Homosexuality and religious.

[KWED]

We benefit because we are doing what is in our best interest.

How is suppressing their homosexuality in a person's best interests?
(Try to answer without using some form of "because it's god's law")

 

[ppp]

Though knowledge is a subset of beliefs, it differs from other belief systems, at least if based on skepticism. But it is still based on beliefs.

You think that knowledge is a belief "system"?

 

[ppp]

I do know.

So you have said.

 

[KWED]

Who said what under what circumstances absolutely does matter.

The reference about the ten good qualities was from a book titled 'Baha'u'llah and the New Era' written just over 100 years ago by Esselmont. It was not written by Baha'u'llah.

If you are unable to distinguish what was said by 'Abdu'l-Baha as distinct from Baha'u'llah and under what circumstances, then you are unlikely to understand the Baha'i Faith. Instead you will misunderstand it and misrepresent it as you have done throughout this thread

I'm confused now. You posted some Bahai quotes to support your position. Now you seem to be saying that they are not relevant to Bahaism.

Who said anything about doctrine? It was simply an admonition or encouragement to look at the good in others and resist the tendency to focus on one's negative qualities.

"Doctrine" is simply the collection of beliefs held and followed by a group. If a religious leader revered as "the perfect Exemplar of His Faith" with "superhuman knowledge and perfection", and called "the Mystery of God" by Bahaullah, makes a statement of how the Bahais should behave, it is part of Bahai doctrine.

"Abdu'l-Baha was not a Manifestations of God and we Baha'is don't tend to think of him as being a 'messenger' or 'prophet' like the Bab or Baha'u'llah.

No, but he is one of the three central figures of Bahaism, along with Bab and Bahaullah.

Seeing the good in others and overlooking their faults isn't nonsense to me.

So if you know someone who is a community leader, works tirelessly for charities, volunteers in hospitals - but also know that he rapes children once in a while, you wouldn't tell the police?

'Abdu'l-Baha often uses a degree of hyperbole to make a point by the way.

Not a good idea when it comes to laws and rules.

 

[ppp]

Nobody knows what the Baha'i Faith is 'planning to do' to homosexuals in the future although we do know what they are planning to do to adulterers.

Homosexuals don't lose their voting rights unless they are flagrant about their sexuality in public.

If they feel guilty that is on them, not on the Baha'is. They would not feel guilty unless they thought they were doing something wrong.

What an oppressive and dictatorial system.

 

[KWED]

I have told you numerous times that I do not have to accept anything I do not choose to accept
Nonetheless I do accept whatever they say.

No, you have "chosen" to become a Bahai. Since then, you have to accept and obey whatever Bahaullah said. Bahaullah said so and he is god's infallible messenger.

No, only God can make moral judgments and God does so through His Messengers.

Whoever came up with this moral judgements, whether it be god or Bahaullah - they are now your moral judgements because you accept whatever judgements Bahaullah made.

It does not mean that you formulated those judgements, you merely hold them. You judge homosexuality to be wrong because Bahaullah told you that it is wrong.
We know that Bahais don't think for themselves, they just blindly follow whatever Bahai teachings say.

 

[KWED]

Im not arguing with you. I told you that I believe what God says not you or people. If you can’t accept there’s a God that’s just bad luck. You go your way and I’ll go mine.

Except that "your way" is to post on a religious debate forum. And so is mine. So here we are!

 

[KWED]

It’s immoral because God, our creator Who knows more about us than you or I says it’s wrong. I defer to an All Knowing Source of knowledge as opposed to man’s petty mindedness which labels anything that feels good as moral and healthy which it is not.

So you can't explain why homosexuality is immoral. You are simply told to think it is immoral, by a 19th century Persian man who claimed god spoke to him.
Seems reasonable.

You don’t believe in God so it’s a waste of time this dialogue because you’re discounting an All Knowing and infallible Source of knowledge from the argument which I cannot do as I believe God exists.

I accept that you believe whatever Bahaullah said. I am just wondering why you do.
(Hopefully your answer won't involve "because Bahaulla said", in some way)[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[KWED]

Both religions say that one wife is better.

Do they?
Islam allows four wives (except for Muhammad who was allowed at least 12. As Muhammad is "the best of creation", the perfect moral exemplar and role model for all people, then surely 12 is the best number of wives to have?)

Anyway, I was asking what "made monogamy the best form of marriage which is conditional upon justice" means.

 

[KWED]

That's the difference between you and me. I’m claiming Baha’u’llah is not just an ordinary man but the Promised One foretold by all the major religions of the world. The Jews await the Messiah, Christians the return of Christ in the Glory of the Father, the Hindus some sects await Krishna to appear as Kali Avatar, the Buddhists await Maitreya or AmitAbha, the Muslims the Twelfth Imam and return of Jesus, the Zoroastrians await the Shah Bahram. They are all referring to a Great Spiritual Promised One to appear at the end of the age. Baha’u’llah identifies as that Being by His Words and Teachings.

But as you do not believe in God, you are incapable at present of understanding these things and protest as soon as the word God is mentioned. That’s your problem. I’m over that and privileged and honoured to know Baha’u’llah but you are still stuck with no belief in God.

It is irrelevant how much you believe what Bahaullah claimed, you are still citing his words. You are just assuming that those were the same as god's words.

 

[Sheldon]

The Baha’i Faith condemns all forms of immorality not just homosexuality but adultery, pedophilia and others.

It takes a belief devoid of any concept of morality, or any semblance of reason, to compare being gay to raping children.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You think that knowledge is a belief "system"?

Yes, but to understand that you have to use basic meta-cognition, i.e. to think about how you think and know. Not all humans can do that for knowledge. It doesn't mean that I am right and they are wrong or in reverse. It means that we think differently., that is all.

 

[We Never Know]

It takes a belief devoid of any concept of morality, or any semblance of reason, to compare being gay to raping children.

I don't think they are comparing them.
Imo I think they are just simply saying they are all bad, immoral, etc.

 

[KWED]

Not at all. I fully investigated the claims of Baha’u’llah over many years

Clearly not, as you didn't know about the homophobia, sexual discrimination or barbaric punishments

and found them to be true

No. You merely believe them to be true.

and once I determined He was sent by an All Knowing God then and only then deferred to Him. But not blindly, no never.

So you disagree with god when he said that you must accept and obey whatever the messengers say, without question or doubt, even if it makes no sense to you?

My belief is not blind belief like yours is. You are blindly believing Baha’u’llah is not from God unlike myself who has investigated unbiased for years before deciding. Sadly your are the one relying on blind belief not me.

Do a serious unbiased investigation of the claims of Baha’u’llah then we can discuss in a couple of years.

I already have. He was almost certainly making it up, based partly on earlier and existing beliefs and customs. Whether he was delusional or dishonest is open to question, but they are both far more likely explanations than he was an actual messenger of an actual god.

Do you accept that there is a possibility that he was delusional or dishonest?

These are letters Baha’u’llah wrote to the Kings and Rulers and religious leaders of the world including the peoples of the world. You will find names like Queen Victoria, Napoleon III and the Pope there also. That’s just a start. If you really are sincere and don’t agree with blind belief then do your own research and take your time.

What is miraculous about knowing the names of famous people?

 

[Sheldon]

I accept the teachings of Baha’u’llah because I believe they are from God.

So what, gods are ten a penny, humans have imagined literally thousands if them, and then try to pretend their beliefs are valid because they imagine a deity supports them, it is utterly meaningless to everyone else, and I judge beliefs based on their own merit, not on imaginary deities.

I believe God knows more than you or I about what is best for us as humans.

You can believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes you happy, but claiming a your subjective opinions are validated by a deity has no meaning whatsoever to me.

in His wisdom He has said that marriage between a man and woman is what is best for humanity

I don't believe you, nor am going to accept such obvious circular reasoning and appeals to authority fallacies, as they are demonstrably weak reasoning. You also just compared being gay to raping children, so you seem to have no moral compass.

so I do not consider myself more knowledgeable than God and have been happily married to a wonderful lady for about 43 years.

That doesn't entitle you to dictate to others how they should live. More than half of marriages end badly in divorce, so one unevidenced counter example is not a very sound argument for the merits of marriage.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't think they are comparing them.
Imo I think they are just simply saying they are all bad, immoral, etc.

Claiming they're all bad is comparing them, and again only someone devoid of morals would make such an asinine comparison.

 

[We Never Know]

Claiming they're all bad is comparing them, and again only someone devoid of morals would make such an asinine comparison.

Really?

Murder and rape are both bad.

Is that an asinine comparison?

 

[KWED]

FYI, Baha'is do not believe that the true nature or innate self of a human is sexual, we believe our true nature and innate self is spiritual.

Sexuality is a part of a person's nature. That is a simple fact of reality.

The following is a post that was posted by Dale on the Planet Baha'i forum years ago. I liked it so much that I saved it in a Word document. I asked Dale if I could pass it on and he gave me permission to do so. I won't say that this is the 'official' Baha'i position, but it is my position.

Ok. Let's have a look? (Who is "Dale" btw?)

"Ah, but that is conflating love and sex (which, yeah, people do all the time). Sex is not love and love is not sex, nor is there any necessary relationship between the two.

Romantic love and sex are very much connected and symbiotic. It is unrealistic to claim that the two are somehow separate. The relationship is both strong and commonplace.

In human beings it is true that sex typically plays a bonding role in a certain type of loving relationship, but it's not necessary to it (however much people think it is).

Kinda like how cheese isn't necessary on a pizza.

We love lots of people who we would (unless something is wrong with us) never consider having sex with: children, parents, close friends, etc. One might even add household pets to the list.

Massive straw man.

Sex is primarily about reproduction.

In most species, yes, but certainly not in humans. For us, sex is primarily about enjoyment. The fact that we have been practicing contraception for millennia clearly shows this.

That's why it even exists in the first place. It's a biological mechanism that increases diversity in the gene pool, for one thing.

That's not what sex does. It simply produces a new organism form the genetic material of one or more parent organisms. It can reduce genetic diversity, depending on population size.

Its role in relationships in some species is a secondary role, not the primary one, which evolved much later. Sex is not something only cute furry creatures do for bonding. Reptiles and amphibians and insects and even plants have sex lives. It evolved as a means of reproduction, and only later acquired secondary roles. Those who want to divorce it completely from its primary role (and they do exist; I've been in discussions where people have argued quite strenuously that sex isn't about reproduction at all!) are in a very real sense attempting to force it to conform to their own selfish desires . . . and that, ultimately, is what is against our spiritual nature.

This is simply ignoring the observed reality that for humans, reproduction is a secondary consideration in sex - often completely absent.

Our spiritual nature cannot be developed except by "dying to self" and "living in God."

Unsupported assertion.

God has given us a dual nature: one material and one spiritual.

More unfounded assertion. There is no evidence that there even is a "spiritual" nature that is independent of the physical brain.

Sex is part of the material nature, however much it may be able to play a role in a truly loving relationship. It is not what we are, even though people insist that it is.

Another straw man. While sex is certainly a big part of any romantic relationship, no one claims that it is the only or defining part.

(Extreme but real example: I read an article in the long ago when the AIDS epidemic had become the big news of the day in which the author, a promiscuous homosexual who had contracted the disease, wrote about how it had affected his life. He stated near the end that he had to take a lot of precautions now to avoid spreading the illness, but that he couldn't give up his promiscuous lifestyle because that was "who he was.") [/quote] For some people, sex is a major part of their lives. So what? Why is that such a problem?

God is calling us to struggle against our lower nature and to become who we truly are: not material beings, not sexual beings, but spiritual beings who are in control of the physical side of our nature and who can thus find true happiness living in conformity with His will.

Mere dogmatic platitudes with no evidential support.

Although not scriptural, there is a possible explanation of why He has made it so hard that I ran across long ago in a Baha'i children's book: Because if it were too easy, it wouldn't be worth anything. Or put another way, because only by being challenged can we really prove our love for God."

That's pretty dismissive of the contributions made by people with a natural ability for something.
Why does difficulty necessarily equate to worth? Sound a bit like someone is trying to justify making things unnecessarily difficult for people.
"Suffering brings you closer to god" usually said by people who are not suffering, to people who are.

As I said, I have no idea who this "Dale" person is (are they some sort of Bahai spokesperson?), but your respect for their work is misplaced. Sorry.

 

[KWED]

But that does not mean that it causes no harm.

Ok. What harm does it cause?

 

[KWED]

I ask the question, 'One day would it be possible for a grown man to marry two 12 year olds, a boy and a girl, for a weekend only marriage?' and responders will say 'It will never happen because it's against the law.'
But I put it to you that this COULD HAPPEN BECAUSE A FUTURE SOCIETY COULD CHANGE THE LAWS.

Why do you just keep repeating the same flawed argument? No one will say that.
I explained why it is a straw man.
You seem unaware of how social, legal and political systems work.