• 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!

Number of times the word "homosexuality" appears in Baha'i scriptures

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Actually, what I think God prohibits between two men has nothing at all to do with being gay. Straight men do it too, possibly as much as gay men, or maybe even more. In absolute numbers, I would guess that most of the people who do it are straight men, at least in the eyes of people around them.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I realize that plenty of straight men are a little farther up the Kinsey scale than 1. But I'm not sure what behavior you mean.
Tom
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Actually, what I think God prohibits between two men has nothing at all to do with being gay. Straight men do it too, possibly as much as gay men, or maybe even more. In absolute numbers, I would guess that most of the people who do it are straight men, at least in the eyes of people around them.

Yes. Homosexuality is an inaccurate english translation. What befuddles me is seeing the definitions in the bible more relevant for todays medical definitions and views. I understand the message -no lust- but not to understand the concept that homosexuality means actions and has nothing to do with whether someone is gay or straight nor does either have a predisposition to act one way or another.

Its a terrible way to discriminate against people. The bible and other books should use lust actions or sexual promiscuity. Lying down with a male as with a female isnt homosexuality no more than angels raping people and towns going in flames have anything to do with it either. Education issues.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Christian Bible Leviticus 18:22.

Thats not homosexuality. Thats sexual promiscuity. It implies that any person who lies down with a man ad with a woman is committing a sin. None of the verses support homosexuality only one sexual promiscuity between any person and sex outside of marriage nothing more.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
There are six admonishments in the Bible concerning homosexual activity, and our enemies are always throwing them up to us usually in a vicious way and very much out of context. What they don't want us to remember is that there are 362 admonishments in the Bible concerning heterosexual activity. I don't mean to imply by this that God doesn't love straight people, only that they seem to require a great deal more supervision. ~Lynn Lavner, Butch Fatale, 1992
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Christian Bible Leviticus 18:22.
But that's such a vague euphemism.
It doesn't mention actual sex, sex in positions other than lying down, or lesbian.

All of that is interpretation of the euphemism. A literal reading wouldn't apply to a couple of strangers going at it in the park.

This has a lot to do with why I don't trust prophets or Scripture when it comes to morality and ethics.
Tom
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
But that's such a vague euphemism.
It doesn't mention actual sex, sex in positions other than lying down, or lesbian.
Seriously? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Are you taunting me or baiting me? If you are, you're doing a good job of it.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Leviticus is pretty straightforward about what God approves of and what he doesn't. (Leviticus 18:22)
Sodomy was practiced in the city named for it in Abraham's time. The angels that went to escort his nephew Lot and his family out of that depraved city were the target of their wicked intentions. Lot even offered his daughters to the sex crazed mob, knowing full well that heterosexual activity was of no interest to these deviates, but trying to bide time. They were struck blind whilst the angels got them out to safety. (2 Peter 2:6-8; Jude 7) This city served as a warning for things to come.
That story describes attempted same-sex gang rape. It takes a pretty twisted sense of morality to say that the problem was the “same-sex” part and not the “gang rape” part.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Seriously? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Are you taunting me or baiting me? If you are, you're doing a good job of it.
No, I am doing exactly what you suggested. I am using the euphemism used in Leviticus.

I can understand that you prefer to stick to the actual scripture, rather than the interpretation of the scripture. But this is what I read.
Tom
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@adrian009 I'll give you an example of how to say what kinds of sexual behavior you think God has prohibited between two men or two women, without using the word "homosexuality," which I think since the time of Shoghi Effendi has morphed into a grossly ambiguous, grossly misleading, and highly politically charged word, sure to be misunderstood by some people in ways that grievously damage their lives. You can say that you think that in your scriptures God prohibits sexual acts between two women or two men. That's just an example of what you might say, which I think says everything that you say you believe, much more clearly and directly, and with far less harmful consequences than saying that the Baha'i Faith has a prohibition against homosexuality. I'll be trying to explain why I think it's better not to use the word "homosexuality" in public discussions about the sexual prohibitions in Baha'i scriptures, A natural question might be, how else can we say what kinds of sexual behavior we think God has prohibited between two men or two women, and that's an example: We can say that we think that in our scriptures God prohibits sexual acts between two women or two men.

Now, to continue: Do you believe the story that I've seen many people telling, of despising themselves, and feeling despised by others and by God, because of their same-sex temptations, even if they fight to resist them, and even if they succeed in resisting them?
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
That story describes attempted same-sex gang rape. It takes a pretty twisted sense of morality to say that the problem was the “same-sex” part and not the “gang rape” part.

Ever ask yourself questions like "What did Mrs. Lot think about Lot bringing home some good looking strangers? Think about offering her daughters to a mob to protect Lot's new "friends"? What she thought about the city Lot had brought them to?"
And why God turned her into a pillar of salt for wanting to watch God smite that horrible place? Then let Lot take her daughters off into the wilderness and screw them?

Lot is "righteous" and she deserves destruction?

Modern people think that these are the moral paragons, who speak for God?!

:eek::rolleyes:
Tom
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@columbus All right. I'll repeat what I originally said that you questioned, and I'll translate it for you.

"Actually, what I think God prohibits between two men has nothing at all to do with being gay. Straight men do it too, possibly as much as gay men, or maybe even more. In absolute numbers, I would guess that most of the people who do it are straight men, at least in the eyes of people around them."

Translation: Actually, what I think God prohibits between two men has nothing at all to do with being gay. Straight men insert their erect penises into other men's anuses too, possibly as much as gay men do, or maybe even more. In absolute numbers, I would guess that most of the people who insert their erect penises into men's anuses are straight men, at least in the eyes of people around them."

ETA:

I'll revise that last sentence to say "I would guess that most of the people who insert their erect penises into men's anuses are straight men, at least in their eyes and the eyes of people around them."
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Translation: Actually, what I think God prohibits between two men has nothing at all to do with being gay. Straight men insert their penises into other men's anuses too, possibly as much as gay men do, or maybe even more. In absolute numbers, I would guess that most of the people who insert their penises into men's anuses are straight men, at least in the eyes of people around them."
Ah, so you are doing what other people do.
You're interpreting it, not quoting it. Because what it actually says isn't what you believe, so you change it to match your beliefs.

Got it.
Tom
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@adrian009 The reason that it's so popular to use the word "homosexuality" on both sides of the divide over gay issues, in debates about scriptural prohibitions, instead of what the scriptures actually say, might be precisely because of the ambiguity of that word, "homosexuality," which makes it useful for factional purposes. People on both sides want to think that religious scriptures condemn same-sex romantic love and sexual impulses.

ETA:

More precisely, people on the anti-gay side want to think that their scriptures endorse their abhorrence of same-sex romantic love and sexual impulses. People on the anti-scripture side are glad to have another reason for denouncing the scriptures. Substituting the word "homosexuality" in the place of what the scriptures actually say is prohibited serves both those purposes very well at the same time.

This post is not part of my explanation of why I think it's better not to use the word "homosexuality." It was just an angry outburst.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
@adrian I'm still trying to explain to you why I think it's better not to use the word "homosexuality," in public discussions,
Jim... that shows extreme prejudice, doesn't it?
A homosexual is an homosexual, and I don't expect that they would ever care to hide themselves, their partners or their sexuality from the World again.

I would suggest you call a Spade a spade.
When groups, folks, religions and cultures tell homosexuals what they're going to be called, they could well get their hands slapped. :)

For now we can take it as a given that what God prohibits is whatever you would call "sexual acts" between two women or two men.
No Jim, God doesn't, because situations have changed in these times and we don't need to reproduce fast in order to get stronger, like the Israelites needed to, and so same sex couples is/are fine.
This old law, like all the other 507, were facilitators for producing the most successful people around, and there is not one single exception within those 507. Try me.... :)

Do you believe the story that I've seen many people telling, of despising themselves, and feeling despised by others and by God, because of their same-sex temptations, even if they fight to resist them, and even if they succeed in resisting them?
Religions which promote this rubbish need to be left......
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Totally unrealistic daydreaming of someone with delusions of grandeur. The Baha'is have had a miniscule effect on this planet, if any at all.
Vinayaka.........
On many occasions I've noticed that some Bahai members will tick critical posts as 'funny'.
This condition, plus my recent attempts at translating that 'tablet' into meaningful precis gives me an idea.
I think I'll seek mod permission to open a thread on Bahai Tablet translations, possibly in the fun, games section where the 'funny' ticks will be earned, and not chucked.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Vinayaka.........
On many occasions I've noticed that some Bahai members will tick critical posts as 'funny'.
This condition, plus my recent attempts at translating that 'tablet' into meaningful precis gives me an idea.
I think I'll seek mod permission to open a thread on Bahai Tablet translations, possibly in the fun, games section where the 'funny' ticks will be earned, and not chucked.
That sounds like a good idea to me. We could use some comic relief here. At least I could, anyway. I was starting to tense up a lot just now.

ETA:

I keep thinking that you mean some of the things you're saying seriously.
 
Last edited:

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Vinayaka.........
On many occasions I've noticed that some Bahai members will tick critical posts as 'funny'.
This condition, plus my recent attempts at translating that 'tablet' into meaningful precis gives me an idea.
I think I'll seek mod permission to open a thread on Bahai Tablet translations, possibly in the fun, games section where the 'funny' ticks will be earned, and not chucked.


I did that for awhile too, until the mods mentioned it as inappropriate. It is. So although I do find extreme fundamentalism funny in a sense, it's more just plain sad.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
That sounds like a good idea to me. We could use some comic relief here. At least I could, anyway. I was starting to tense up a lot just now.

ETA:

I keep thinking that you mean some of the things you're saying seriously.

Who, me, Jim...... serious?
I'm just a p*ssy-cat, Jim. :p

What does your ETA mean? To me it means 'estimated time of arrival'. I keep looking out of the window for you..... :D
 
Top