Homosexuality and religious.

[ppp]

Yes, Baha'is are saying to listen to what their prophet has said about what an invisible, unknowable God told him... And one interpretation that a Baha'i gives is that this all-knowing, wise God thought it would be a smart thing to do to make different things feel good sexually so people would do them. But then, to prove they trust and love him, God is telling them not to do those things?

I think it would be perilous to humanity should they ever achieve any sort of political power.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yuck.
But hey, whatever.

Yeah, there's a lot of sexual stuff that can be yucky. But when a person gets past all the yuck, a lot of it feels good. So, what the yuck?

 

[KWED]

The analogy does not apply. I do not hate homosexuals and I do not think homosexual behavior is a sign of inferiority or criminality.

I have explained it. It is a sin because God has deems it a sin.....

Round and round we go...
But why does god think homosexuality is bad?
Was it just a random decision? Did he just stick a pin in a list of things?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, firstly you keep denying it after admitting it. No doubt you will be denying it again on the next page.

I am not denying it so why do you keep bringing it up again?
Case closed.

But you are missing the point. Your religious belief contains nasty, antisocial, even damaging elements. You seem to think that's ok. I don't.

ONLY in your opinion. In my opinion, lack of belief causes nasty, antisocial, even damaging behavior.
We all have opinions.

I only accuse those of homophobia who attempt to defend and justify the homophobic passages.

We don't have to justify them to you.

You just told me that words can never hurt you.
Flip.
Flop.

I did not say that they hurt ME. I said that can hurt people.

 

[ppp]

No, not in any practical way.

Quality of life is a very practical.

 

[KWED]

I never said we are not supposed to adhere to the rules and Laws,

Hitchens wept!
In response to my question about what Bahais are supposed to do, under Bahai rules, you said...
"There are no supposed tos. Nobody has to do anything they don't want to do"

I also own a forum

Link please

Food and water are necessary to live, sex is not.

Religion is not necessary to live either, but I'll wager a shilling that you won't give it up.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you think that challenging racism is as bad as being racist?

That is deflection.
It is also a red herring.

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation. Red herring - Wikipedia

My point stands:
Calling Baha'is homophobes is just as judgmental as judging homosexual behavior.

 

[Trailblazer]

I didn't ask about just on this forum. How would your actions be different if you were treating it as a fact? And, if so, how?

It would be the same on or off the forum. I would say it was a fact if I thought it was a fact.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who gives a **** if homophobes are upset at being called out? Same with racists, sexists, etc. We owe them no favours.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
False equivalence - Wikipedia

 

[CG Didymus]

Denying who they are, and suppressing their natural desires is not self control, it's a pernicious enforced indoctrination. We have ample evidence now of the harm caused by trying to enforce celibacy. Being gay harms no one, it is a perfectly natural variation of adult sexual desire.

When religions claim a perfect deity sees consenting adults having sex as wrong or harmful because they're gay, it's just sufficient rational evidence the message is entirely human in origin. Since it reflects irrational human ignorance and prejudice.

That's what I've been asking Baha'is too. God made the various sex acts enjoying, but then forbids some of them? Is Baha'u'llah sure that's what God was telling him? And then did Shoghi interpret it right? And then, it gets back to the original questions... Is this God, who says such things, even real?

 

[Trailblazer]

Quality of life is a very practical.

How is that related to what we were discussing?

Sheldon said: That's because the former exists as an objective fact, whereas the latter is woo woo superstition. Being gay, or having sex solely for the physical pleasure is not harmful in any practical way. Denying or suppressing harmless sexual desires is harmful in and of itself.

Trailblazer said: No, not in any practical way.

 

[ppp]

I am not denying it so why do you keep bringing it up again?
Case closed.

@KWED is correct. You keep admitting it, then denying that you admitted it.

ONLY in your opinion. In my opinion, lack of belief causes nasty, antisocial, even damaging behavior.

The difference being that the application of your opinion - labeling a group of people as shameful sexual aberrants causes them all sorts of harm - social, physical, and psychological.

We don't have to justify them to you.

You do not have to justify your position. No one is going to force you.
All of the attempts to justify your position - by you and your cohorts - has been entirely of your own volition.
You can stop responding on the subject at at time you choose.

 

[ppp]

It would be the same on or off the forum. I would say it was a fact if I thought it was a fact.

So, no difference. Which means that there is no relevant distinction

 

[ppp]

How is that related to what we were discussing?

That is what we are discussing. The quality of a person's life. How can you not know that?

 

[Trailblazer]

But why does god think homosexuality is bad?

That is all in the Baha'i Writings if you want to know.

 

[Trailblazer]

Link please

Delphi Forums Login

 

[Trailblazer]

Religion is not necessary to live either, but I'll wager a shilling that you won't give it up.

No, religion is not necessary to live but sex and religion are not equivalent so comparing the two is the fallacy of false equivalence.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
False equivalence - Wikipedia

 

[CG Didymus]

I think it would be perilous to humanity should they ever achieve any sort of political power.

Yes, what would a Baha'i world look like? Would it be all peace, love and unity? Maybe, but then what would they do with all their laws against all the same crimes that are being committed now?

 

[Trailblazer]

That is what we are discussing. The quality of a person's life. How can you not know that?

But how is quality of life related to what we were discussing?

 

[CG Didymus]

So when Bahaullah said that a religion that causes disharmony should not exist (he also said that people should leave such religions), he didn't mean it.
Are there any other infallible revelations from Bahaullah that should be ignored?

Yet God, Baha'is believe, was the source of all the "revealed" religions. Baha'is say the contradictory things in those different religions were man-made additions and misinterpretations. They believe "originally" all the religions were one. Same thing now... there is no disharmony as long as we all believe what the Baha'is tell us.