Homosexuality and religious.

[Trailblazer]

It has defined adultery as being sex outside the marriage of a man and a woman.

Therefore if two men (for example) have sex and tell anyone they did they will be fined as adulterers.

This is obvious and I think you are just being willfully in denial about it.

No, I just didn't know it was considered adultery.

 

[danieldemol]

Do you have a reference or link?

My apologies, I could not find one with the UHoJ acknowledging indoctrination as valid. I seem to have misremembered.

But the Universal House of Justice if it opposes indoctrination only does so for marketing reasons.
Consider this Baha'i website;
Does Religion Help or Hamper Children Spiritually?

It starts out referencing the recovering Catholic/Jew, one of whom claims to be recovering from, "“A lifetime of indoctrination, which made it hard for me to think for myself.”

It then references the 19th century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer who summarized the basic concept of indoctrination;

'If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one’s own existence. – On Religion: A Dialogue'

It then begins to explain that for Baha'is it is not to do indoctrination, but rather, "While the children are yet in their infancy feed them from the breast of heavenly grace" and goes on to explain that this includes, "Schools must first train the children in the principles of religion, so that the Promise and the Threat recorded in the Books of God may prevent them from the things forbidden and adorn them with the mantle of the commandments"

The irony of saying we should do this but not indoctrinate them seems to be lost on the author of the article.

Teaching children that the principles of religion are true and that the promise and threat of God are true sure sounds like indoctrination to me.

In my opinion.

 

[PruePhillip]

I think you misunderstand their motives. When a marginalised, oppressed group is trying to obtain some measure of equality and justice from a recalcitrant establishment, it will not demand all its ultimate goals at once. "One step at a time", etc
Of course those gay activists in the 70s wanted to be able to marry their parters and have all the same rights as heterosexuals.

So on another thread I have been arguing with people regards racing horses. They are adamant they aren't out to ban riding and even owning a horse, but that is the trend. In other words - often these activists are just liars.

And remember, the homosexual activists aren't out to decriminalize homosexuality - they want everyone to be a homosexual, and to fight the heterosexual.
Obviously society isn't going to survive long if that was the case - we either vanish as a species or we invite migrants in, often the very people we profess to hate (the values of Muslims.) So it's all madness, dressed in righteous language.

 

[KWED]

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."

^ This.

 

[KWED]

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.

I would not participate in homosexual acts either, because I am not sexually attracted to men (although I wish I was bisexual).
However, I do not call homosexuality "evil, immoral, shameful aberration, handicap, against nature". You do. And there lies the difference.
It is utterly meaningless to claim that you are not homophobic when you hold clearly homophobic views (one study shows 90% of people think those views constitute homophobia).

 

[Brian2]

But "marriage" is not required for a legally binding contract between two people.

True, these days, but that is just so defacto couples and their children can have what marriage gave legally.
I have wondered why gays insisted on marriage and not just a contract similar to marriage with the same legal status.

 

[KWED]

No, I do not have to, I choose to.
That is what I have said all along so there is no flip-flop.

You said...
"we are not to question what God has revealed, we are to obey it.
This a clear instruction to obey what God has revealed through the Messenger, even if what was revealed makes no sense to us."

This shows that as a Bahai, you have no choice but to accept and obey.
If you chose to reject or ignore what god said through Bahaullah, would you still be a Bahai?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You said...
...

This shows that as a Bahai, you have no choice but to accept and obey.
If you chose to reject or ignore what god said through Bahaullah, would you still be a Bahai?

No true Scotsman maybe.

 

[Brian2]

I can understand why the laws are written in such a strict way, because the religion doesn't want its people "fooling" around. But when has it ever worked? And in modern society those strict laws seem like a joke. Like God make people with the need and desire to have sex, so that they make kids. But then God puts all sorts of restrictions on thinking about sex and with whom and when and how a person has sex?

I know that even if I believed in everything else the Christians taught or the Baha'is taught, I'd be thinking, watching, doing or something sooner or later. Did I say "later". I meant sooner and not too long thereafter, I'd be thinking it, or watching it or doing it again. But good for you in your effort to be true to your God and your beliefs.

Satan tricked Adam and Eve into eating the fruit too soon, before they were ready. Knowing what is good and what is evil no doubt made it harder to be good. (not knowing was easier)
But for those who want to be disciples of Jesus, we do our best to do the right thing even if it is hard and we fail a lot of the time.

 

[KWED]

That is not what I said.
Trailblazer said: ↑
I do not have a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality.
I agree with the Baha'i Laws regarding homosexuality, that is all.

The fact that I agree with the Baha'i Laws does not mean that I have negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality.

Do you agree or disagree that homosexuality is a shameful sexual aberration, an immoral evil that is against nature that should be purged from the world?
Simple question.

If you agree, then you are holding negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality. It's pretty straightforward.

 

[KWED]

I was fully aware of the passages in question

You little fibber! When I quoted them, you didn't accept that they were from Bahai teachings.

homophobia: dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
what is homophobia - Google Search

"Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality" - Homophobia - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you agree or disagree that homosexuality is a shameful sexual aberration, an immoral evil that is against nature that should be purged from the world?
Simple question.

If you agree, then you are holding negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality. It's pretty straightforward.

Okay. To be honest. It is hard to change one's worldview if one's self-understanding is at play.
That goes for all of these 3 positions.
- I know the world is natural.
- I know the world is from God.
- I don't know either.

Now which one is better, I have never seen any evidence for.

 

[Brian2]

Have you not read the quotes from Bahai teachings?
Homosexuality is an evil passion, immoral, shameful aberration, to be purged from the world.
Those are all terms used verbatim in Bahai texts.
If you say that you agree with that statement, you are homophobic, by definition ("hold a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality.")

What is that so hard for people to understand?
(Rhetorical question. It is due to cognitive dissonance. They are aware that homophobia is viewed negatively by civilised society, but at the same time they cannot bring themselves to criticise their religious teachings.)

I wasn't talking about the Baha'u'llah's attitude to homosexuality, which seems like a Taliban attitude.
If Trailblazer is a Baha'i then she wants to follow the laws of Baha'i but those laws do not govern how a person feels about homosexuals or homosexuality. No doubt the law might say not to practice homosexuality probably.

 

[KWED]

No, I do not accept that.

When someone said that Bahai messengers "had a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality", you replied "true".

 

[Brian2]

Why not? It seems pretty obvious that sexual behaviour between two consenting adults that does not affect anyone else is completely different to child abuse.
If you can't see that, it's pretty worrying.

Consensual has got nothing to do with whether something should be classes as immoral behaviour in the eyes of loverofhumanity and you know why. And it has nothing to do with child abuse being completely different in respect of consensuality and the participants being adult.

 

[KWED]

There is no contradiction whatsoever.

It is clearly contradictory if you are claiming that Bahais do not have to accept and obey whatever Bahaullah said, even if it is nonsensical.

The quote about not accepting His statements and His tokens blindly (see below) refers to what we are supposed to do while we are investigating His claims in order to determine if they are the Truth, what we are supposed to do BEFORE we become a Baha'i. It does not refer to what we are supposed to do AFTER we become a Baha'i. After we become a Baha'i we are not to question what God has revealed, we are to obey it.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

Ok, so you admit although non-Bahais do not have to accept and obey what Bahaullah said (well, duh!), once you have become a Bahai, you do have to accept and obey what Bahaullah said.

I mean, seriously? Did you think I was arguing that non-Bahais have to accept and obey whatever Bahaullah said?

 

[KWED]

It is against the Law of God.

But why is it against god's law?

That is the million dollar question that you keep avoiding. I guess that it's just one of those things that you have to accept, even if it makes no sense to you.

 

[KWED]

But to be fair, it is homophobia per Wikipedia.

And most definitions. And public opinion.

 

[KWED]

I can only answer that from a Baha'i perspective. I believe you would benefit because you would be adhering to the Law of God, which would be in your best interest.

Classic circular logic that explains nothing.

Aside from that, Baha'i Laws are for the benefit of society collectively

So how does banning homosexuality "benefit society collectively"?

and they stress the importance of marriage and family.

So a married gay couple with children and other relatives are ok?

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.”

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

Why does Bahaism assume that a family can only be heterosexual? We have hard evidence of stable, successful, loving productive, respected families based on married homosexuals.

 

[KWED]

No, I am not endorsing the Baha'i teachings for anyone else. I am only saying I believe they are good and moral, and I explain why I believe that.

If a person says "I do not expect anyone else to see black people as inferior, it's just what I believe" - they are still a racist.