Homosexuality and religious.

[Sheldon]

You may be taking "Jesus is the voice" literally.

How should I objectively take such claims?

 

[Sheldon]

That is correct. I'm just stating the obvious that it is those who create and follow laws who bear responsibility. Laws can not be inherently prejudicial or just.

Not sure I agree to be honest. Surely laws can have the characteristic of being just or prejudicial? Though of course this would depend on one's subjective views a priori. To be clear, I am not suggesting those who create such laws, no matter who they try to assign them to, are not culpable for the result.

Laws are not humans, unlike those who write and follow the laws.

Well yes of course, but again maybe I'm misunderstanding, it seems to me a law can be inherently prejudiced without being in and if itself culpable for that failing, since laws are not the sentient force that imagines them or enforces them.

Laws are necessary to maintain harmony and wellbeing within communities.

Human communities, but I will take it you meant that, as there are other animals that exist in communities that have morals, but not laws.

There are laws that fulfil this function well, others that undermine well being.

Wouldn't this suggest such laws are inherently unjust then? Albeit based on the subjective view that just laws care about well being of course.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Nope, that's just a subjective opinion, other humans have the right to measure your claims against science, logic and even their own subjective morality, when that is manifestly less pernicious.

For us Baha’is it comes down to fallible error prone humans vs an All Knowing infallible God Who created both man and science.

 

[Sheldon]

The values and practices of atheist societies can also reflect all manner of prejudices.

Of course, but then do you imagine I would ever dream of claiming humans are capable of infallible morals? As compared to exactly such claims from theists of different stripes, who all of course produce morals with fallible human ignorance and prejudice, and that failure has a pretty obvious logical inference.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So, I don't get it. They really believe they are not prejudiced, but they also believe that any person that is sexually attracted to a person of the same gender should not have sex with that person? But that's not being prejudiced? That is not "depriving" them of something they want to do?

It is a matter of conscience. A person may knowingly do as they please regardless of the law. Baha’u’llah is only advising us what is best for us but then it is up to us to listen or not.

God promotes world peace but humanity has chosen to have two world wars so far and maybe another one. So God advises us what is best for us but then it’s up to us to follow that advice or not. To go against God’s counsels will end in bad consequences for us even though we initially think we know what is best.

 

[Sheldon]

For us Baha’is it comes down to fallible error prone humans vs an All Knowing infallible God Who created both man and science.

Nonsense, your self proclaimed prophet was demonstrably a fallible error prone human, or else he'd not have projected his own homophobic bigotry into to the "message" he was claiming he'd derived his superstitious spiel from. Claiming to have received a perfect message from a perfectly moral deity carries a burden of proof, and a heavy one at that, which fails laughably if you manage to include archaic and ignorant prejudices like homophobia. One can only point and laugh as a result.

It isn't just that homophobia is vile and immoral, it is a massive own goal for the lofty and unevidenced claims that are destroyed by including such hate speech in this "perfectly moral message". Like creationists that recognise an omniscient deity cannot rationally be falsified by the science of evolved apes, yet fail to see that is what their blind adherence to archaic creation myths means.

 

[Sheldon]

It is a matter of conscience. A person may knowingly do as they please regardless of the law.

Like some Bahai's who knowingly break discrimination laws. They lack any moral conscience, but delude themselves the suffering they cause is justified because they blindly follow the bigoted doctrine of one fallible human.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Faith requires no knowledge, by definition.

That is an incorrect definition, one needs to broaden their knowledge to find the gift of Faith.

With Faith, knowledge becomes unlimited.

Regards Tony

 

[Sheldon]

Being rational is a vital part of being a human being but it is no guarantee of being free from prejudice.

Being rational is a choice we may make, but it is not inherent in us, else we need not have invented logic at all, we would reason that way as a matter of course. Also one may apply, or try to apply, logic to every thought process, but we would be doomed to fail, the best we can do is try to recognise weak or obviously irrational claims and arguments. Prejudice is not in an of itself pernicious, I am prejudice against intolerance, and bigotry. Rather it is where and how one is prejudiced that can be deeply harmful to others.

 

[Sheldon]

That is an incorrect definition, one needs to broaden their knowledge to find the gift of Faith.

Knowledge is unnecessary for faith, by definition. That you choose to use a subjective and arbitrary definition doesn't change this.

Knowledge
noun

Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Faith
noun

Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

They are manifestly not synonymous in any way.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Okay, you and other Baha'is believe homosexuality is immoral. But you're not prejudiced against them for doing an immoral sexual act? And again, just to make sure this isn't some religious superstition, what scientific data do you have to support that homosexuality is immoral?

Yes, after all it’s their choice. Baha’u’llah only gives advice but humanity can and has chosen to ignore it.

Science does not make moral decisions. That to me is God’s realm and the role of the Manifestation. Science explores the material world. It does not decide right or wrong, good or bad or moral and immoral.

Whenever a Manifestation of God arises, the people at first ridicule Him, but later all that He has revealed is proven to be true. At the time of Muhammad people believed the earth was the centre of the universe. When the Quran stated the fixity of the sun it was ridiculed centuries later proven to be correct.

The Manifestation of God is never wrong and we Baha’is have full confidence in Baha’u’llah on all these issues.

 

[Sheldon]

CG Didymus said: ↑
Like those people in some of the other religions that changed their views about homosexuality, they are going to have to go against the "infallibility" of their prophet and their Scriptures.

No, we don't have to change our views just to keep up with what is considered acceptable in modern society.

A rather stupid straw man, as that is not at all what was said.

 

[Sheldon]

Science does not make moral decisions. That to me is God’s realm and the role of the Manifestation. Science explores the material world. It does not decide right or wrong, good or bad or moral and immoral.

A false dichotomy fallacy. Science is a method or group of methods by which humans collectively can extend their objective knowledge, it would be asinine to imagine knowledge is not an aid to making moral decisions, though I can see why religions prefer to claim ignorant and blind adherence is a more moral option.

 

[Sheldon]

The Manifestation of God is never wrong and we Baha’is have full confidence in Baha’u’llah on all these issues.

I don't believe you, and am unlikely to change my mind when you use such weak and irrational arguments that use circular reasoning fallacies like that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Nonsense, your self proclaimed prophet was demonstrably a fallible error prone human, or else he'd not have projected his own homophobic bigotry into to the "message" he was claiming he'd derived his superstitious spiel from. Claiming to have received a perfect message from a perfectly moral deity carries a burden of proof, and a heavy one at that, which fails laughably if you manage to include archaic and ignorant prejudices like homophobia. One can only point and laugh as a result.

It isn't just that homophobia is vile and immoral, it is a massive own goal for the lofty and unevidenced claims that are destroyed by including such hate speech in this "perfectly moral message". Like creationists that recognise an omniscient deity cannot rationally be falsified by the science of evolved apes, yet fail to see that is what their blind adherence to archaic creation myths means.

That’s an understandable position for anyone who disbelieves in God and His Prophets.

 

[loverofhumanity]

A false dichotomy fallacy. Science is a method or group of methods by which humans collectively can extend their objective knowledge, it would be asinine to imagine knowledge is not an aid to making moral decisions, though I can see why religions prefer to claim ignorant and blind adherence is a more moral option.

Without religion science lacks a moral compass and is being used by politicians to create dangerous weapons threatening us all.

 

[Trailblazer]

A rather stupid straw man, as that is not at all what was said.

I know that is not what was said. Why do you think I have to respond to what was said? Do you think I am in a debate?

Surprise, surprise! I have my own thoughts and I was only reflecting those based upon what was said.

Do you ever have anything nice to say, something positive, other than to your fellow atheists?
Everyone who does not agree with you is deemed stupid or prejudiced, etc.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Knowledge is unnecessary for faith, by definition. That you choose to use a subjective and arbitrary definition doesn't change this.

Knowledge
noun

Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Faith
noun

Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

They are manifestly not synonymous in any way.

It may be just your subjective way of looking at it. I see Faith is a gift built upon certain knowledge. I would not have faith without that knowledge.

So one has ascertained about a religion a certain amount of facts based on available information, and added to their skills acquired through experience or education, the theoretical or practical understanding of the subject of that religion

So one embraces that religion and gains Faith, they gain a strong belief in the doctrines of that religion, based on spiritual conviction that their acquired knowledge is sound.

So that is the argument concluded.

We see it differently, you to yours me to mine.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, after all it’s their choice. Baha’u’llah only gives advice but humanity can and has chosen to ignore it.

Just maybe it was poor advice.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't believe you, and am unlikely to change my mind when you use such weak and irrational arguments that use circular reasoning fallacies like that.

That’s fine. I’ve looked into this religion for many years before I joined. It was never blind belief but questioning unceasingly. But when I did discover the truth of course I followed it.

I argued very strongly, just as you are, against God and religion. I opposed and attacked Baha’is and their beliefs but after research over many years I found out I was wrong.

But I stayed strong against Baha’i until I was convinced otherwise and you should do the same.