Homosexuality and religious.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is about the Baha'is that has you keep coming back and posting more and more?

I'm an amateur student of human psychology, and both faith-based thought and religious apologetics are endlessly fascinating phenomena to behold for me. This is what critical thinkers enjoy doing. They enjoy crafting sound arguments and evaluating the arguments of others for soundness, identifying and naming fallacies along the way. Many of us ask you to examine you beliefs, but I don't think that happens much. Faith pretty much triumphs in those willing to believe by faith.

Why do people keep coming back to Wordle (or sudoku)? Same thing, if one is a critical thinker and skilled at language and deduction. He enjoys putting those skills to the test just for the pleasure of applying reason to evidence and arriving at sound conclusions. And he kicks himself for making a careless error, because doing it efficiently is just as important as arriving at a correct solution.

In the matter of gay couples who are enrolled Baha'is living together as a same sex couple or being married, we do treat them differently from a married heterosexual couple. However they are not treated differently because they are gay, they are treated different because they are breaking the the laws of our faith.

This is how you convince yourselves that this is not homophobia. The laws are homophobic.

There is no shunning of those who lose their administrative rights.

What became of the gay couple in the video? Weren't they rejected. That's may not be shunning in the Mormon or Jehovah's Witness sense of the word, but it is rejection.

Generally when people start resorting to personal attacks or blanket attacks like your ideology is like the Nazis or KKK its a sure sign they are unwilling or unable to engage in a sensible discussion.

That's what you are being accused of with deflection - unwillingness to engage in responsive discussion, that is, an unwillingness to answer uncomfortable questions by criticizing analogies, for example, and not with valid criticism, either. What you did can be done with any analogy, and it doesn't make the analogy less apt. The very essence of an analogy is that it has some features that map mutatis mutandis onto something else, and some features that are different but irrelevant to the analogy. Thus, "he's as blind as a bat" is a valid analogy when limited to sight, but not much else, and replying that man is not a bat is a self-evidently true yet irrelevant objection.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God wants us to learn to use our free will.

The skeptic understands that to mean that that manmade religions admonish man to suppress his free will. Learning to use our free will means learning to submit to the stated will of the deity.

The veils of this world are for us to put aside and it all depends on the eagerness of our search.

It also depends where we search. Search in the wrong place and one is veiling himself in with wrong beliefs.

2 Timothy 3:2 "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy," Yet no one thinks that is applicable to their stance, how proud and righteous do we become!

Another religious idea. "Lovers of their own selves" is code for not submissive to doctrine but rather, trusting one's own judgment. Pride and self-righteousness as well. Who cares if people are unthankful, covetous or boasters? That's on them when they torture themselves with unrequitable desire or offend others with their boasting or ingratitude. There is no such thing as blasphemy or unholiness outside of religion.

Sorry, but there is no wisdom here that I can see. I disregard all of this except the parts that affect interpersonal relationships, and I suppress offensive behaviors not because a religion commands or even recommends it, but because it happens to be rational to do so. Being kind is a win-win.

The great thing about Faith is that it is 100% a freewill choice.

That's the great thing? It would be better if nobody opted for that choice. Faith is why Baha'i disesteem homosexuality and contribute to Abrahamic homophobia. Faith is why America is about to enter a tumultuous cultural battle over abortion laws that will harm society. And it's not limited to religious faith. Faith is why so many people rejected the climate scientists, which facilitated the mess we're in today and the bigger mess coming (Have you heard the trope that this was the hottest summer of your life so far and the coolest one of your life to come?) Faith is why so many people believe that the last presidential election was stolen and why many of them participated in a failed coup and will now be heading off to prison. Faith is why people refused a life-saving vaccine and hundreds of thousands died needlessly in America, leaving families missing a parent or two and in financial ruin. In every case, reason applied to evidence is the better path to belief.

 

[CG Didymus]

Just let you know, I will not respond to you anymore.

Regards Tony

I understand that. I've done that. It's just useless talking with them. But... I don't have a message of healing, a message of peace, a message of unity that includes and is meant for all people the world over. If the message isn't getting through, part of the blame is how it is being delivered.

But what some Baha'is are doing is starting threads they know it have a negative response. Who are the only people that have agreed with Baha'is about the Baha'i teaching on homosexuality? A JW? Maybe a Fundy Christian or two? Atheists and liberal religious people are all against the Baha'i beliefs that homosexuality is wrong and evil.

How are you going to present something like that in a way that people accept it as the truth from God? You're not, because Baha'is can't even establish that there is a God. And they can't establish that their founder was a prophet/manifestation of God, so anything he said or anything the religion says has zero credibility and authority yet. In fact, with a belief like this about homosexuality, it only takes even more credibility away from God and your prophet. They don't sound loving. They don't sound kind. And it makes God sound even more likely to not be real. And if God's not real, then Baha'u'llah loses all his credibility too.

Baha'is got to go back to square one and try and demonstrate that there is a God. What's the proof? What's the evidence? Trouble is... Baha'is can't prove it. That is to anyone else. Only to themselves. And that "proof" takes a lot of "faith" to believe in it. So, all Baha'is can do is live it. Show love and respect to others. And maybe, your example might attract the attention and respect of others. But these threads are doing nothing positive for the Baha'i Faith. It makes Baha'is look just as bad as any other religion that believes it is the only one that has the truth. And you know what Baha'is are supposed to do... You know that thing about deeds and not words be your adorning.

All we see here is the words of Baha'is. What are they doing to unite gays and straights? What are they doing to abolish the long-held prejudices against homosexuals? Long-held prejudices that have been because of the belief that God hates and condemns them. Most of them are not going to change. So, will you, the Baha'i Faith change?

 

[F1fan]

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've argued over the decades that I would be convinced there is something incredible about theism IF we observed theists acting with a high level of morality. That would mean we would observe very few theists commit crime, fraud, cheating, lying, and other vices, and atheists, the godless, would be more corrupt. I'd have to admit that there is some advantage to being a theist, that it brings a higher understanding to humans that they don't have without it.

But we don't see this. We see theists act with a great deal of criminality and immorality despite their religious beliefs. In my experience I see atheists have a more thought out set of moral views than theists, or at least they subject moral issues with more practical thinking, and this contrasts with some theists who express rather harsh, prejudicial views based on their dogmas. These theists insist they have little freedom to disagree with their dogmas, yet completely ignore that they willfully are part of their religious tradition. There's an inconsistent element to their thinking. It's fascinanting, but also terrifying, that people think they have no freedom of choice, nor power, over the religion they belong to.

 

[CG Didymus]

This has been explained before CG. There are fundamental Laws that are the foundation that do not change. One such Law that has not changed is the topic we discuss.

Then there are the laws that are subject to change, like prayer and fasting etc

This just helps us understand how people do pervert the Word of God, yet think they are not.

Regards Tony

To say, "this has been explained" is the problem. It is as if once a Baha'i has explained it, it is no longer controversial. The answer has been given. The answer from God that can't be wrong and is the truth.

But what about the opposing answer? It has been explained to Baha'is over and over again. This thread is a perfect example of that. Yet, Baha'is refuse to listen. Okay, neither side agrees. What do Baha'is say to do? Isn't there something about the clashing of opposing thoughts that a spark of truth arises? What is the "spark" of truth here? Baha'is say homosexuality is wrong. The opposing view says it is not wrong.

Have Baha'is explained why it's wrong? Other than the usual, "because our Scriptures says it's wrong"? Actually, there's a lot to explain. Why it's "abhorrent"? Why it's "unnatural"? And the rest of the claims that the Baha'i Faith says about it.

 

[CG Didymus]

So yes then, not no, you seem again to be using words while ignoring what they mean. Like Tony here:



So (according to Tony) your deity can be wrong then, and change its mind, this is manifest in the claim.

And that's the question... If God can change the laws, why didn't the law against homosexuality get changed? Maybe Baha'u'llah didn't know but the all-knowing God certainly knew that gays would come out and demand equality. And equality is something Baha'is stand for too. And they say equality for all people.

 

[CG Didymus]

"I sometimes quote myself and add anonymous after the quote." - anonymous.

Like someone once said, "It is time for the Baha'is to include gays as being equal in all things with its straight members." anonymous

 

[CG Didymus]

That brought this to mind.

"Bahá’u’lláh states that there are three barriers between man and God. He exhorts the believers to pass beyond these so that they may attain His Presence. The first barrier is attachment to the things of this world, the second is attachment to the rewards of the next world, and the third is attachment to the Kingdom of Names."

Adib Taherzadeh, The Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 20

Regards Tony

What does the "kingdom of names" mean to Baha'is?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, just stop openly discriminating against them with homophobia.

If someone wants to study and learn more about the Bible, he will find out that homosexual behavior is not approved by God. But since you think it is ok to engage in that type of conduct, that's what you think. It is not in harmony with the Bible. I can only tell you what the Bible says and what I agree with. The rest is up to you. (Have a nice day...)

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I am sorry you went through childhood abuse.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

How about pedophilia, do you think research shows a genetic element present in those pedophiles that do not control their desires, even after receiving counseling, going to jail, and so forth.

 

[CG Didymus]

In America William Miller was expecting the return and predicted the correct year. The German Templers were also waiting and even moved to Haifa and set up camp at the bottom of Mt Carmel. Yet they also did not embrace the prisoner in Akka just over the bay.

I've never looked into the German Templers, but William Miller's calculations had all sorts of problems with it. He took the days of one prophecy, I believe it was the 2300 mornings and evenings, and attached it to another prophecy about the rebuilding of Jerusalem from another, and made his calculations come out to 1844. But still, 1844 was the coming of the forerunner, the Bab, and not of the coming of Baha'u'llah. So, there's a lot of "adjustments" made in this and other prophecies to get them to predict the date desired.

 

[F1fan]

If someone wants to study and learn more about the Bible, he will find out that homosexual behavior is not approved by God.

Only one sentence in the Old Testament. That study would discover that modern Jews don't recognize that rule.

Study would reveal that homosexuality isn't part of the New Testament, so did God change its mind along with the bulk of other rules? It's vague. Many Christians assume tha ban on gays stands, but most other rules are not. Why? What is the motivation to judge gays? Based on what? Guesses.

But since you think it is ok to engage in that type of conduct, that's what you think. It is not in harmony with the Bible. I can only tell you what the Bible says and what I agree with.

If the Bible is from God what difference is there that you agree or not? Are you God? If you think the Bible is God's word then you have no choice. Now if you claim you do have a choice, then why not accept gays and their liberties? If you refuse, that is your judgment against gays, something Jesus taught not to do.

The rest is up to you. (Have a nice day...)

Then modern moral attitudes can carry influence if it is up to mere mortals.

 

[F1fan]

How about pedophilia, do you think research shows a genetic element present in those pedophiles that do not control their desires, even after receiving counseling, going to jail, and so forth.

Come on, let's not bring the Catholic Church into it. After all, they're Christians too, so you have that in common with them.

BTW, this is a common fallacy, by trying to tie the original topic to something that is criminal or bad. Gays aren't hurting anyone, nor targeting anyone.

 

[CG Didymus]

We don't know. It's up to each nation under the Baha'i Commonwealth what they will do is my understanding and the rights of the minority will be respected. I was concerned about this and wrote the Universal House of Justice. Here is my query and their reply:

Is there any definitive guidance on what we will do when the Baha’is become a majority in a country? Will the national assembly take over? Or will we form a new government by other means. I am worried about shutting people out of the administration of a government. I am afraid we will cause bad feelings. Could we have a different law for Baha’is and other people so as to not impose Baha’i law on others?

Mr. Duane Dawson

Dear Bahá’í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has received your email message of 12 June 2018, seeking guidance about the nature of the administration of a country when the majority of its population will have accepted the Faith and how in that circumstance minorities would be treated. We have been asked to convey the following and regret the delay in our response. It is not possible to describe with particularity how the governance of a country might be affected when the majority of its people accept the Faith. However, any change will be by democratic means and not by force. The writings of our Faith make it clear that under a Bahá’í system the rights of minorities must always be respected and upheld. Shoghi Effendi has enunciated this principle:

Unlike the nations and peoples of the earth, be they of the East or of the West, democratic or authoritarian, communist or capitalist, whether belonging to the Old World or the New, who either ignore, trample upon, or extirpate, the racial, religious, or political minorities within the sphere of their jurisdiction, every organized community enlisted under the banner of Bahá’u’lláh should feel it to be its first and inescapable obligation to nurture, encourage, and safeguard every minority belonging to any faith, race, class, or nation within it. (The Advent of Divine Justice (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 2006, 2015 printing), p. 53) With loving Bahá’í greetings, Department of the Secretariat

Since the majority, the Baha'is, have prohibitions against alcohol, then I would suspect that laws would be put in place prohibiting its use. Since homosexuality is forbidden in the Baha'i Faith, then again, the majority would be able to vote for laws that prohibit homosexuality. But laws and law enforcement have never stop anything.

Also, what would be the rights of a minority of the people that are engaging in a forbidden act?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I've argued over the decades that I would be convinced there is something incredible about theism IF we observed theists acting with a high level of morality. That would mean we would observe very few theists commit crime, fraud, cheating, lying, and other vices, and atheists, the godless, would be more corrupt. I'd have to admit that there is some advantage to being a theist, that it brings a higher understanding to humans that they don't have without it.

But we don't see this. We see theists act with a great deal of criminality and immorality despite their religious beliefs. In my experience I see atheists have a more thought out set of moral views than theists, or at least they subject moral issues with more practical thinking, and this contrasts with some theists who express rather harsh, prejudicial views based on their dogmas. These theists insist they have little freedom to disagree with their dogmas, yet completely ignore that they willfully are part of their religious tradition. There's an inconsistent element to their thinking. It's fascinating, but also terrifying, that people think they have no freedom of choice, nor power, over the religion they belong to.

I couldn't agree with you more. It's one of the chief benefits of participating in a forum like this for years. Here's something I left in another post a few months back:

"Another of the benefits to being here is the ability to see a spectrum of religious and humanist thinkers to get a sense of what effect religion has on believers according to the religion, and how the believers compare to the irreligious intellectually and morally - that is, what benefit or harm does the religious life confer on the faithful. The insight I gleaned there is that a little religion mainstream is probably harmless, but that the more zealous the theist, the more it negatively impacts him. Can I mention that although several theists do as well there as the typical secular humanist and frankly would be indistinguishable from them if they hadn't said they were theists, none do better, and many do much worse, which supports my conclusion that the less religion in anybody's life, the better."

Lack of religion is the gold standard that the religions are compared to, as well as to one another. As the above says, my findings are that none of the religions outperform the humanists morally or intellectually, and that the more fundamentalist a person is in their thinking, the further they depart from that standard, and the more irrational and unkind their thinking becomes.

But yeah, the fruit of a religions is its legacy, not its claims about themself. They present themselves as a moral force without which immorality runs amok. The evidence suggests otherwise. The Christian concepts of love, mercy, and justice don't resemble the humanist understanding of them at all, nor measure up. I have to add that this experience makes me proud to count myself among the humanists posting here on RF - uniformly fair, decent, honest, well-educated, and skilled in critical thinking all, and now more than ever, asserting themselves in these discussions by taking unflinching moral stands against irrational and harmful religious ethical systems.

 

[CG Didymus]

Ironic that you say you love those words from Buddha saying not to blindly accept religious proclamations, and then immediately admit that you blindly accept religions proclamations.

As if Baha'is really believe Buddha really said anything that Buddhist Scripture attribute to him. In fact, which Buddhists Scriptures do Baha'is say are authentic and accurate? I think it might be none.

The founder of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His doctrines gradually disappeared, and ignorant customs and ceremonials arose and increased until they finally ended in the worship of statues and images. – Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 165.

Baha’is believe that Buddha was a Manifestation of God, like Christ, but that his followers do not possess His authentic writings. This problem of authenticity plagues many Faiths, including Judaism, Christianity and (to a lesser extent) Islam.
​

Yet... they believe it was a true religion from God and that the Buddha was a manifestation of God.

 

[CG Didymus]

The problem here is that it just sounds awfully pretentious and clunky.
You'd think that he would have wanted to translate it into a form that was attractive and easy for the reader.
And it doesn't even read like the King James Bible.

And the original language in the NT I think was the common Greek.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think there would be less stress if theists imagined God as more of a force, or power, or essence, etc., and this power influences the believer to be more compassionate, responsible, caring, in balance, etc. We see many more rigid believers struggle with rigid rules and ideas, and while they might like the structure of the doctrine they lose the liberty as a moral being.

Yeah once a God is declared as being real and demands certain behaviors to be done and others to be forbidden, things go bad in a hurry. I think even with Baha'is there are some that will take the conservative view and expect all Baha'is to strictly obey all the rules. Strict and rigid don't work very well.

 

[CG Didymus]

Not for the billions who are indoctrinated from infancy.

And telling kids that sex outside of marriage is evil. Jesus didn't even want people to lust in their hearts. And homosexuality was on the list of evils. Were we born to be anti-gay or taught to?