KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
More than likely. Homosexuality was generally accepted in most cultures worldwide until the Abrahamics marched in to save us with their love and tolerance.
-
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.
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Not sure how much exposure you have had to homosexuality, but it is not just about anal penetration. Far from it.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Or in the case of me and countless others who have suffered tremendously in this life, renouncing faith and belief in the Abrahamic God is what leads to happiness (and emotional healing). As a survivor of abuse and a former devout Christian, I can say with absolute certainty that happiness was not a result of obeying and believing in God. Would you mind answering the questions I asked you in my previous reply to you? The previous posts we had in this thread from early on in relation to the questions I posed are posted below. I replied to your other post, but up until now it seems that you either ignored my reply and chose not to respond or you didn't see it.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
This is a classic red herring straw man.
No one claims that homosexuality "is genetic" (ie. there is a "gay gene" that you either have or do not have). However, research shows that there is very likely a genetic element present, along with other factors.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Bahaism maintains that god created everything.
"As the Supreme Being through which the existence of all other things is realized" -
"The process of His creation hath had no beginning, and can have no end."
In this particular thread, I simply can't watch people attempt defend and justify homophobia without responding. If it was Christians or Muslims doing it, I would do the same. Perhaps the reason it has gone on so long is that Bahais seem to be more entrenched in their adherence to dogma than other faith.
BTW, nice to see you are keeping an eye on my stats. Could you provide a monthly summary, just for comparison? Ideally ranked by topic. Thanks.
I can vouch for the second paragraph.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
In my opinion, your willingness to stand up for and denounce the religious-based prejudice against LGBTQ+ people we see in this thread demonstrates your moral character and your genuine concern for their rights and equality. I feel the same way about the others who have spoken up in this thread as you have. Personally, I think it's crucial to speak out against discrimination, regardless of its religious or racial roots. In my opinion, there is no justification for ignoring racial or religious bigotry, and there is certainly none for maintaining either contentious viewpoint in this day and age. I therefore commend your efforts and I wish you all the best in life.
When you say it makes sense, do you mean that it is an objective and rational conclusion, or that for you personally there's a reason that might not make sense to a critical mind?
This is often true for theists, as their religious beliefs offers them order, structure, and meaning for them. These needs and expriences is a common social behavior for humans. It's an evolved trait both biologically, and socially. Humans have learned to adopt social norms and rituals, and they find comfort mimicking these norms. It offsets natural anxieties we humans have.
We debate for the intellectual fun just like some will play chess or do crossword puzzles. This is an adversarial and social activity. It's actually good for minds to be stimulated like this.
Standing up for a group that is discriminated against for irrational reasons is admirable. I, for one, am happy you're taking this stance. Even if one homophobe becomes a former homophobe, you've succeeded. Sadly, for some, they just dig in deeper, and renew their determination to stick to their guns. In the end, we all take some solace in the fact that we tried.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
The Abrahamic God likes to boss around. Tomorrow a believer may say that even more than one God is OK. It has to be one God, one prophet, one book of rule, however outdated they might be. There is a limit to how flexible an Abrahamic God can be.
Isn't that practically humanism? That's the relationship of man to his world with a godless metaphysics, and essentially calling the forces of nature God rather than nature, while having a direct spiritual relationship with reality and its mysteries. And those are the ethics of humanism, which can be summed up as Golden Rule ethics at the individual level and utilitarian ethics at the societal level, to which reason is applied to develop specific personal and societal rules to facilitate that humanist vision of the individual and his relationship to society and nature.
Don't we frequently hear that the reason sincere critical thinkers don't find gods is because they just didn't try hard enough, they just don't understand the theists arguments, or are closed-minded, or because basically they prefer the rebellious, undisciplined and immoral life of dissolute hedonism? It's always framed as some sort of defect in the skeptic, which is the atheophobia that pervades these religions as surely as its homophobia. Atheists are simply failed human beings that a good God will reject. But they and their deity all love the homosexuals and atheists, and wonder why people in these demographics and those who love them become antitheist.
I agree, unless you mean it began with Trump. American evangelical Christianity seems to have made its public appearance as a societal force with the rise of the popularity of the Left Behind series, which I read as a young Christian, and TV preachers like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, which, under the direction of the Gingrich Republicans, launched the Moral Majority, when Christianity became hyper-politicized, and abortion was made a wedge issue to mobilize voters.
The roots may go further back - I haven't studied this. These are just my recollections growing up. It was the so-called Moral Majority and its clear desire to impose theocratic values on Americans that turned me into an antitheist. Here's a collection of quotes from the pre-Trump era that nicely embody what this movement stood for in the nineties and earlier:
"Whenever the civil government forbids the practice of things that God has commanded us to do, or tells us to do things He has commanded us not to do, then we are on solid ground in disobeying the government and rebelling against it." - Pat Robertson
"The strategy against the American radical left should be the same as General Douglas MacArthur employed against the Japanese in the Pacific . . . blast the individuals out of their power bunkers with hand-to-hand combat. The battle to regain the soul of America won't be pleasant, but we will win it." - Pat Robertson
"The inability or unwillingness to hate makes a person worthless. If we do not hate detestable things, the quality of our character is suspect. The Bible commands that we hate." - H. A. (Buster) Dobbs
"I believe this notion of the separation of church and state was the figment of some infidel's imagination." - Rev. W. A. Criswell (Dallas, 1984)
"We need to do more than win an election or win the House or win the presidency, my friends: we need to make this beloved country of ours God's country once again." - Pat Buchanan at the Christian Coalition 1995 Road to Victory Conference, as reported in the October 1995 issue of Church and State.
"There is a value in spiritual violence," Hagee declared, "and it is time that you considered the role that you are playing or not playing and whether or not it's time for you to become more aggressive in your beliefs" - Matthew Hagee
"I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good . . . our goal is a Christian nation. We have the biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism" - Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue
"Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the Ten Commandments. No apologies." - Randall Terry
"The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Church's public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel." - Gary North
"I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be." - Jerry Falwell
"There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world." - Pat Robertson
"The strategy against the American radical left should be the same as General Douglas MacArthur employed against the Japanese in the Pacific . . . blast the individuals out of their power bunkers with hand-to-hand combat. The battle to regain the soul of America won't be pleasant, but we will win it." - Pat Robertson
"The inability or unwillingness to hate makes a person worthless. If we do not hate detestable things, the quality of our character is suspect. The Bible commands that we hate." - H. A. (Buster) Dobbs
"I believe this notion of the separation of church and state was the figment of some infidel's imagination." - Rev. W. A. Criswell (Dallas, 1984)
"We need to do more than win an election or win the House or win the presidency, my friends: we need to make this beloved country of ours God's country once again." - Pat Buchanan at the Christian Coalition 1995 Road to Victory Conference, as reported in the October 1995 issue of Church and State.
"There is a value in spiritual violence," Hagee declared, "and it is time that you considered the role that you are playing or not playing and whether or not it's time for you to become more aggressive in your beliefs" - Matthew Hagee
"I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good . . . our goal is a Christian nation. We have the biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism" - Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue
"Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the Ten Commandments. No apologies." - Randall Terry
"The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Church's public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel." - Gary North
"I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be." - Jerry Falwell
"There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world." - Pat Robertson
You also speak for the Baha'i faith whether you intend to or not. You all do. It's the totality of Baha'i opinion expressed that gives a sense for what the religion is and does. The Baha'i are a surprisingly homogeneous group psychologically and doctrinally compared to other denominations. There doesn't seem to be much doctrine apart from the homophobic stuff and the vague and general admonition to promote unity. It's mostly a polite and gentle religion that seems to attract people that just want to get along without having their beliefs challenged.
As others have said, if you disapprove of homosexuality, then you are homophobic by definition, which is a type of bigotry, and bigotry is a type of irrational prejudice.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Your explanation is more concise than mine. To be honest, I never thought of evangelical Christianity as toxic and destructive as I see it now under the influence and control of Donald Trump and his evangelical conservative allies. However, I may have been blinded by my dedication to my former Christian faith while I was in the midst of it and emotionally immersed in it. When I was still a Christian, I thought it was so abhorrent that it drove me away from the Republican Party after 26 years of devoted support, and eventually it also contributed to my decision to abandon my Christian faith as well. I'll never support the Republican Party as long as Trump controls it.
Your testimony gives me hope, and I hope it does that for others too. There is a tendency, at least within myself, to give up when folks seem so irrevocably entrenched in dogma. My congratulations for you.
elsewhere, you wrote, "No, I did not stop because my religion prohibits it. I stopped initially because of marital problems I was having at that time, and then I never went back to having sex because I lost interest in sex. I never thought about sex after that, except when people started talking about it on the forum."
There's the difference between equality and equity. What works for somebody with no sexual desire doesn't work for those who have one.
No, you are not, but you would be well advised to understand how other see them. If you choose to stand up for what others perceive to be a homophobic depiction of a deity, you will be seen as homophobic yourself, and if it's in a debate forum, likely called on it by the humanists, whose ethics are based in reason and human empowerment. They'll condemn this homophobic doctrine every time, since it is irrational and destructive in their minds even if not in that of the adherent. Maybe that's OK with you. You don't seem to mind the reaction as much as many, and maybe you feel that it is proper for you to discuss and defend that doctrine. Others are not so well emotionally insulated, and it seems to me that they would prefer to avoid these discussions. If so, isn't it important for them to understand how their audience will perceive them and then react?
Yes, and that kind of thinking creates problems. That's the divine command theory of ethics, which states that good and evil are defined by what they believe a deity has said and done. This the part of faith that makes good people do harm. Just convince them that it is the will of a good god and it ceases being bad whatever it is.
People's self-esteem and access to all that society offers, such as being able to marry and be seen as equal to heterosexual couple in legitimacy without some religious government functionary denying them a marriage certificate or some Christian baker refusing to bake them a wedding cake. It all says that you're not OK. The Baha'i here don't seem to like hearing it about themselves.
That's a caricature of modern sexual mores. Anything pleasurable goes that is safe, legal, and just, and not just sexually. The pursuit of pleasure being a sin is a religious notion with no legitimate rational basis in modern society.
I have already demonstrated that I am correct with an argument you chose to not refute. "That's your opinion, you can't prove it," aren't a refutation or any other kind of argument. It's mere dissent. The argument had no apparent impact on you.
For the humanist, morality and immorality are unrelated to the admonitions in holy books or what others claim gods say. To be immoral an act must be more harmful than beneficial to others, and some would add to oneself. All else is moral by default. You failed to demonstrate your claim that homosexuality was spiritually or physically harmful. The STD argument was rejected because it is not an argument that homosexuality is harmful to anybody. It's an argument that careless sex is harmful. You didn't refute the argument. One possible reason is because its conclusion is correct. One cannot successfully rebut a correct statement. This is the method used in the academic world and in courts of law. The last plausible, unrebutted conclusion is provisionally considered correct until such time as it is falsified.
I understand that these are not your standards, and in the end, for you, it's all just opinion. But this reinforces my previously stated position that there is no burden of proof with a collocutor who is not able to dispassionately evaluate an argument for soundness and be willing to be convinced by a compelling one. That's simply impossible here. So in answer to your question, no, I cannot demonstrate that I am correct to you, but I can to others.
This is another area in which it behooves one to know the values and standards by which others will judge him even if those are not his values. To you, it was a draw. By the standards of the critical thinking community, it wasn't a draw.
I was done with this when I made my argument and you declined to rebut it. You brought it up again. I've restated my case if you want to try to rebut it this time. If not, I will consider the discussion has reached its natural end and the matter settled. Do you have evidence that shows that I am wrong? The STD data didn't do that. If you thought it did, you would have offered a counterargument to my claim that you have shown the harm in careless sex and not harm in homosexual sex. You didn't because you can't, and you can't because the conclusion is sound.
This is religious thought again. I've divorced myself from this kind of thinking. I really don't care at all who is having legal, consensual sex with whom, because all it affects in the lives of others is the birth rate.
You remind me of discussions I had with patients about whether their alcohol consumption was excessive or harmful. My answer was based in evidence and reason, not some received "wisdom." I would look for signs of harm. Are you suffering blackouts? Do you drive impaired? Are your marriage, job, or other relationships affected? Are you gaining or losing weight. If the blood pressure, liver functions, and lipids are normal, then no, you're not drinking too much. This is analogous. We don't simply declare that homosexuality is harmful. Harm needs to be elicited and demonstrated.
That's more or less correct. Humanists speak of tolerance and cooperation. It's an error to think that those who promote tolerance promote tolerance of everything. They do not. They do not promote tolerating the intolerant, the cruel, or law breakers. They all need to be diminished in influence so that there can be unity among the remnant. That's not exactly what you wrote, but not too different, either.
So you say. I say it came from mankind using religions. And since you adhere to divine command theory, that makes such condemnation correct, just, and an act of love. Imagine how that sounds to unbelievers. Once again, nobody expects you to change your faith-based beliefs, but you might like to know how they are understood. You might see that sentence as somewhere between neutral to commendable, but hopefully you understand that you are not perceived that way outside of the Abrahamic faiths.
The request is irrational and unreasonable. Why should they adapt to Baha'i sexual standards if they are not their own? What does becoming Baha'i offer a potential adherent other than community and comfort, and how would anybody who can meet those needs outside of religion benefit by joining, especially a homosexual person, assuming he or she knows the relevant teaching (dogma)?
I hear that from the Republicans as well whenever they are criticized. What happened to Biden's call for unity? One doesn't unite with the intolerant. One denounces it.
That's not the unity fair people seek. They don't want to be unified with that which they oppose, just like your church, the difference being that Baha'i homophobia is irrational and unprovoked, whereas the rejection of that bigotry IS rational and is a reaction to something unacceptable to the rational ethicist. Also, Baha'i are being criticized not with the expectation that any will relent and denounce their faith's immoral doctrine, but as part of a larger program to replace them with their descendants uninfluenced by homophobic religions. The Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck famously quipped that science advances one funeral at a time: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” It will be the same with religious influence on society, It will wane not because adherents relent, but because theist grandparents will be replaced by their humanist grandchildren "one funeral at a time."
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
And the way Baha'is wiggle out of that one is the "social" laws are specific to a people, time and place. They change with each new manifestation. The "spiritual" teachings, like love are humility, are forever. But in the Bible, it is saying the laws are forever. But Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith have all changed the laws. So definitely, the laws can be changed and improved upon.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
That is very nice of you to say, and I truly appreciate your kind sentiment. Thank you. I've actually been talking about my personal testimony quite a bit in the last couple of days, earlier in this thread (read here) and in two other threads (read here and read here).
I've also talked about my past and my experiences in older threads (read here) and posts (read here) because it's important to me to share my stories as a former Christian and as a survivor of childhood abuse. If my stories can help others who are going through or have gone through similar painful life situations to mine, then rehashing some old wounds in a public forum will be well worth it.
Last edited:
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
So, all "deviant", "abhorrent", and "forbidden" sexual practices, including homosexuality, must be purged from society before there can be peace? Then will there ever be peace, because many Baha'is and most all other people have "forbidden" desires from time to time and break one or more of the things that Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith has declared wrong. He is asking all people that aren't married to a person of the opposite sex to be pure in thought and deed... to be completely and totally celibate. Who can, and who wants to live like that? Maybe a few super spiritual people, but who else?
I find writing about stuff very therapeutic as well. It helps to really clarify what happened and can release some of the emotion attached to the experiences. You seem well on the way to a full recovery, if that's appropriate language. Best wishes.
Why does it sound sillier every time I read it?