Homosexuality and religious.

[TransmutingSoul]

You haven't convinced anybody posting here of anything - several bright, active, curious, minds.

That's great, I am not here to convince anyone. That is entirely to each individuals choices in life.

I only present another frame of reference.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have already agreed that you possess no light, but not that no man does. You're fond of citing what you consider wisdom,

The standards that we choose to live in this life, are our own choice.

As to where we source that, that is also our own choice.

If one turns to God for those choices, Baha'u'llah offered this about God's Message.

"Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring balance established amongst men. In this most perfect balance whatsoever the peoples and kindreds of the earth possess must be weighed, while the measure of its weight should be tested according to its own standard, did ye but know it."

Regards Tony

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's great, I am not here to convince anyone.

Sure you are. It's why you've posted thousands of words in response to ideas with which you disagreed. It's why you keep ferrying scripture to people that you know are unbelievers. You're trying to convince others that Baha'u'llah offers wisdom and enlightenment. You're trying to convince others that Baha'i doctrine isn't homophobic, and that people aren't bigots if they think they are well-intentioned and don't actively or deliberately oppress others. And, you want skeptics to relax their standards for belief. Also, you have labored to convince others that Baha'ism is religion promoting unity even as it marginalizes homosexuals and tells the other religions where they've been corrupted. You saw the response to that, and to the appropriation of symbols. They resent it, but none of you cared.

I only present another frame of reference.

Yes, and you do so in the hope that they will adopt it. But it's the one critical thinkers have rejected - belief by faith.

"Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring balance established amongst men. In this most perfect balance whatsoever the peoples and kindreds of the earth possess must be weighed, while the measure of its weight should be tested according to its own standard, did ye but know it."

More of this? Let me rewrite it: Don't evaluate these words using the standard for belief used by science, because the words contain no errors, and should be believed by its author's standards, which are none.

But you're not trying to convince anybody of anything, are you? You just decided to cite that to people who you know reject it for no reason at all, right?

The problem is that you don't seem to understand what your purpose on this thread is, nor your audience, which undermines that purpose and your credibility with critical thinkers.

There's a term in the philosophy of argumentation called ethos. It refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his words (logos), such as does he seem knowledgeable about his subject, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like.

Like most other religious apologists, you seem oblivious or indifferent to all of that. The creationists shoot themselves in the foot every time by arguing science they don't understand to people who do understand it. They seem to have no concept of how counterproductive that it to their apparent purpose - how much it damages their ethos and thus their purpose. The Baha'i on this thread do the same. None of you seem to care at all how your words affect people.

Suggestion: agree that your religion teaches that homosexuals displease your god, that that causes you to see homosexuals as unequal to heterosexuals, and that attitude is harmful to gays, but that you believe that all of that is good and just and holy. What do you think that would accomplish compared to your current approach? I can tell you. The homophobic doctrine would still be rejected and would stain the reputation of the religion in the eyes of humanists and others who judge homosexuals and heterosexuals equally, but you would seem more credible. You would seem to be more insightful and less in denial and would retain more of the respect (ethos) you forfeit trying to argue that you are not what they see you are. You can't make this doctrine seem kind or just to humanists, so stop trying, since the effort not only doesn't convince them, it also has them seeing you as lacking insight into yourself, which further demeans belief by faith and the blinding effect it has on those willing to do it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus Christ is the Son and the Sun.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Son of Man.
God is the Sun.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure you are. It's why you've posted thousands of words in response to ideas with which you disagreed.

If that means that Tony is trying to 'convince people' that what he believes is true, then it would also mean you that you are trying to 'convince people' that what you believe is true, since you have posted "thousands of words in response to ideas with which you disagreed."

You're trying to convince others that Baha'u'llah offers wisdom and enlightenment. You're trying to convince others that Baha'i doctrine isn't homophobic, and that people aren't bigots if they think they are well-intentioned and don't actively or deliberately oppress others.

You're trying to convince others that humanism offers wisdom and enlightenment. You're trying to convince others that Baha'i doctrine is homophobic, and that Baha'is are bigots if they think they are well-intentioned and don't actively or deliberately oppress others.

But you're not trying to convince anybody of anything, are you? You just decided to cite that to people who you know reject it for no reason at all, right?

But you're not trying to convince anybody of anything, are you? You just decided to cite humanistic doctrines to people who you know reject it, right?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If that means that Tony is trying to 'convince people' that what he believes is true, then it would also mean you that you are trying to 'convince people' that what you believe is true, since you have posted "thousands of words in response to ideas with which you disagreed."

Agreed. That's what critical thinking is - evaluating evidence to generate sound (correct) conclusions from it and evaluating the arguments of others for soundness (identifying their fallacies and errors in fact).

It's also what religious apologists attempt to do - convince - but not using critical thinking.

You're trying to convince others that humanism offers wisdom and enlightenment.

I don't expect to be able to do that with the faithful, but yes, I make the case for humanism as the preferred epistemology (empiricism, critical thought) and ethical system (utilitarian ethics). It's the younger participants who can benefit there, the ones who don't have a clear idea about what faith is and does, and who can still think rationally and open-mindedly.

You're trying to convince others that Baha'i doctrine is homophobic, and that Baha'is are bigots if they think they are well-intentioned and don't actively or deliberately oppress others.

Yes, with a minor change in the wording. They are not bigoted because think they are well-intentioned and don't actively or deliberately oppress others, but rather, despite that. They are bigoted because they have accepted irrational, destructive doctrine.

Once again, I don't have any real expectation of convincing believers of anything that contradicts what they have chosen to belief. As you noted, my tool is compelling argument (convincing), but one needs another critical thinker engaging in dialectic with him for evidence or reason to have any impact, just as the faith-based thinker needs another uncritical thinker if he is to convince him to accept insufficiently supported claims. And this is why the two groups can have little or no impact on one another's thoughts. They don't speak the same language. They don't decide what is true the same way.

 

[Trailblazer]

Once again, I don't have any real expectation of convincing believers of anything that contradicts what they have chosen to belief.

And I don't have any expectation or need to convince nonbelievers of anything that contradicts what they have chosen to not believe.

 

[Vinayaka]

Agreed. That's what critical thinking is - evaluating evidence to generate sound (correct) conclusions from it and evaluating the arguments of others for soundness (identifying their fallacies and errors in fact).

It's also what religious apologists attempt to do - convince - but not using critical thinking.



I don't expect to be able to do that with the faithful, but yes, I make the case for humanism as the preferred epistemology (empiricism, critical thought) and ethical system (utilitarian ethics). It's the younger participants who can benefit there, the ones who don't have a clear idea about what faith is and does, and who can still think rationally and open-mindedly.



Yes, with a minor change in the wording. They are not bigoted because think they are well-intentioned and don't actively or deliberately oppress others, but rather, despite that. They are bigoted because they have accepted irrational, destructive doctrine.

Once again, I don't have any real expectation of convincing believers of anything that contradicts what they have chosen to belief. As you noted, my tool is compelling argument (convincing), but one needs another critical thinker engaging in dialectic with him for evidence or reason to have any impact, just as the faith-based thinker needs another uncritical thinker if he is to convince him to accept insufficiently supported claims. And this is why the two groups can have little or no impact on one another's thoughts. They don't speak the same language. They don't decide what is true the same way.

In the several years of participating and reading such debates, I can't see how anyone with something beyond a Grade 6 or 7 education could possibly go with 'because it says so' over your reasoned and rational analysis. Then there are folks like me, who have faith, but don't rely on it for logic.

I remain sympathetic to the lost victims here, but I see another thread has been started with regard to religion and homosexuality, but with regard to Catholicism. Same thing, much bigger religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see another thread has been started with regard to religion and homosexuality, but with regard to Catholicism. Same thing, much bigger religion.

Where is that thread? I'd like to see the 'lost victims' of Catholicism have to say about homosexuality.

 

[samtonga43]

Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Son of Man.
God is the Sun.

 

[samtonga43]

In the several years of participating and reading such debates, I can't see how anyone with something beyond a Grade 6 or 7 education could possibly go with 'because it says so' over your reasoned and rational analysis. Then there are folks like me, who have faith, but don't rely on it for logic.

Well said! I could not agree more. Thank you.

 

[CG Didymus]

Another consideration is, when a Baha'i offers the Name Baha'u'llah, ut means the 'Glory of God, thus we are offering the light from all the Messengers.

Names are no longer the barrier, except if one is attached to those names. We must embrace the light that is shining from them. The veil of names has been explained.

All the best, always, Regards Tony

How did he acquire that title?

In 1848, an early convert to the faith of the Báb, Mirza Husayn-’Ali (1817-1892), organized a conference of leading Bábís to discuss the state of the Bábí movement. At the conference he acquired the title Baha’u’llah, Arabic for “the Glory of God.”​

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How did he acquire that title?

In 1848, an early convert to the faith of the Báb, Mirza Husayn-’Ali (1817-1892), organized a conference of leading Bábís to discuss the state of the Bábí movement. At the conference he acquired the title Baha’u’llah, Arabic for “the Glory of God.”​

That's another prophecy wonderfully fulfilled CG.

Isaiah 62:2 "And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name."

Both the Bab and Baha'u'llah fulfilled this prophecy, they both became known by their New Name.

Regards Tony

 

[rational experiences]

Yes, and I wonder what they thought before they became Baha'is and were obligated to believe all the laws were God's truth? Like before they were Baha'is they read, "God says that homosexuality is not normal and is forbidden" and agreed with it?

It's a written theistic study of theistic causes and natural laws rationally.

Only humans who misread the purpose of the writing's falsify the advice.

In law nature garden with God earth the all and everything....the sex law for a baby is mother father or sister brother.

Adult.

Adultery once meant laying outside of natural law in nature.

Reasoned how life mind body human by two had been evicted in law away from its parent brother sister union.

Discussed why genealogy had changed...why mind also changed.

Gods law in nature garden had been disobeyed said a healer medical legal verdict.

Homosexuality had been caused.

As choice in a humans physical life is not of God quotes the teaching sex disobeyed gods laws as babies inherited man's sin.

In science technology he had altered gods law in nature garden.

Legal said homosexual baby was innocent as they had not chosen to change gods laws in garden nature.

The teaching.

The legal book was not a community preaching. It was written as a review for governing humans legal rights.

Hence referring to the documents only happened when technology by Rome was chosen again. And when Muslim mind changed by new star fall after wanted to rebuild technology again.

Once it was never preached against family as it was legal verdict human innocent. Of man's chosen Satanism science.

Baha'i tried to remind you...only by beautiful word use. You killed him for the reminder no science it's evil.

 

[rational experiences]

The teaching said human parents legally were at fault for baby's sin body conscious change.

Sex in gods laws was wrong. Even said so. We really now forbid it said theism.

Why some humans chose celibacy.

It has a theme a yearly ceremony for sex by group choice same day.... interpreted today incorrectly as an orgy different scenario..

Best time of year to get healthiest baby.

If you check ceremony history Judaic terms you find they did have ceremonial sex engagements. But stated celibate rest of the year.

To try not to have a baby innocent sin causes. Parents choice.

Hence no adult today has any rights to abuse the baby human all of us. You had sex when told not to.

 

[CG Didymus]

Agreed. That's what critical thinking is - evaluating evidence to generate sound (correct) conclusions from it and evaluating the arguments of others for soundness (identifying their fallacies and errors in fact).

It's also what religious apologists attempt to do - convince - but not using critical thinking.

There's a big difference between trying to convince people to use their brains instead of believing in what some man says when he claims, "God told me this and you should believe it." But why would Tony and other Baha'is have said that they aren't trying to convince people? This is a debate section. Are they afraid of being accused of proselytizing? They shouldn't be. We all know that they are. But they prefer calling it "teaching" the Faith, not proselytizing. And they're doing a good job at teaching us all about what the Baha'i Faith believes. Hmmm? Actually, maybe they aren't trying to convince us. The more I learn about the Baha'i Faith, the less I'm convinced it's true.

 

[CG Didymus]

In 1848, an early convert to the faith of the Báb, Mirza Husayn-’Ali (1817-1892), organized a conference of leading Bábís to discuss the state of the Bábí movement. At the conference he acquired the title Baha’u’llah, Arabic for “the Glory of God.”

He took this title before he knew or announced he was a manifestation? But he can't take a title and then claim it fulfills a prophecy.

That's another prophecy wonderfully fulfilled CG.

Isaiah 62:2 "And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name."

Both the Bab and Baha'u'llah fulfilled this prophecy, they both became known by their New Name.

But there's another problem... You keep taking verses out of context. I think verse two is referring to the Jews, and this is not a Messianic prophecy at all.

Isaiah 62 For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.

2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.

3 Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.

4 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzi-bah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.

5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

6 I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence, 7 And give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth.

8 The LORD hath sworn by his right hand, and by the arm of his strength, Surely I will no more give thy corn to be meat for thine enemies; and the sons of the stranger shall not drink thy wine, for the which thou hast laboured: 9 But they that have gathered it shall eat it, and praise the LORD; and they that have brought it together shall drink it in the courts of my holiness.

10 Go through, go through the gates; prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up a standard for the people.

11 Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

12 And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.​

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But there's another problem... You keep taking verses out of context. I think verse two is referring to the Jews, and this is not a Messianic prophecy at all.

You can see how you choose to CG.

Regards Tony

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

View attachment 68412

This a nightmare for reason.

G=F
G=S
G=HG
Therefore F=S=HG=G

But F≠S≠HG

That's another prophecy wonderfully fulfilled CG. Isaiah 62:2 "And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name." Both the Bab and Baha'u'llah fulfilled this prophecy, they both became known by their New Name.

Who doesn't fulfill this prophecy? You do. You've been posting on the Internet for over five years now. The Gentiles have seen your righteousness and all the kings your glory. And you are known by a new name, TransmutingSoul, which comes from the mouth of the Lord.

You can see how you choose to CG.

Just like when you say that prophecies of righteousness and glory have been filled by somebody writing out his ruminations. You see whatever you choose to. You choose to see prophecy fulfilled by those words, and so, that's what you see.

That freedom to choose thing has got to be frustrating, huh? You don't write that because you're happy about it or are pleased with how he exercises that freedom. No Abrahamic theist writing about free will ever approves of its use despite giving lip service to it being a gift from God. They praise obedience and declaim independent thought. Ask them why their god granted free will, and you hear how it pleases God that people choose to believe in Him by faith, that He doesn't want to be surrounded by robots. Of course He does if he picks only those that submit to His commands and punishes those that exercise their free will.

And I don't have to ask you or any other believer if he would control the choices his children and all others make if he had the power, putting to the lie his claim that he believes that free will is a gift, or that he disapproves of robots. It's just an unfortunate reality from the point of view of the religions of submission and authoritarian regimes that evolution has given the beasts and man the freedom and necessary neural circuits to make choices. The dictators don't pretend to admire free will, but the theists must, since they believe that God chose to give to man. But it's clearly a love-hate relationship.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Who doesn't fulfill this prophecy?

Firstly one would have to make a claim to be in the running. So delete all the billions of people that make no such claim.

Then we can delete all those that make a claim in their own name. Then we have those that make the claim and take on a new name, we get to decide who of them could be a God given Messenger, or are they false claimants Jesus warned us there would be many false claims.

IMHO, It is indeed fulfilled in the Bab and Baha'u'llah, but one is not compelled to search out how and why that could be so.

Your discounted, I am discounted, I make no claim. In the end, in this age it comes back to only the Bab and Baha'u'llah that will fulfil all the requirements, as all the rest of us, if we ventured to make such a claim, would be proven false.IMHO.

Regards Tony