider themselves Christian. Not sure if Norris is religious, but perhaps that's the slant they're going for. Sounds to me like they'd have a very important input into that particular debate.

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think the Bible even says that God never hates anything.

Depends on your bible. I had one as a kid which said something like "a man shall not lie with another man, God hates that".

I think some other translations substitute "it is an abomination".

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

"it is an abomination".

...which is interesting in itself, since it suggests that there's an external something or other which defining what's an abomination, rather than having god do it. The "it is an abomination" text comes from King James, while the more modern translations render it as "for it is an enormous sin", maintaining the suggestion.

Plato covered the origin of moral thought, and whether or not it originates with a deity, in his Euthyphro, after whom the eponymous dilemma is named.

philologos

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Depends on your bible. I had one as a kid which said something like "a man shall not lie with another man, God hates that".

I think some other translations substitute "it is an abomination".

Yes, the more literal translations include "That is an abomination". That's the closest to the original Hebrew. The contemporary translations include "God hates that".

The ESV and the NRSV fall into the first camp, the Good News into the second.

PDN

There's plenty of things that God hates.

There are no people that God hates.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

There's plenty of things that God hates.

There are no people that God hates.

Have to say, I don't get this. Again, this may be an ignorant view of mine, but I never quite understood why God could not 'hate' a person. Those who he judges wicked and condemns to 'hell', what does he feel about them? I know why 'we' should not hate someone, but God, being defined as 'Good', surely 'Hates' those who he condemns?

Linus67

God hates the sin and not the sinner.

Linus67

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There are plenty of openly homosexual people who consider themselves Christian.

One cannot be a homosexual and a Christian. A homosexual can masquerade as one but their deviant behavior spits in the face of Jesus.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Have to say, I don't get this. Again, this may be an ignorant view of mine, but I never quite understood why God could not 'hate' a person. Those who he judges wicked and condemns to 'hell', what does he feel about them? I know why 'we' should not hate someone, but God, being defined as 'Good', surely 'Hates' those who he condemns?

The Bible says God does not want anyone to perish, but wants everyone to repent and to receive eternal life.

Jimi, think of a judge who has to condemn his son for some terrible crime. He may hate the crime his son has committed, but that does not equate to him hating his son.

PDN

Linus67 wrote: »

One cannot be a homosexual and a Christian. A homosexual can masquerade as one but their deviant behavior spits in the face of Jesus.

I can see where this is going.

A thread on homosexuality already is running here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055666008

If anyone wants to respond to Linus' comments, or if he wants to make similar comments, then please take them there to avoid this thread being hijacked or derailed. It might be good to read the 268 posts already in that thread to familiarise yourself with the debate and to avoid us going over the same old stuff yet again.

Any more posts regarding homosexuality in this thread will be deleted.

AtomicHorror

Linus67 wrote: »

One cannot be a homosexual and a Christian. A homosexual can masquerade as one but their deviant behavior spits in the face of Jesus.

As PDN says, there's a thread for this. As I understand it, it's completely possible to be homosexual and Christian even by the most conservative definition. Being gay does not mean that one practices a homosexual lifestyle. You're equating two related concepts one of which is a sexual orientation the other which is considered a sin. A rookie mistake. You yourself even said:

Linus67 wrote: »

God hates the sin and not the sinner.

Anyway try reading my post again, rather than embarrassing yourself with such fearful knee-jerk responses. I said that there are homosexuals who "consider themselves Christians". Whether you (or I) consider them to be so is not the point at all. The point is that the matter under debate on the show regards homosexuality and Christian faith, so Norris may well have a perfectly valid position in that debate.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

The Bible says God does not want anyone to perish, but wants everyone to repent and to receive eternal life

What does this 'Want' mean? God can change hearts. God, like with Saul/Paul, can directly intervene with Man. Such things could save many a man, so it naturally follows to ask, what this wanting actually consists of? We see in Jesus' time, that God intervened in the hearts of the apostles, while he hardened the hearts of others. How do we reconcile this?

Jimi, think of a judge who has to condemn his son for some terrible crime. He may hate the crime his son has committed, but that does not equate to him hating his son.

Not stictly no, but it obviously can. If that judge knows that his Son is actually Wicked, rather than has done a wicked thing would this not be so?

The bible speaks of some folk as being sons of the devil, i.e. that the devil is their father. Also Revelation speaks of a fairly revelrous occasion when the blood of the wicked is poured out. Alot of language used towards those deemed 'BY GOD' as wicked (an important distinction), seems to be quite distinct in its Chrachter. If we take the below definition, from Dictionary.com, i don't think Gods view of the wicked is too far off.

Hate: to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward


I realise I'm a bit devils advocate here, I'm just probing further into the belief that god does not Hate 'anyone'. I suppose, a follow up question is, 'Is there an issue associated with God hating who he deems wicked.' Come to think of it, we are all wicked in our iniquity, and its not from lack of wickedness we are saved but from faith. However, questions still remain about this 'wanting all to be saved'.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

What does this 'Want' mean? God can change hearts. God, like with Saul/Paul, can directly intervene with Man. Such things could save many a man, so it naturally follows to ask, what this wanting actually consists of? We see in Jesus' time, that God intervened in the hearts of the apostles, while he hardened the hearts of others. How do we reconcile this?

We reconcile it with our belief that God has given us free will.

The idea that God's will always comes to pass and all we can do is submit to it is not a Christian doctrine - it is rather that of Islam.

Not stictly no, but it obviously can. If that judge knows that his Son is actually Wicked, rather than has done a wicked thing would this not be so?

No, it wouldn't be so. If my daughter did some very wicked things I would be terribly grieved, I would hand her over to the cops to suffer the consequences of her actions, but I wouldn't stop loving her.

Remember also that we are all wicked. God knows that I am wicked, even if I have accepted His undeserved offer of salvation.

Soul Winner

God hates lots of stuff and people too, I really hope He hates A**H*LES becuase I do not want to spend eternity with them. Anyway some scripture to show that the God of the Old and New Testament hates stuff:


"You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods." Deuteronomy 12:31


"These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." Proverbs 6:16-19



"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty." Malachi 2:16


"...and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the LORD your God hates." Deuteronomy 16:22


"...Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Romans 9:13


"But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate." Revelation 2:6


Who were the Nicolaitanes?

chozometroid

Soul Winner wrote: »

God hates lots of stuff and people too, I really hope He hates A**H*LES becuase I do not want to spend eternity with them.

Jesus says to love your enemies. You're supposed to pray for these "A**H*LES" and hope they change their ways. You are no better than them. We are all imperfect and have our faults. There are always reasons behind people's actions, and always the potential for their eyes to be opened.
Whoever God allows to spend eternity with Him is certainly worthy of it. I think it is wrong to hope God hates someone, as well as hoping a certain person would not make it to heaven.
I hope God loves A**H*LES, because I currently lack the love needed to deal with them. Maybe I think I'm a super nice person, but someone may have gotten the impression that I'm an A**H*LE at some point?.....I would hope not.

Matthew 5:43-48 (King James Version)

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Stephentlig

anyone who has the sense to walk away from that are right in their doing so. Watching it or taking part in it would only give it legs. It's just another one of those ''I hate God'' programs.I certainly wont be watching it, I refuse to pay the wages of people with such intentions.

Soul Winner

chozometroid wrote: »

Jesus says to love your enemies. You're supposed to pray for these "A**H*LES" and hope they change their ways. You are no better than them. We are all imperfect and have our faults. There are always reasons behind people's actions, and always the potential for their eyes to be opened.
Whoever God allows to spend eternity with Him is certainly worthy of it. I think it is wrong to hope God hates someone, as well as hoping a certain person would not make it to heaven.
I hope God loves A**H*LES, because I currently lack the love needed to deal with them. Maybe I think I'm a super nice person, but someone may have gotten the impression that I'm an A**H*LE at some point?.....I would hope not.

Matthew 5:43-48 (King James Version)

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The point I was making was that God hates things. I can pray for A**H*L*S all night but I really hope that if they make it in that it's because they are not A**H*L*S anymore due to a change in mind and behavior as a result of some faith filling them with the Holy Spirit. I really hope God doesn't let them in until He has changed them to be more like Jesus. Could you imagine spending eternity with unchanged A**H*L*S. I really don't want that. Heck, by then I hope to be much less of the A**H*L* than I currently am too :pac:

chozometroid

Soul Winner wrote: »

I really hope God doesn't let them in until He has changed them to be more like Jesus. Could you imagine spending eternity with unchanged A**H*L*S. I really don't want that. Heck, by then I hope to be much less of the A**H*L* that I currently am too :pac:

We both know there are no A**H*L*S in heaven. :pac::p

JimiTime

homer911 wrote: »

New "Religious" programme starting on RTE1 on Sunday at 10:30 pm

Of course there is nothing to be found on their website...

Found this on the Radio Times site:

Marian Finucane hosts a new series of discussions in which people from a variety of faiths offer their perspective on controversial religious issues. The panel of David Norris, David Quinn, Brenda Power and Roisin Boyd explore religion's treatment of sex and sexuality, looking at sexual repression, monogamy, sex crimes, adultery and attitudes towards homosexuality.

A gay anglican, a former editor of the Catholic Standard, a catholic barrister turned journalist and a media officer - cant wait!

Heaven help us if David Norris is representing the protestant perspective!

PS - the thread title is the title of the programme

Watched the first one last night: Does God hate Sex?.
Firstly, what an awful question to begin with
Secondly, what a steaming pile it was. Awful panelists, especially Brenda Power. What an absolute moron! The only two I found that would actually be good in a discussion were the journalist on the left (name escapes me), and the Muslim guy. The programme is waaaay too ambitious, trying to take in the views of the major religions as well as discussing the topic all in half an hour. Add to that, the awful panel and well, it was a complete non event. RTE, can they get ANYTHING right?!

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Watched the first one last night: Does God hate Sex?.
Firstly, what an awful question to begin with
Secondly, what a steaming pile it was. Awful panelists, especially Brenda Power. What an absolute moron! The only two I found that would actually be good in a discussion were the journalist on the left (name escapes me), and the Muslim guy. The programme is waaaay too ambitious, trying to take in the views of the major religions as well as discussing the topic all in half an hour. Add to that, the awful panel and well, it was a complete non event. RTE, can they get ANYTHING right?!

I totally agree Jimi, it descenced into the usual chaos and rambling nonsense and add to that the sneering from David Norris. Apart from David Quinn (who seems to be the sole Catholic voice these days), that panel was totally incompetent. Very lightweight stuff.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

I totally agree Jimi, it descenced into the usual chaos and rambling nonsense and add to that the sneering from David Norris. Apart from David Quinn (who seems to be the sole Catholic voice these days), that panel was totally incompetent. Very lightweight stuff.

I turned it off after 5 minutes.

Brenda Power? The one redeeming feature of Tom Dunne's awful radio show on Newstalk is that he's marginally better than Brenda Power (who used to be on that morning slot). What she knows about religion could obviously be written on the back of a postage stamp.

JimiTime

It really is a shame how poor it was. Though with its tabloid title, it was to be expected. I have to be honest though, I didn't think it would be quite so bad. Even the set and camera work was shoddy, not that it would have mattered if the show had some substance. However, as it had no redeeming qualities, it just testifies to the cack-handed incompetance of the makers. €180 licence fee!!! Muppets!

philologos

There was a complete lack of etiquette throughout with David Quinn and the Islamic theology scholar being cut off. There was also a clear bias towards liberal views on sexuality, and there was absolutely no reference to Scripture apart from the Sodom and Gomorrah incident in the Bible.

Nobody was given an opportunity to respond to what the Jewish lady said concerning Christian sexual ethics saying that Christians regard sex as a sin which is completely dishonest.

Overall I think a lot of people could have been left illinformed about Christian sexual ethics after this.

I think the CoI guy made sense, but I think that he did compromise Christian belief in what he said. Watering things down might be received well, but ultimately it isn't a good option. It leaves more people confused than not.

Min

David Quinn was the only decent person on the panel, the other three were lacking knowledge which is maybe what RTE wanted.....suits a certain agenda and it was bad how they at times shouted down Mr Quinn when he tried to make good points that didn't suit....

dvpower

Not sure about the RTE conspiracy but it was a rubbish program.

If it was a bit longer and they gave the panellists time to develop points and narrowed the focus of the topic and had better panellists and...

JimiTime

dvpower wrote: »

Not sure about the RTE conspiracy but it was a rubbish program.

If it was a bit longer and they gave the panellists time to develop points and narrowed the focus of the topic and had better panellists and...

Ha ha:D Exactly. Its awful that a concept so simple was handled so incompetantly. Again, I'll bang my drum about RTE being an absolute joke!

Soul Winner

Sounds awful. Glad I missed it so.

Turtwig

Gawdddd that was awful, I just hope that they don't debate atheism:o


A question that struck me was aren't Christians and Jews following the same commandments? B Power referred to them as being disproportionately represented by Christians...are they not Jewish too? Or do Christians view them slightly different???

ironingbored

Jakkass wrote: »

There was a complete lack of etiquette throughout with the Islamic theology scholar being cut off.

I found this man and his arguments utterly incompatible with a civilised democratic society.

ironingbored

Min wrote: »

David Quinn was the only decent person on the panel, the other three were lacking knowledge which is maybe what RTE wanted.....suits a certain agenda and it was bad how they at times shouted down Mr Quinn when he tried to make good points that didn't suit....

Except maybe for his defence of the indefensible stance the Pope has on condoms in Africa.

JimiTime

ironingbored wrote: »

I found this man and his arguments utterly incompatible with a civilised democratic society.

TBH, While we got a brief jist of his 'views', he wasn't given a chance to 'argue'. I don't know if he was saying stoning should be carried out in this modern age, or if he was justifying it for another age or what his views or arguements for such views really were. He certainly did not seem to compromise his religion, but at the same time, he didn't really get a chance to expand on anything he said. Utter rubbish the programme was. I'd say its a pity it didn't get a chance to be discussed, but with that panel, its probably better it didn't.

ironingbored wrote: »

Except maybe for his defence of the indefensible stance the Pope has on condoms in Africa.

Again, you can't take from that programme what his view was. I certainly didn't take from it that he was a 'Condoms are bad' stance. I took from it, he was saying they are not the miricle cure that so many seem to push. He didn't go anti-condom, he seemed to be pro-fidelity. He reiterated, 'behaviour'. Again though, it was all breezed over in about 5 minutes, so neither you or I can truly say we know what he represents from that programme.

philologos

ironingbored wrote: »

I found this man and his arguments utterly incompatible with a civilised democratic society.

Fidelity is incompatible with a democratic society? What nonsense!

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Fidelity is incompatible with a democratic society? What nonsense!

*Whispers*
Pssst Jakkass,

Ironingbored was refering to the islamic theologian not Dave Quinn;)

philologos

The Islamic theologian was fairly good also to be honest with you, with the exception of the death penalty. Again, he wasn't allowed to speak fully though due to impolite company.

ironingbored

Jakkass wrote: »

The Islamic theologian was fairly good also to be honest with you, with the exception of the death penalty. Again, he wasn't allowed to speak fully though due to impolite company.

Yeah, apparently Hitler was a great guy to have at a party.

Jakkass wrote: »

with the exception of the death penalty

Please tell me you didn't write that! Or think it!

ironingbored

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, he wasn't allowed to speak fully though due to impolite company.

WTF? :eek: (Excuse the language)

I thank Zeus that he wasn't given more time to air his odious message.

I'd have him on the first plane back to Mecca.

JimiTime

ironingbored wrote: »

WTF? :eek: (Excuse the language)

I thank Zeus that he wasn't given more time to air his odious message.

I'd have him on the first plane back to Mecca.

You sound like you would have suited the panel:pac: