Homosexuality and religious.

[TransmutingSoul]

Fair enough, although a valid point was made.

Yes for that One translation, but there is no valid point that can be rightly stated that Baha'u'llah did not fulfil the Prophecies mentioned.

I see people can rightly say they do not agree and that is absolutely no problem.

Regards Tony

 

[Secret Chief]

So now we have Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu adherents objecting. I'm sure there are more. There is another list about non-Bahai's according to Baha'is ... ill, diseased, blind, deaf, and today I add atheist. For a sect that suggests it wants cooperation amongst the people of the earth, they sure seem to be going about it the wrong way.

If I wanted to play hardball I might suggest the Bahai religion breaks the precept of not slandering the Dharma. But I'm too nice.

 

[dybmh]

The evidence is that both the Bab and Baha'u'llah have said it was they that conversed with Moses.

I hope you can see that the evidence I have given is as solid as your evidence. That is, I have also offered it is in the recorded Word of God.

Regards Tony

it's not as strong because at Mt. Sinai, the entire nation saw it, heard God's voice. How many people saw the Bab and Baha'u'llah talk with Moses? Hmmmmm?

 

[dybmh]

Observe: the people of Israel rebelled, but apparently the reproach was for Moses and Aaron. As it is said in the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 3, verse 26: "But the Lord was wroth with Me for your sakes, and would not hear Me: and the Lord said unto Me, Let it suffice Thee; speak no more unto Me of this matter."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 168)

the reason for Moses staying behind is given by God, Numbers 20:11-12 and Deuteronomy 32:51-52.

11 Moses raised his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, when an abundance of water gushed forth, and the congregation and their livestock drank. ]
12 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Since you did not have faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly to the Land which I have given them.

51 Because you betrayed Me in the midst of the children of Israel at the waters of Merivath Kadesh, [in] the desert of Zin, [and] because you did not sanctify Me in the midst of the children of Israel.
52 For from afar, you will see the land, but you will not come there, to the land I am giving the children of Israel.​

So **clearly** in the text God was not "wroth with Me for your sakes". Moses was simply wrong about this.

 

[dybmh]

Explain why you see this that way. In the end however I don't care very much if we agree or not. We worship the same God. You can derive morals and spirituality from your religion just as I can from my religion.

Sure, take a look at Post#4827. The point though, is not that the Baha'i practice is wrong. The point is that there are legitimate theological differences between Judaism and Baha'i writtings. The claim that is repeatedly made by Baha'i is broad inaccurate generalization: { paraphrasing } "The only reason for denial of Baha'u'llah's station is clinging to the interpretations of clergy." Not true. It's not an interpretation, it's in the text. Specifically the 10 commandments, which have been confirmed by Abdul'Baha as coming from God.

“The essential teaching of Moses was the law of Sinai, the Ten Commandments. Christ renewed and again revealed the commands of the one God and precepts of human action.”

Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p.154
29 May 1912 Talk at Home of Mr. and Mrs. Edward B. Kinney 780 West End Avenue, New York

Paragraph 1 - Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages 154-156.
​

So, the text in the Torah should not be under dispute. The 10 commandments are, per Baha'i writtings, accurate directives from God.

​

 

[dybmh]

I couldn't find any other translations like NIV translation to verse 12.
Any ideas why?

I found one source which claims that "מָצ֑וֹר" was the name of an Egyptian city.

 

[dybmh]

Raising the translation was but a smoke screen.

Raising the translation shows that:

knowledge is lacking to identify an error. The prophecies cited are flawed, and you would never know the difference.

It's the same with the theological differences you ignore.

knowledge is lacking to identify the theological differences

 

[dybmh]

Yes for that One translation, but there is no valid point that can be rightly stated that Baha'u'llah did not fulfil the Prophecies mentioned.

I see people can rightly say they do not agree and that is absolutely no problem.

Regards Tony

The prophecies are made up manufactured nonsense. From my research they do not come from Baha'i, so-called, infallible sources, they come from "Thief in the Night" by William Sears, a regular human being. Cite your sources, else they are nothing more than human, flawed, guesses.

If you can show that William Sears knew Hebrew, that would change things.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would find the display of Buddhist symbols on Bahai temples insulting. This is because Bahai has appropriated Buddhism for its own agenda, and in doing so attempts to make fundamental changes to the core of Buddhism, claiming Buddhists have got Buddhism "wrong" - such as the Buddha being a messenger of god.
Patronising, arrogant, ignorant, deceptive, disingenuous, insulting ...need I go on?

One of the surprising lessons from this thread is how indifferent and unrepentant the Baha'i seem to be when called on moral infractions. None care about this. None have addressed it. Somebody might have acknowledged the slight even if they could offer nothing more than sympathy. This happened when we were discussing homosexuality as well, and specific examples involving people posting here were adduced that included human suffering over that doctrine, there was no expression of empathy at all, just denials that any hatred was intended.

Why is that, I ask myself. These are otherwise kind and constructive people. I expect that they are fully capable of empathy in other areas, and really do feel for the unfortunate. But in these areas, nothing. What can we conclude but that the faith erases the empathy in areas where that empathy would in their minds give credence to the complaint that Baha'i doctrine was homophobic or some Baha'i has offended a member of another faith by appropriating their faith and symbols, and "correcting it." There is only one answer for me: religious faith. It expunges empathy, or at least the expression of it. I'm still stunned and deeply offended by I what I read earlier in this thread when the real pain of real people was being discussed, including lapsed gay Baha'i, one gay secular humanist, and the Baha'i father of a gay son. Not a single proton of empathy expressed for the problems this religion caused any of them.

The Baha'is who say very little here are doing much better at promoting their faith that the vocal ones, I'm afraid.

I have a question for you. Since you knew Baha'i in real life, and maybe still do, just how representative do you feel our main three Baha'i folks here are? Yes we have 3 or 4 less participating Baha'i and they do behave differently here. Do you think the average Baha'i in real life is a lot like the 3 who post a lot, or more like the 3 or 4 who don't post much at all, and when they do it's less arrogant? I'm thinking maybe I'm making some poor conclusions based on the small sample size.

This is one of the huge benefits of participating here for me. We can generate a spectrum for each worldview and compare them all. Secular humanism is generating the highest frequency of intelligent, educated, decent people. Theistic humanists (they don't call themselves that, but they are essentially indistinguishable from the atheistic variety apart from a god belief that doesn't cause them to abandon reason and innate decency), dharmics (like you, who might also be considered a theistic humanist), and many pagans/LHP do very well also, with few reprehensible opinions expressed. And it goes downhill from there. My conclusion? The less religion one has, the better off he is. Look at the other end of the spectrum, where faith and submission to doctrine dominate thought. This is where America's white evangelicals fall - Trump's people.

Science cannot show that homosexuality is okay or not okay since science does not weigh in on morality.

Science has uncovered no fact about homosexuality that justifies Abrahamic homophobia. It need show nothing.

You can derive morals and spirituality from your religion just as I can from my religion.

You don't derive morals from religion. You read them, learn them, and obey them or not. The moral values of humanism are derived from the application of reason to one's moral intuitions (conscience). And we all come up with more or less the same values as you are seeing in these threads even though we have no book or clergy or other source to guide us. I was already a humanist before I knew the word. One day, I came upon the Affirmations of Humanism, and recognized my own worldview there. It's really the only one possible once one decides to replace faith with reason and received morals with endogenous moral intuitions, which for most is the Golden Rule for personal interactions and utilitarianism for structuring governments and societies. Start there, think for a few years, then go look at the Affirmations, and there you are.

I take other people coming to the same conclusions independently combined with the benefits of holding this worldview already received as affirmation that we are all on the right track.

 

[Vinayaka]

One of the surprising lessons from this thread is how indifferent and unrepentant the Baha'i seem to be when called on moral infractions. None care about this. None have addressed it. Somebody might have acknowledged the slight even if they could offer nothing more than sympathy. This happened when we were discussing homosexuality as well, and specific examples involving people posting here were adduced that included human suffering over that doctrine, there was no expression of empathy at all, just denials that any hatred was intended.

Why is that, I ask myself. These are otherwise kind and constructive people. I expect that they are fully capable of empathy in other areas, and really do feel for the unfortunate. But in these areas, nothing. What can we conclude but that the faith erases the empathy in areas where that empathy would in their minds give credence to the complaint that Baha'i doctrine was homophobic or some Baha'i has offended a member of another faith by appropriating their faith and symbols, and "correcting it." There is only one answer for me: religious faith. It expunges empathy, or at least the expression of it. I'm still stunned and deeply offended by I what I read earlier in this thread when the real pain of real people was being discussed, including lapsed gay Baha'i, one gay secular humanist, and the Baha'i father of a gay son. Not a single proton of empathy expressed for the problems this religion caused any of them.





This is one of the huge benefits of participating here for me. We can generate a spectrum for each worldview and compare them all. Secular humanism is generating the highest frequency of intelligent, educated, decent people. Theistic humanists (they don't call themselves that, but they are essentially indistinguishable from the atheistic variety apart from a god belief that doesn't cause them to abandon reason and innate decency), dharmics (like you, who might also be considered a theistic humanist), and many pagans/LHP do very well also, with few reprehensible opinions expressed. And it goes downhill from there. My conclusion? The less religion one has, the better off he is. Look at the other end of the spectrum, where faith and submission to doctrine dominate thought. This is where America's white evangelicals fall - Trump's people.



Science has uncovered no fact about homosexuality that justifies Abrahamic homophobia. It need show nothing.



You don't derive morals from religion. You read them, learn them, and obey them or not. The moral values of humanism are derived from the application of reason to one's moral intuitions (conscience). And we all come up with more or less the same values as you are seeing in these threads even though we have no book or clergy or other source to guide us. I was already a humanist before I knew the word. One day, I came upon the Affirmations of Humanism, and recognized my own worldview there. It's really the only one possible once one decides to replace faith with reason and received morals with endogenous moral intuitions, which for most is the Golden Rule for personal interactions and utilitarianism for structuring governments and societies. Start there, think for a few years, then go look at the Affirmations, and there you are.

I take other people coming to the same conclusions independently combined with the benefits of holding this worldview already received as affirmation that we are all on the right track.

Thank you. Yes, I've long considered myself a theistic humanist. Your points on empathy are astute, for if we can't be empathetic to the human condition, then just who are we?

Then again, my theism is far different than the Abrahamic theism.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

it's not as strong because at Mt. Sinai, the entire nation saw it, heard God's voice. How many people saw the Bab and Baha'u'llah talk with Moses? Hmmmmm?

I just see we have to find our unity in our diversity, we have different frames of references. In the end we can Love each other and work together for all humanity, regardless of us seeing scriptures in a different light.

As you will have now gathered, I would have a different interpretation of these events. Starting way back in John 5:37 Jesus also tells us this,

"And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape"

God is above all Attributes and Creation. So the event on Mount Sinai has deep spiritual significance as the voice of God in this world, is all the Messengers and it is only the Messengers that give the Voice of God to humanity. God is seen and heard by us via seeing the Messengers and hearing the Word they speak and the Word that is recorded.

The Messengers however hear God in other ways, which is another mystery we as humanity are faced with.

Regarding Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Raising the translation shows that:

knowledge is lacking to identify an error. The prophecies cited are flawed, and you would never know the difference.

It's the same with the theological differences you ignore.

knowledge is lacking to identify the theological differences

Shouting will not help. In the end, the current frame of reference I see scriptures through, is different from what your current frame of reference is. Both are not wrong.

Interpretations of Prophecy have been the downfall of humanity, as they have been the cause of many conflicts.

So It really is of no use to argue about them, we can just see them differently.

so, let's just agree to disagree and live together as friends who wish naught but the best for all humanity, by showing that in our actions.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The prophecies are made up manufactured nonsense. From my research they do not come from Baha'i, so-called, infallible sources, they come from "Thief in the Night" by William Sears, a regular human being. Cite your sources, else they are nothing more than human, flawed, guesses.

If you can show that William Sears knew Hebrew, that would change things.

I see that it maybe best to leave all this alone, as one could and would argue that the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi also did not know Hebrew.

The language of the Spirit, I personally see is outside written languages. I see the written languages can be a veil, especially if we are looking for strict literal interpretations.

Logically, given the world of religions, our One God has given Messengers who spoke and recorded the Word in different languages.

I deeply enjoyed my two visits to the Holy Land. I remember walking from the Harbour of Haifa each day up to the top of Mount Carmel via all the different routes and many steps to climb. On the way meeting many Orthodox Jews going about their daily lives so close to a place I see as Most Holy. I sat in the Gardens and watched them come through on tours and could only wonder about their thoughts.

Haifa is really a wonderful place, showing how the religions can live together, only if we embrace our diversity in the Love of our One God.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This happened when we were discussing homosexuality as well, and specific examples involving people posting here were adduced that included human suffering over that doctrine, there was no expression of empathy at all, just denials that any hatred was intended.

That would be because one is not considering that they were treated with empathy.

The key is, we will not hear the other side of the story, as a Baha'i I would remain silent on anything that was said privately on this issue, so one can draw one's own conclusions based only on one side of the story.

Regards Tony

 

[dybmh]

I just see we have to find our unity in our diversity, we have different frames of references. In the end we can Love each other and work together for all humanity, regardless of us seeing scriptures in a fifteenth light.

Agreed.

Interpretations of Prophecy have been the downfall of humanity, as they have been the cause of many conflicts.

Agreed.

I see that it maybe best to leave all this alone, as one could and would argue that the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi also did not know Hebrew.

Agreed. But, if it comes up again, I reserve the right to object at that time.

 

[CG Didymus]

That is a Reasoned and logical conclusion of progressive Revelation.

Each year we go to school gives us the lessons that prepare us for the learning to come.

Regards Tony

Okay, the spiritual message Baha'is say is the same. Why would different social laws that are temporary and meant for a certain culture be something that is preparing those people for a messenger that is going to come to a different culture and have new social laws that are temporary and don't necessarily fit into the culture of the previous messenger?

 

[CG Didymus]

That is the Message, not the Baha'i's. It is the Sword,it always is.

Tell us of a Message that is not a challenge to the view of people living in that age.

Regards Tony

There's been so many people and cultures that had their own Gods and beliefs that practically no one believes were true. But they believe them to be myth. And a religion like Christianity comes along with their beliefs in a dying and rising God/man and tells them that their ancient religion is false and forces those people to believe in their religion, the Christian religion. Which to some of us, and maybe including some Baha'is, believe those Christian beliefs were also false. So, I think, new messages should be challenged.

 

[CG Didymus]

The evidence is that both the Bab and Baha'u'llah have said it was they that conversed with Moses.

I hope you can see that the evidence I have given is as solid as your evidence. That is, I have also offered it is in the recorded Word of God.

Regards Tony

Hmmm, I thought it was God.

 

[CG Didymus]

Not all have to believe in the Baha'i Faith for peace and unity to happen. Our watchword is unity in diversity.

If that diversity includes Fundamentalist Christians and Moslems, I don't think there will be much unity. As I've said before, the liberal forms of those religions and others would have no problem with the Baha'i Faith, unless Baha'is get too fundamentalist about their religion.

 

[CG Didymus]

I always post a KJV, as they are rarely disputed.

Why not use a Jewish translation instead of a translation made by Christians that might have been biased and didn't have as many ancient Scripture fragments to work with?