Time will tell.
-
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
Time will tell.
I think time has already told us, or at least hinted at the final outcome, which is a dying out of the Baha'i faith. It has serious problems, not the least of which is to attract youth within the aging demographic. Kids are just too smart to go with homophobia and other out of date ideas. Within 20 years, many centers will have to close, or sell off properties to other groups. But hey, that's life for a lot of religions. Baha'is aren't alone in this by any means.
Last edited:
Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again? Are you trying to suggest that producing a child is a mandatory goal of every possible sexual act? No exceptions? And if it can't be done (for example by an infertile partner or couple -- like the elderly) it must not be undertaken at all?
Can you prove we don't have free will?
But more importantly, let me ask you this: if somebody does something good and laudatory, or very bad and condemnatory, does it FEEL to you as if they could not have done otherwise, and therefore deserve neither praise nor punishment?
Actually, let me bring it a little closer to home -- when you make a good decision and do a very, very good thing, do you think that you deserve no credit for it? At work, do you feel that an extra effort to contribute should not qualify you for a raise, or a company expression of gratitude, because you really feel as if you don't have free will?
But if you are willing, please clarify for me: because your son has a same-sex partner, you would not welcome him into the Baha'i community? Whether you love them or not, would you welcome them into the faith as partners?
They are always welcome in the Baha'i community to attend functions and devotionals and community activities.
They can not be part of the Administrative Order.
A question I must ask. Are all the laws we are required to live by, by defualt discrimination?
Regards Tony
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
But we're talking about people that are sexually attracted to people of the same gender and do want to have sex with them. I'm sure sometimes it's all about love, but lots of the time it's about desire. What is wrong with that? And sometimes a deep, long-lasting love develops long after they have already been having sex with each other. And once they grow to love each other, why would they stop having sex? Unless, they are Baha'is or some other religion that forbids homosexuality, and they want to obey the laws of that religion.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
So, gay Baha'is are do things that are immoral. Then they should be stopped from doing that? Right? And how are Baha'is helping them overcome their immoral behavior? Therapy? A sex change? Celibacy? Since the Divine Physican knows the cure for all the worlds ailments, what does he recommend and has it been successful in treating the "ailment" of homosexuality?
And that's pretty important. If his recommendations work, then gay Baha'is should be doing those things and get themselves healed, right? But if they don't work, then what about all the other things that the Divine Physican recommends? Will they work?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
or maybe it was good advice.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, of course I am not suggesting that producing a child is a mandatory goal of every possible sexual act. There are many other reasons why people have sex. That is only one reason, and not the reason why most sex is engaged in.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
All a person would have to do is not admit they are gay and only have gay sex in private. That's what all the Baha'i adulterers do. But I don't think gays believe their behavior is immoral. So, they don't think that there is any reason to hide it.
A most interesting question -- but unfortunately, it brings up the question of what the word "law" actually means. And it requires that we all face up to the question of what we consider "right and wrong," and we deal with the answers.
I consider killing humans who do not wish to be killed wrong. Therefore, I am against murder, and think it should be punished. I am against capital punishment, because I think it is killing humans, which I've already said I consider. I do not want the state killing people because I, a person who believes in democracy, would not want my name or my vote associated with an evil act. I abhor war, because I assume that the vast majority of soldiers and civilians killed in wars didn't actually want to be killed.
Now, I am also aware that some humans DO want to be killed: people who suffer so badly that life itself is far worse than the alternative, who cannot bear continuing from one moment to the next because of unbearable pain, or the constant struggle just to draw a little air into their lungs. And when they are able to say so, I am happy to grant them their wish to die. I know that since all people will and must die, that death, while not desirable, cannot possibly be the worst possible outcome.
So, you see, when I say "I consider humans who do not wish to be killed wrong," I mean it comprehensively. I've thought about it. (Let's get it out of the way -- I do not consider a fetus incapable of survival outside the womb to be human yet. Nor does nature, since nature kills them more often than abortion clinics do.) I try, as hard as I can, to be consistent, because I know that when I am not consistent, I must be doing something arbitrary, something I can't explain -- that I am being, in that moment, irrational.
So for you to say that "for some purposes, my homosexual son may be acceptable, but not for my religion," says to me that you are being arbitrary, irrational, and have not thought it through properly.
And I'll just finally say this, which you already know but I don't mind repeating one more time: "Laws" declared by human beings claiming to have a special relationship with God are not binding on me. If God (if there's such a being) wants me to know something, I will know it. That's what omnipotence means -- what God wants MUST be. And since I don't know it, I can only assume that human being who supposes he does is mistaken. Maybe with the best of motives, but mistaken in any case.
I'll go with the majority. Of all folks exposed to this faith, few have signed the card. The 'entry by troops' simply didn't happen, nor is it about to happen.
Then the trajectory of your posts in this thread is so deeply contradictory as to be incomprehensible.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
To be clear, I believe we have free will but I cannot prove we have free will any more than I can prove that we do not have free will.
If somebody does something good and laudatory, or very bad and condemnatory, I think that they could have done otherwise, so I think they deserve either praise or punishment.
If a a person makes a good decision and does a very, very good thing, I think that person deserves credit for it. At work, an extra effort to contribute should qualify a person for a raise or a company expression of gratitude, because that person had the free will and chose to do that very good thing.
But such behaviour is deeply unauthentic. Living a "pretend life" seems so deeply antithetical to the claimed "spiritual" motives of so many religious people must be wrong, must it not?
But you see -- you said it yourself -- "they could have done otherwise." They were not trapped by some mechanical universe -- they could choose. You accept, whether you can prove it or not, that you have free will.
I'm pretty sure that you could not "prove" gravity, either -- but I willing to bet that you accept it anyway.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I will go with the minority.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.
Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
There are reasons why few people find it.
Few people find the narrow gate and even fewer people enter through it because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through...
It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.... and that is why the NEW religion is always rejected by most people for a very long time after it has been revealed.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, the trajectory was simply misunderstood.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That's right. I accept and believe we have free will.