You really didn't know the guardian advised therapy? Just how well do you know your own religion?
-
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
Again, please report this bashing to the mods. It's against the rules of this forum.
You are treating the idea of God as if it is real and accpted as real, yet no gods are known to exist, including your version. So that means you are the one making the decision that this God exists, and it is you deciding to follow these rules. That means the accountability and prejudice falls on you.
Trying to avoid accountability even if your God was known to exist, and it was confirmed that God says gays are condemned, you would still have a choice to agree with that God's moral outlook.
Basically you are arguing here in a way that a person would think to themselves to convince themselves that their beliefs are true and justified. You have a fatal flaw in your approach that you don;t understand that you are making assumptions about a God existin, and you express your beliefs about it here.
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Thanks, but I think someone already did that, which is why the worst of the bashing seems to be over.
What possible reason could you have for saying 'I disapprove of mix race marriage' that would not be racist?
We Never Know
No Slack
I never brought up the word "approve/disapprove". I used agree.
There is a difference.
This is an interesting dialog.
One thing I just became aware of is that I don't necessarily approve of the gay lifestyle. My position is that I have no judgment one way or the other about the gay lifestyle, they aren't hurting anyone so to my mind it's none of my business.
The odd thing is those who disapprove of the gay lifestyle. I defend gays and their freedom to love who they want because that is my basic platform of being tolerant and accepting. I neither approve or disapprove because I don't take any stand to judge them.
Additionally I don't disapvrove of people being theists. I will disagree with their claims and beliefs if they present them in debate, and I am free to assess and criticize ideas, beliefs, and the reason theists decide to believe. I only disavprove of anyone who deliberately harms otehrs, and espeically to profit themselves somehow. Bahai are in this category. Who knows why Baha'u'llah decided to be homophobic, but it's seems irrelevant to what the rest of the religion stands for. It was probably just a popular attitude at the time and it has not aged well into a more tolerant 21st century.
So we are more likley to disapprove of something than approve, just because if people run, or play darts, or knit we might not have any opinion about it, no one gets hurt. But if they knit, and on occasion stab stangers at the mall with a knitting needle, well that crosses a moral line and we might form a negative opinion. It's not the knitting, it's the stabbing.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Not his fault. Allah was speaking through him. Allah does not speak in any other way.
When deities possess people:
ppp
Well-Known Member
You said "agree with a homosexual's life" which is not a thought with any completion. Do you have any usage meaning for that phrase that doe not boil down to your approval? I doubt it
We Never Know
No Slack
As I said in a previous post....
"I don't agree with the life of a drug addict or hooker but that doesn't mean I hate them."
It isn't about approval. Its their life, I don't have to agree with it and not agreeing with it doesn't mean I hate them.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Science is a toolbox, a collection of methods we use to examine and understand reality. The process can help us make informed decisions about what we (subjectively) deem to be moral and why.
Religions are just a collection of often errant and archaic doctrine and dogma. Telling someone they must follow a set of rules uncritically isn't morality, its indoctrination.
Quod errat demonstrandum.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Or who recognises unevidenced subjective and anecdotal claims espoused uncritically as absolutes, to be the very definition of indoctrination.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Or protecting us, depending on your viewpoint, but yes science is simply a method for understanding reality. It can of course help make informed choices about what we deem moral, and why.
Uncritically following doctrine, is simply indoctrination, it is in no way morality, which by definition is the ability to differentiate between right and wrong behaviours. Relinquishing our critical thinking faculties simply turns us into amoral automatons.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Because you quoted his post as a preface, obviously. What a truly bizarre question.
Though this does explain the penchant for irrelevant straw men fallacies.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
If you want uncritical approbation, then espousing religious absolutes that involve hate speech like homophobia to an atheist and humanist, is hardly likely to succeed, now is it?
I haven't called anyone stupid, and the prejudice that has been pointed out is irrefutable, even without those individuals unequivocally and repeatedly admitting they are prejudiced against gay people.
That they choose to delude themselves this isn't the case with platitudes is sadly not uncommon.
Last edited:
Okay, assuming there is a meaningful difference between those, what reason could you have to disagree with mixed raced marriage that wouldn't be racist?
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I understand you here,Tb.
By 'in the same light' do you mean that you approve of any two people who love each other having sex with each other for purposes other than producing offspring?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
It's also a rather dishonest straw man, since no one has ever suggested same sex couples can reproduce together. Only refuted the absurd claim that gay people can't or don't reproduce, and even in precisely the way their religion risibly claims everyone should, by have intercourse primarily for reproduction rather than pleasure.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Sheldon
Veteran Member
You may find it helpful to define free will, as you seem to be making contradictory claims. Al's the word prove, as one wonders what your basing belief on, what for example if your criteria for accepting something as true, or conversely for disbelieving it?