• 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!

Homosexuality and religious.

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
How do you come to that conclusion?

Simple. Take say a stone, a piece of rock. That is independent of brain. Morality is not, because it is an individual process in brains, that has no brain independent properties. You can't show morality using external sensory experience.
Or if you like you can't see good or bad. You feel it and I can feel differently.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Simple. Take say a stone, a piece of rock. That is independent of brain. Morality is not, because it is an individual process in brains, that has no brain independent properties. You can't show morality using external sensory experience.
Or if you like you can't see good or bad. You feel it and I can feel differently.
I think you are conflating the experience with the process that produces the experience. Or maybe not -- what are you talking about when you say 'morality'? What is that?
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Morality is in effect without reason, evidence and/or God.
The evaluation of an act by a human as to whether you consider it right/good or wrong/bad.
I am ignoring the god part for the moment. What do you make evaluation made upon, if not reason* or evidence.

*BTW, I am interpreting your use of reason to refer to ratiocination, as opposed to 'a cause'. If I am hearing you incorrectly, please say so.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I am ignoring the god part for the moment. What do you make evaluation made upon, if not reason* or evidence.

*BTW, I am interpreting your use of reason to refer to ratiocination, as opposed to 'a cause'. If I am hearing you incorrectly, please say so.

Then do the following. Imagine you witness the killing of one human by another houman. Now use reason and evidence to decide if it is good or bad.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I am ignoring the god part for the moment. What do you make evaluation made upon, if not reason* or evidence.

*BTW, I am interpreting your use of reason to refer to ratiocination, as opposed to 'a cause'. If I am hearing you incorrectly, please say so.
If you ignoring the good, aren't you then only after creating chaos ?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sadly, some adherents of some religions have to rely on an archaic book for such decisions, and by the rules of that faith, and feel they have to adhere to its laws, however Draconian they might be. From that, I can easily see why a person might conclude any member of certain religions to be homophobic.

I think that the argument is that the religion teaches homophobia, not that every adherent is equally receptive to that teaching or it informs his behavior the same way. This thread is a nice example of many Baha'i who credibly claim that they hold no malice for homosexuals, yet promote a homophobic doctrine whenever they say that their religion teaches that homosexuality is forbidden, even though they can't give a better reason for that than God says so. It's understood that they agree that this homophobic judgment must be moral if their god holds it even if they can't give any better reason for it being moral than that their god says so, even if they don't share that animus viscerally.

How often do we read, "You can't blame every Christian [or whatever] for what some do"? Antitheists answer, "We don't. We condemn the religion that teaches that dogma to the fraction receptive to it."

Something doesn't seem right about people having desires for sex and acting on these desires just because that have the desires...I do not believe in having sex out of wedlock. I never believed that was right, even before I became a Baha'i. It did not come from religion because I was not raised in a religious home.

People are asking you to examine why you feel that way. You say that some of these attitudes predate your entry into religion, which, if I understood you correctly, means that you don't think those sentiments come from religion. Not directly if you weren't being taught, "God teaches us such-and-such," but somebody put that notion in your head - parent, aunt, teacher - who served as a vector for a judgment that had to begin with somebody deeming something immoral and saying that a god told them that. That's what gods are for in the hands of clergy - to give their imprimatur to human commands.

When I went from Christianity back into atheism and secular humanism, and had a clearer understanding between the difference between the ideas I had imbibed uncritically and the ones that were based in experience, and why I wanted to purge the former from my mental map of the world, I began to systematically question why I believed the things I believed, and if I couldn't find a good reason for the belief, jettisoned it. This happened with sexual mores of Christianity, most of which were simply irrational or served a former time and place better than mine.

Most of these sexuality laws are based in inheritance (which children are the father's?) and the need to continually replenish the human stock in a world where infant mortality, maternal death, infection, and war depleted populations. Such people would oppose any practice that allowed fertile wombs to remain empty (refusing sex with a husband, rhythm method, homosexuality, masturbation, divorce, and later, birth control and abortion even when the world had changed and now overpopulation was the problem).

It's easy to see where these ideas came from and why, and they no longer make sense or serve any purpose. And who will be the vector for them into the future? People repeating ancient moral codes without knowing why.

I am not passing any moral judgments on anyone. To each his or her own. I am only responsible for my own behavior and I go by what is in the Baha'i Writings.

This is what all of the Baha'i posting here are saying, but it doesn't ring true to others. When you say that you go by the Baha'i teachings, you are endorsing them as good and moral. Think of the American with a Confederate flag who says, "I don't endorse slavery, racism, or civil war." Well, yeah, you do, whatever it is you actually believe and feel.

Earlier, you wrote to a Christian who was tolerant of fornication, "So you are not opposed to sex out of wedlock? How can you justify that position given what the Bible says?" I guess that you don't see that that is passing moral judgment. You might say, "I only asked a question, not made a judgment," but I would disagree. Simply mentioning that his holy book forbids that behavior as Christians understand its dogma is a moral punch in the shoulder. One could ask the Baha'i posting here the same regarding their apparent tolerance of homosexuality while carrying water for the Baha'i faith.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe that Baha’u’llah was sent by God and what He teaches is best for us. Morality and immorality for me is defined by the God Who created us.

That is a statement of divine command theory, which defines moral and immoral according to what it is said that a deity has said and done. Is that really the best way to decide such things? Isn't it the basis of the Baha'is moral conundrum here - being saddled with an irrational idea about morality that conflict with their own consciences such that they all stand back from it? Wouldn't it be healthier to get your moral direction from the application of reason to one's own conscience and just agree with the humanists and dharmics that this is not a moral issue as your conscience instructs? Aren't you being asked to defy your better nature?

Are you aware that the teaching isn't say it is wrong to be homosexual it only say to practice the act is not what a religious person should do to follow Gods law.

Are you aware that that statement says that homosexuality is wrong immediately after denying that it says that?

A religious person should not condemn the person.

You condone the religion condemning others. You a Bahai' That implies that either you think that it's a moral system of beliefs, or that you don't care if it contains immoral dicta. You don't have to feel anything negative about gays or to make any derogatory judgment for that to be the case. You all balk at that as if you can resolve the matter by saying that you don't feel hatred, but that isn't the claim anyway. it's that you spread it when you spread religions that teach it.

Beyond doubt??? Oh wow.....that must be only within you then

Yes, beyond doubt. He's talking about in the minds of critical thinkers. He wrote, "it has now been established beyond doubt that Bahai teachings contain homophobia." It doesn't matter to people who can look at evidence and not have it scrubbed by a faith-based confirmation bias set to "my god cannot be a bigot" that the faithful cannot do that. That's a complaint of antitheists - that religion does this to so many people. It makes them think this way, which hurts people.

It actually only ask Baha'is to not take part in the act. A Baha'i can be born as homosexual and still practice within the Baha'i teaching and law. And it does not say a Baha'i can't live with a person who is homosexual or Bi-sexual.

It says that homosexuality is unacceptable to your god, a god you trust and respect. Your god is a good guy, right? If he says that homosexuality is wrong, it means that active homosexuals are in violation of the perfect morals of a perfectly moral deity, right? You don't have to answer, nor would you have. It is implied in your Baha'idom.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I think that the argument is that the religion teaches homophobia, not that every adherent is equally receptive to that teaching or it informs his behavior the same way. This thread is a nice example of many Baha'i who credibly claim that they hold no malice for homosexuals, yet promote a homophobic doctrine whenever they say that their religion teaches that homosexuality is forbidden, even though they can't give a better reason for that than God says so. It's understood that they agree that this homophobic judgment must be moral if their god holds it even if they can't give any better reason for it being moral than that their god says so, even if they don't share that animus viscerally.

How often do we read, "You can't blame every Christian [or whatever] for what some do"? Antitheists answer, "We don't. We condemn the religion that teaches that dogma to the fraction receptive to it."



People are asking you to examine why you feel that way. You say that some of these attitudes predate your entry into religion, which, if I understood you correctly, means that you don't think those sentiments come from religion. Not directly if you weren't being taught, "God teaches us such-and-such," but somebody put that notion in your head - parent, aunt, teacher - who served as a vector for a judgment that had to begin with somebody deeming something immoral and saying that a god told them that. That's what gods are for in the hands of clergy - to give their imprimatur to human commands.

When I went from Christianity back into atheism and secular humanism, and had a clearer understanding between the difference between the ideas I had imbibed uncritically and the ones that were based in experience, and why I wanted to purge the former from my mental map of the world, I began to systematically question why I believed the things I believed, and if I couldn't find a good reason for the belief, jettisoned it. This happened with sexual mores of Christianity, most of which were simply irrational or served a former time and place better than mine.

Most of these sexuality laws are based in inheritance (which children are the father's?) and the need to continually replenish the human stock in a world where infant mortality, maternal death, infection, and war depleted populations. Such people would oppose any practice that allowed fertile wombs to remain empty (refusing sex with a husband, rhythm method, homosexuality, masturbation, divorce, and later, birth control and abortion even when the world had changed and now overpopulation was the problem).

It's easy to see where these ideas came from and why, and they no longer make sense or serve any purpose. And who will be the vector for them into the future? People repeating ancient moral codes without knowing why.



This is what all of the Baha'i posting here are saying, but it doesn't ring true to others. When you say that you go by the Baha'i teachings, you are endorsing them as good and moral. Think of the American with a Confederate flag who says, "I don't endorse slavery, racism, or civil war." Well, yeah, you do, whatever it is you actually believe and feel.

Earlier, you wrote to a Christian who was tolerant of fornication, "So you are not opposed to sex out of wedlock? How can you justify that position given what the Bible says?" I guess that you don't see that that is passing moral judgment. You might say, "I only asked a question, not made a judgment," but I would disagree. Simply mentioning that his holy book forbids that behavior as Christians understand its dogma is a moral punch in the shoulder. One could ask the Baha'i posting here the same regarding their apparent tolerance of homosexuality while carrying water for the Baha'i faith.

I concur. A common theme in Bahaispeak is contradicting messages that only the Baha'i can't see, while others feel them to be obvious.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
That is a statement of divine command theory, which defines moral and immoral according to what it is said that a deity has said and done. Is that really the best way to decide such things? Isn't it the basis of the Baha'is moral conundrum here - being saddled with an irrational idea about morality that conflict with their own consciences such that they all stand back from it? Wouldn't it be healthier to get your moral direction from the application of reason to one's own conscience and just agree with the humanists and dharmics that this is not a moral issue as your conscience instructs? Aren't you being asked to defy your better nature?



Are you aware that that statement says that homosexuality is wrong immediately after denying that it says that?



You condone the religion condemning others. You a Bahai' That implies that either you think that it's a moral system of beliefs, or that you don't care if it contains immoral dicta. You don't have to feel anything negative about gays or to make any derogatory judgment for that to be the case. You all balk at that as if you can resolve the matter by saying that you don't feel hatred, but that isn't the claim anyway. it's that you spread it when you spread religions that teach it.



Yes, beyond doubt. He's talking about in the minds of critical thinkers. He wrote, "it has now been established beyond doubt that Bahai teachings contain homophobia." It doesn't matter to people who can look at evidence and not have it scrubbed by a faith-based confirmation bias set to "my god cannot be a bigot" that the faithful cannot do that. That's a complaint of antitheists - that religion does this to so many people. It makes them think this way, which hurts people.



It says that homosexuality is unacceptable to your god, a god you trust and respect. Your god is a good guy, right? If he says that homosexuality is wrong, it means that active homosexuals are in violation of the perfect morals of a perfectly moral deity, right? You don't have to answer, nor would you have. It is implied in your Baha'idom.
I as a human would not take part in a homosexual act. No matter if I wasn't religious or since I am religious.

If others do it, that is up to them.

As a Baha'i it guides me to not take part in a homosexual act. So no, it isn't any different for me as a human being.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
For determining if an action is moral? I use the moral metrics of empathy, equity, cooperation and reciprocity.

You?

They are not objective, so evidence doesn't apply.
I also use those as you do, but we may have different understandings of what they actually are and how they work.
 
Top