Homosexuality and religious.

[Sheldon]

Is God homophobic? For you he can't possibly be, as He doesn't exist. For Baha'is God is exalted and transcendent above all human characteristics.

The deity people imagine to be real can and often does reflect all manner of their own prejudices.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Your subjective beliefs are irrelevant since we have objective evidence that gay people are excellent parents on the whole, and children thrive at least as well with two fathers or two mothers as they do with heterosexual parents. Your claim was and is manifestly untrue.

Without both a mother and a father gays could not exist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and for the last 45 years I have been living in joy, happiness and inner peace that none can find.
.. and all and my inner contentment and inner peace what all the treasures in the universe cannot buy.

Really? You alone in this wide world with no sex and your LGBTQ partner are the happiest (that none other can find)? And no treasure in the world can buy the happiness that you have attained through Bahaollah? Really remarkable!

 

[loverofhumanity]

Really? You alone in this wide world with no sex and your LGBTQ partner are the happiest (that none other can find)? And no treasure in the world can buy the happiness that you have attained through Bahaollah? Really remarkable!

I’ve been married for 43 years to a beautiful Burmese Baha’i. I came across Baha’u’llah accidentally. I never deserved this blessing and never will be worthy of it. Oceans of gratitude could never adequately thank God for enabling me to recognise Him.

 

[F1fan]

That's right, it is my choice for the reason you gave.

So you acknowledge that it's your choice to assign this religious meaning, but you don;t have the authority to dismiss anything it teaches?

That is an absurdity.

I am not going to throw out the entire religion just because of one Law, even if I do not agree with it.

Why not? If they claim all their laws come directly from God, and you disagree with at least one law due to its prejudice, then you should reject it. You have even admitted you can't know any of it is from God, you just believe it it is. So you treat the religion as absolute even though you could be wrong that it is.

It would not make any difference if I protested to the UHJ as they cannot change the Laws of Baha'u'llah.
Probably some Baha'is have probably tried that already.

I woul think that if enough Bahai protested this law that the leadership would ahve to do something, or see followers leave in droves. In the end all religions are a business and need money.

I do not need an excuse. If I agree with the Law I have right to agree with it, just as you have a right to disagree with it. I believe it is just and moral because it came from God who is infallible, whereas any human conception of what is just and moral is fallible, since humans are fallible.

Heck even Catholics don't follow the doctrine of the Chruch and pope on much of their doctrines, abortion being one of them. They get away with it, and that's a religion that has existed for nearly 2000 years. But Bahai can't get away with a protest of discrimination?

 

[Vinayaka]

S

I woul think that if enough Bahai protested this law that the leadership would ahve to do something, or see followers leave in droves. In the end all religions are a business and need money.

Many many have left. It's probably the single most common reason to be an ex-Baha'i. Don't get me started on the adherent statistics deception.

 

[F1fan]

My religion's claims are from a Messenger of God who speaks for the deity.

An absent God that no one sees, and a dead Messenger that no one can question. Sounds pretty suspicious. You've even acknowledged that you can't know if the God exists, yet you treat this dogma as if it is. You could be wrong. You are, in essence, assuming infalibility yourself. It's as if you have the authority of God.

Where is the humility? It's one thing to dance naked under a full moon with underwear on your head if you believe that gets you closer to God. Biut as soon as a dogma tragets a class of people AS an organization, and you understand this is wrong, yet are committed to it anyway, is highly problematic. I understand you don;t care about this line of thinking, but it's important that you hear how others find this inconsistent as a moral framework.

 

[F1fan]

I was just new and not in the same community as them but they were Baha’is in good standing as I saw their identity card. You want a good story? I’ll tell it to you.

When I had moved on and accepted the Faith, years later I saw John walking down the Main Street. I knew he was a Baha’i but he did not know I had joined. Anyway I said hello then asked him if he could lend me a few $$ as I was hoping to spot his Baha’i identity card.

So he took out his wallet and I said “What’s that?” and he said it was his Baha’i identity card. At that moment I shouted allowed “Allah’u’Abha and embraced him. He was overwhelmed with joy. He had taken me in and showed me love and fed me and referred me to other Baha’is. And we became best friends. I didn’t even think about Gay. He was my friend. The Baha’i teachings tell us to love everyone so that has always been my attitude.

Nice story and true.

This is a good description of the emotional experience of tribalism. We humans have been a successful species because we evolved to be attracted to tribes, and cooperate within tribes. This is a subconscious and primitive trait, and we humans need to be aware of it as an expression in our social behavior. Yes we can feel euphoria and belonging, but think about how you feel that and how this unity among the tribe targets and shuns gays. Some gays might feel that same euphoria until they discover they are cast out due to their nature. Tribalism is a feeling that is euphoric when we are around tribe members, but also euphoric when we shun outcasts. These can be dangerous temptations if they cause harm.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Without both a mother and a father gays could not exist.

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Without both a mother and a father, an infertile person could not exist. What does that tell you? It tells you exactly as much as your comment does.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The other solution is to accept the teaching and realize it was not a mistake because it came from God, and an infallible God cannot make any mistakes.

That's the faith-based approach to evidence - pick an idea to believe, assume it's true, and then evaluate the evidence from that prospective not to see if it supports one, but rather, whether he can find a few ideas that seem to support his faith-based conclusion and disregard the rest. We can call this motivated thinking.

Critical thinking requires that the evidence be examined first, be examined dispassionately (open-mindedly), and that sound conclusions be derived from them through the proper application of reason.

The humanist looks at the teaching first - in this case, that gay people displease a good god - finds it immoral and unbefitting of a good god, and concludes that it did not come from one.

I do not believe that God is ever jealous since God has no competition. I think that verse was meant to convey that we should worship the one true God rather than false gods that do not even exist.

Here's more motivated reasoning. The believer can't very well change the words to make them comport better with a more modern monotheistic ideology, so he just changes what he says it means. I see that a lot when discussing turn the other cheek and blessed are the meek. Turn the other cheek is retranslated to mean something like forgive rather than what it says - stand down offer your tormentor another cheek to strike, because who would give that advice? The same ones who claim that meekness is a virtue. Of course, the modern believer changes meekness to humility, which is very different.

It's rather clear what those comments mean in their greater context in which they are paired with instructions to be longsuffering and to basically accept one's lot however exploited he is without rising up, for his reward will come later in a house of many mansions in which he will at last be an equal. It's not hard to see the appeal of a religion that teaches that to an emperor or a king.

All of this is sanitizing the warts, which is what I believe all of the Baha'i posting on this thread are doing. These homophobic teachings (two of the Baha'i have already objected to that language, claiming that words or laws can't be homophobic, but I think they might prefer it to the teachings of a homophobic god or a man claiming to speak for one) are warts. So how to sanitize them? As we see in this thread: 'They must be good if they come from a god. Love the sinner. I have no hatred in my heart for any gay person.' Anything but what everybody else seems to see there. The believer does that to relieve his own cognitive dissonance, but only other motivated reasoners accept it.

The way society looks at sexuality has nothing to do with what is moral since society does not determine what is moral, God does.

Then you understand the humanist position and why he rejects all received "wisdom." The claims that prophets and messengers make in the name of gods are human in origin just like all other words ever. They declare what is moral and immoral for those willing to believe them. This is how you make any words seem superhuman, but you've got to find people willing to believe what they are told without evidence, which, fortunately for the religions, is most of the world, critical thinkers being the set that recognize that this should never be done ever. That is a basic tenet of humanist thought - skepticism, or the idea that nothing should be believed without sufficient evidentiary support. Master that, and one is forever immune from indoctrination, including being made to believe that homophobic doctrine means that homophobia is wrong rather than that its authors were bigots.

My religion's claims are from a Messenger of God who speaks for the deity.

The skeptic has no reason to believe that, because it lacks supporting evidence. You have said in the past that the words themselves are evidence for you that they come from a god, but that is just motivated reasoning again. If one assumes that they are from a god, then whatever they say is godly.

 

[F1fan]

A Baha'i world view embraces science, reason and critical evaluation.

Rational people do. But what rational people don't do is hold a prejudical view of any class of people just because they are as they are.

It must be great being so enlightened and to rise above the insecurities and anxieties of Abrahamics and theists.

OK, sarcasm. You are obviously feeling hurt. Now imagine that hurt being felt by gays your religion condemns. And you are compicit with that prejudice whether you agree or not. If a religion not only teaches that prejudice and harm is bad, but also enforces a type of prejudice that leaderhsip won't eliminate, then it is bad religion.

I understand that most of the Bahai here are trying to minimize this one prejudice, but it's not that simple. It suggests that any type of prejudice is allowable and acceptable. And from a religion whose goal is global unity. It smacks of irony and hypocrisy, and is self-destructive.

If the Bahai leadership can't change it's laws, then why are you a member?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That doesn't mean that every human behaviour is attributable to the supernatural.

You responded to, "As the Supreme Being through which the existence of all other things is realized" and "The process of His creation hath had no beginning, and can have no end." To the critical thinker, it means that everything that exists is due to God except possibly God himself. The Baha'i words paraphrase the definition of a first cause, and assign God that role. I consider this more motivated reasoning. The world contains a lot of grief and suffering, much of it appearing to serve no useful purpose, and theists promoting a tri-omni deity have been grappling unsuccessfully with this problem (theodicy) since at least the days of Epicurus. Christians have been trying to shift the blame to man or Satan, or else explaining why bad is really good, how we wouldn't know joy without suffering, or how can we know or understand the perfect thinking of a perfect god.

Critical thinkers understand that a better hypothesis to account for this reality is that there is no supernatural or deity - better according to Occam's principle of parsimony. It's amazing how many conundrums like that one evaporate away when one makes the paradigm shift to a godless metaphysics. None of this is a mystery to the humanist. Just remove gods, devils, afterlives, and supernatural realms from one's mental map of reality and the problem of why there is useless suffering in the world disappears. A little doe-eyed girl will die of leukemia somewhere in the world today. To the Abrahamic theist, it was the will of God, and he must find a reason why his good god would will or permit that. The humanist realizes that it's just rotten luck, and doesn't have to wonder why a good god let her die.

Nor do we agree with the label 'homophobic'. We've covered this ad nauseum and we simply don't agree. That's fine by me, but if you want to keep arguing go ahead.

Yes, that issue has come to a conclusion. The Baha'i reject the label homophobic for their deity and themselves after believing the messenger. There is no argument that that is what several of you have said and undoubtedly believe. It is also a fact that many non-Baha'i (all humanists in this thread, I believe) consider the doctrine homophobic (yes, I know; words can't be homophobic, just their authors).

I would have thought that the Baha'i would be more interested in how they are perceived by others, but it seems that they are more interested in not hearing it. That's fine. As I indicated elsewhere, there is no realistic hope of modifying the position of any faith-based thinker, so having this discussion must serve some other purpose for it to have been of value. I found it to be very valuable and interesting, but not because I convinced any Baha'i of anything or moved one at all from his position prior to joining the thread.

A Baha'i world view embraces science, reason and critical evaluation.

None of those support theism. None of them support homophobia.

Is God homophobic? For you he can't possibly be, as He doesn't exist.

Agreed. I do not believe that any god has ever issued any opinions to mankind. These are the opinions of faith-based thinkers claiming to speak for a deity.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is a good description of the emotional experience of tribalism. We humans have been a successful species because we evolved to be attracted to tribes, and cooperate within tribes. This is a subconscious and primitive trait, and we humans need to be aware of it as an expression in our social behavior. Yes we can feel euphoria and belonging, but think about how you feel that and how this unity among the tribe targets and shuns gays. Some gays might feel that same euphoria until they discover they are cast out due to their nature. Tribalism is a feeling that is euphoric when we are around tribe members, but also euphoric when we shun outcasts. These can be dangerous temptations if they cause harm.

I have been taught to be loving to all and that’s how I treat people.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Without both a mother and a father, an infertile person could not exist. What does that tell you? It tells you exactly as much as your comment does.

It’s a crucial point because without a man and a woman humanity cannot perpetuate. Whether you believe in homosexuality or not, for the very survival of our race and procreation, the opposite sexes must bond. But homosexuality does not further procreation so it is not essential or a necessity.

There may be sterile couples but homosexuals are 100% infertile permanently. The continuation of humanity depends upon both male and female bonding and homosexual relationship is inconsequential and of no importance to the perpetuation of our species.

 

[Sheldon]

Without both a mother and a father gays could not exist.

Whilst this straw man is almost trivially true, it has zero relevance to your claim being manifestly wrong.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Without both a mother and a father, an infertile person could not exist. What does that tell you? It tells you exactly as much as your comment does.

Just one question. What purpose does homosexuality serve? What does it do for humanity? Marriage between a man and a woman as Baha’u’llah laid down serves the purpose of perpetuating the human race.

But homosexuality apart from sexual satisfaction, what purpose does it serve? Sex is not required in order for men or women to have loving relationships. So my understanding is it’s basically all about sex nothing else.

 

[Sheldon]

Really? You alone in this wide world with no sex and your LGBTQ partner are the happiest (that none other can find)? And no treasure in the world can buy the happiness that you have attained through Bahaollah? Really remarkable!

I wonder how anyone can claim to objectively measure their happiness against that of others? There are times of course when I couldn't be happier if I was twins, but I couldn't say how that happiness stacks up against the happiness of others.

 

[Sheldon]

Just one question. What purpose does homosexuality serve?

Being gay is who a person is, it's not a means to an end.

 

[Sheldon]

Marriage between a man and a woman as Baha’u’llah laid down serves the purpose of perpetuating the human race.

So what, no one is decrying heterosexuality in the way you and your religion are attacking being gay. So this is a pretty obvious false dichotomy fallacy.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Whilst this straw man is almost trivial true, it has zero relevance to your claim being manifestly wrong.

Im only stating fact that the continued existence of the human race depends upon the union between a man and a woman which is the position of Baha’u’llah. Homosexuality undermines that because they cannot have children.