Homosexuality and religious.

[loverofhumanity]

That's why I asked about tattooing thieves and burning arsonists. Those thieves and those arsonists would then have to be Baha'is. But most all of us know the long-term plans for the Faith... To rule a Baha'i world. If the whole world doesn't believe, then there will be no peace or unity. Even the lessor peace is only a stepping stone on the way to the most great peace. Then what? The law says homosexuality is forbidden. How will that law be enforced?

It all depends on peoples choice. People becoming Baha’is depends entirely on choice. We are not conquerors so Baha’i laws can only apply to those who willingly accept and believe in the Faith. That’s why we have millions of Jews who reject Jesus and billions of Christians who reject Muhammad and Muslims rejecting Baha’i because there is that freedom of choice there that always has and always will be there.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That letter from the office of the guardian told us... They should seek therapy from doctors. To do what? Make them not gay?

To Baha’is who wish to change.

 

[We Never Know]

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?

"what reason could you have to disagree with mixed raced marriage that wouldn't be racist?"

How did we switch to racism?

 

[loverofhumanity]

You really didn't know the guardian advised therapy? Just how well do you know your own religion?

It’s up to Baha’is if they want to change to explore different methods. But it’s still remains a choice.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

Yes I agree that science is a tool but so is religion. Science should not be creating weapons which destroy life but focus on prolonging peaceful coexistence. Science requires a moral compass which in this day I believe Baha’u’llah can best provide as He proposes other means of solving disputes than resorting sophisticated weaponry. Yet in the Ukraine war the sake of weapons is taking precedence over consultation which is the only way to really solve the problem.

 

[Vinayaka]

It’s up to Baha’is if they want to change to explore different methods. But it’s still remains a choice.

It's been made illegal in many countries. So gay Baha'is who make that choice would have to break the law to do it.

Edited to add links ...Which countries have already banned conversion therapy?

Seven survivors of conversion therapy describe its lasting, damaging impact

 

[ppp]

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.

You are editing to dodge what was said. Shoo.

 

[We Never Know]

You are editing to dodge what was said. Shoo.

Nope. You are switching don't "agree" to don't "approve". Two different concepts

Don't agree:
To not share the same opinion or feeling as someone

Don't approve:
To pass unfavorable judgment on: to refuse approval to.

My original post #3134. Note the use of the word disagree.. =don't agree

"Just because one disagrees with someone about their life doesn't mean they hate them.

I disagree with hookers life, drug users life, etc. but don't hate them."

 

[F1fan]

To Baha’is who wish to change.

It's like people wanting to change their eye color because a religion prejudices against their natural eye color.

Any therapy would be better asking why a gay person would want to be part of a religion that is prejudiced against them.

 

[F1fan]

Yes I agree that science is a tool but so is religion. Science should not be creating weapons which destroy life but focus on prolonging peaceful coexistence.

These weapons are just humans using how nature works to create them. If God wants peace why hid god create a universe with these characteristics that such deadly weapons be created? Or better yet, create humans with such an overactive emotion center, and brains that bypass reasoning, that they end up believing is irrational and untrue concepts, like gods, angels, deamons, miracles, etc.?

Why does Bahai have a prejudice against gays? The same reason humans can't coexist peacefully.

Science requires a moral compass which in this day I believe Baha’u’llah can best provide as He proposes other means of solving disputes than resorting sophisticated weaponry. Yet in the Ukraine war the sake of weapons is taking precedence over consultation which is the only way to really solve the problem.

Well, he failed. This is why scientists all over the world got together after WW2 and worked towards ethics in science. Look at the story of Leo Zsilard who tried to get the atomic bomb demonstrated to the Japanese in a test instead of dropping bombs on cities. That is the ethical thing to do. But the scientists, including Einstein, were ignored. What has Bahai done? As good as much of its intention seems to be they still are sabotaged by its own prejudice.

What would happen to gays if Bahai were to get political power?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

These weapons are just humans using how nature works to create them. If God wants peace why hid god create a universe with these characteristics that such deadly weapons be created? Or better yet, create humans with such an overactive emotion center, and brains that bypass reasoning, that they end up believing is irrational and untrue concepts, like gods, angels, deamons, miracles, etc.?

Why does Bahai have a prejudice against gays? The same reason humans can't coexist peacefully.


Well, he failed. This is why scientists all over the world got together after WW2 and worked towards ethics in science. Look at the story of Leo Zsilard who tried to get the atomic bomb demonstrated to the Japanese in a test instead of dropping bombs on cities. That is the ethical thing to do. But the scientists, including Einstein, were ignored. What has Bahai done? As good as much of its intention seems to be they still are sabotaged by its own prejudice.

What would happen to gays if Bahai were to get political power?

So science can do morality and ethics? How?

 

[F1fan]

So science can do morality and ethics? How?

Scientists are humans, so have to consider their morals, right?

And ethics in science is not new, it's widely known and discussed. Look at the prohibition of doing experiments on animals.

The Roots of Science and Ethics on JSTOR

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Scientists are humans, so have to consider their morals, right?

And ethics in science is not new, it's widely known and discussed. Look at the prohibition of doing experiments on animals.

The Roots of Science and Ethics on JSTOR

Well, then they are humans and not scientists. Science is a neutral methodology, that says nothing about how we ought to live.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it would be asinine to imagine knowledge is not an aid to making moral decisions

Agreed, but I'd say it comes in at the level of translating moral intuitions into rules to effect that vision. That is, one might say that he holds a utilitarian viewpoint for societies and try to find the rules that make it such that the most people have the most social and economic opportunity to pursue happiness as they define it. For me, that's a moral intuition that I can't argue for beyond saying that it feels right. It doesn't seem to come from any knowledge, but knowledge can then be used to make it happen. It was once believed that prohibition of alcohol would promote that vision, but it was later discovered that that prohibition had an unintended consequence that actually opposed the happiness doctrine. That was new knowledge, and was applied to the same moral intuition to generate a different rule based in that new knowledge.

That's what makes it rational ethics, and why it outperforms religious alternatives like the one we are witnessing in this thread. The Baha'i are stuck with their scripture. The Baha'i themselves seem to be applying their own reasoning skills to the Baha'i proclamation that gays are defective and need help, and don't promote that doctrine, even though they cannot go all the way and disavow it. That's for humanists and other groups to do. The pagans (I include the Wiccans and assorted LHP types - apologies if that is offensive to anybody) and dharmics seem to do pretty well avoiding the homophobia that pervades Abrahamic theology.

Science does not make moral decisions. That to me is God’s realm

To me, both science and ethics are the realm of man. There is no God's realm, just the realm of those who believe in and speak for gods. If gods exist, they do not communicate with man, or else they are no smarter or morally fit than man. Some of these moral systems attributable to gods are defective, and none outperform humanist ethics for decency and compassion. Some may approach or equal it, but none surpass it, and certainly none that teach that homosexuality is a defect that one should try to cure.

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

You responded to, "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". And that's the problem with faith. You have chosen a belief system by faith that takes you from that understandable position and asks you to defend something different that is not understandable. It is an irrational and destructive teaching said to be from a perfect god that is accepted uncritically.

Without religion science lacks a moral compass

Many religions lack a reliable moral compass.

Most participants do not want to find common ground between Faith given laws and liberal society views.

Most participants aren't Bahai'i or members of any homophobic faiths, and are subject to no such laws, just as the Baha'i here feel exempt from the judgment of the humanists and their principles. Where's the common ground between calling homosexuality immoral because it offends a god and believing that that is a hateful and destructive teaching? Why do you expect the humanists to compromise their principles? How far have the Baha'i moved in this thread to find common ground? So, what are you looking for from people who find the doctrine irrational and destructive?

They want to change or eliminate Faith/s.

I would like to see people stop thinking by faith, learning to reason, and develop their own consciences. It does tremendous harm to those people and others around them, and not just in the area of homophobia. It is now damaging American women in the form of abortion restrictions based in faith that that is what Jesus wants, and maybe criminalizing same sex marriage and contraceptive use next. And faith underlies climate science rejection, pandemic science rejection, and election hoax claims - all very damaging to everybody affected. It's the barrier to progress using reason. Reasonable people everywhere oppose that kind of thinking, and those kinds of people oppose the reason when it conflicts with faith.

As this is a debate that will go nowhere and resolve little.

It will resolve nothing further, but I'd say that a lot has been resolved so far. The Baha'i have been remarkably homogeneous, as have their critics. I've mentioned before that one of the chief benefits of participating in RF has been the opportunity to see a spectrum of humanists and various different kinds of theists to see the effects that these ideologies have on their adherents. Doesn't this thread accomplish that nicely? We can see very clearly how the Baha'i faith has affected its adherents by contrasting them with others outside Abrahamic religion.

I see Faith is a gift built upon certain knowledge. I would not have faith without that knowledge.

And yet it was knowledge that allowed me to see the flaw in believing by faith. For me, the gift is critical thinking. If mastered, it immunizes one against belief by faith and all indoctrination religious or political.

 

[samtonga43]

There is nothing illogical about what I said unless the Bible is wrong.

More poor reasoning. You wouldn't know if the Bible is right or wrong, because you don't read in context; you pull out individual verses which you what you think corresponds with your point of view. They usually do not.

It is not natural for humans to always behave like animals because humans have a spiritual nature that animals do not have.

Did I say that It is natural for humans to always behave like animals? Have a look at my post and find out. You’ve built another strawman, haven’t you?

You should know that if you read the Bible.

You mean the Bible you want to burn? The Bible from which you pull verses out of their context, as you have here?
I do read the Bible,Tb, but I read it intelligently and in context. And I certainly don’t want to burn it.

John 3:6
John 6:63 1 John 2:16

More quote mining. You really must learn to read in context, Tb.
Not one of the three verses you quoted (in 17th Century English ) say anything about the comparison between animal nature and human nature. Ignoring context is like looking at Google Maps and zooming in on one house.

 

[We Never Know]

More poor reasoning. You wouldn't know if the Bible is right or wrong, because you don't read in context; you pull out individual verses which you what you think corresponds with your point of view. They usually do not.

Did I say that It is natural for humans to always behave like animals? Have a look at my post and find out. You’ve built another strawman, haven’t you?

You mean the Bible you want to burn? The Bible from which you pull verses out of their context, as you have here?
I do read the Bible,Tb, but I read it intelligently and in context. And I certainly don’t want to burn it.

More quote mining. You really must learn to read in context, Tb.
Not one of the three verses you quoted (in 17th Century English ) say anything about the comparison between animal nature and human nature. Ignoring context is like looking at Google Maps and zooming in on one house.

"You wouldn't know if the Bible is right or wrong"

How does anyone really even know if the bible has been interpreted correctly?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If people don’t like Baha’i laws then it’s best not to join.

That goes without saying, although one might think that you would recommend that those who find some of those laws offensive to try the religion out. But as you can see, some people don't like at least some Baha'i laws enough to object from the outside.

So far the world has not even tried Baha’u’llah’s teachings. If they don’t work then the world can go back to their ways of wars and killing each other. But to condemn His teachings without even trying them is not the answer. We’ve had two world wars which I believe would have been avoided if the leaders united but they chose not to. So the failure of the world to have peace is on the leaders not Baha’u’llah.

Humanism works. It's been tested in a few arenas and has always made lives better there where religions never had before or since. We just need the religions to stand down. If humanism can purge the world of religious homophobia, it will have made the world a better place. It HAS been doing that, and that alone is responsible for all of the reduction in homosexual oppression that we have seen - why it is no longer illegal or called a mental disease, why gays can now adopt, teach, coach and serve on juries - all prohibited when i was young - and why they can marry and enjoy the protections of the state that the law affords heterosexuals. No religion did that, but one is threatening to undo it.

Humanism is the driving force for unity in the West. It underlies the left's support of tolerance and inclusion, including LGBTQ+. The religions are the brakes to that progress. What is Baha'ism actually doing there apart from spreading homophobic doctrine? All I see are vague platitudes about unity with no plan. What would the Baha'i do with the world if given its ear? I can tell you exactly what the humanists would do - what you see them do every day, what they are doing on this thread, and what the American Constitution embodies.

Here's a bit of the harm homophobic attitudes cause: "Lavender ceiling - an upper limit to professional advancement imposed upon LGBTQ+ people that is not readily perceived or openly acknowledged."

This is what is meant by systemic violence ("the harm people suffer from the social structure and the institutions sustaining and reproducing it.") - how ingrained prejudices perhaps not even experienced as such contribute destructively to the lives of some others.

And here's a bit more, as well as somebody pushing back at the religious homophobia. This is what this doctrine does:

You have your beliefs and I have mine and no amount of criticism from you will change that because I believe you are mistaken and as you do not believe in God then you fall back on your error prone human mind.

And how do you think that believing by faith is perceived? It's the greatest error possible to make according to the rules of reason. Every time one does that, he commits a non sequitur fallacy. Every time. Faith cannot possibly be a path to truth if the opposite of what you believe by faith to be truth can just as easily be believed by faith? What value is a method that can take you to every wrong idea imaginable if one sidesteps the vetting process that critical thought offers, which takes one to sound conclusions instead?

I'd say that any critical thinker's mind is more error-free than any faith-based thinker's.

He says in that Book. “Obey my commandments for the love of My Beauty”.

And what do you say to one who finds some of those commands ugly?

He could have allowed the Baha'i-bashing go on and on with nobody presenting the other side.

You all presented the same argument, which everybody else found irrelevant, a point none of the Baha'i here addressed. The Baha'i all claimed that they weren't homophobes because they didn't actively hate or persecute gays. Their collocutors to a man said that wasn't essential to homophobia - that just accepting the spiritual or moral inferiority of gays was sufficient. The Baha'i claimed that they don't do that, and their answer wasn't believed. We understand that a loving Baha'i father of a gay son can treat his son as well as one who is not homophobic, but he cannot escape the fact that his religion teaches (and he must accept because he was told and believed that it comes from a good god) that there is something wrong with his son. And if his son knows the religion, he knows that about his father, someone the son may love very much, but has to live with the understanding that he is not as good as a straight son in the eyes of his father's god. None of that is connected to active feelings of hatred, so repeatedly defending against the charge of homophobic doctrine that has been accepted as God-given by saying there is no feeling of hatred has had no impact.

Why would they [Christians and Muslims] join the discussion? From the get-go this thread was all about how homophobic the Baha'is are for holding their beliefs.

They hold the same belief. Nobody wants to defend against that charge when their religion teaches that homosexuals are defective. It's a losing argument these days, one that only serves further to make the point that religious homophobia is moving outside the Overton window (acceptable opinion).

Thanks, but I think someone already did that, which is why the worst of the bashing seems to be over.

What you call bashing is moral indignation regarding a doctrine repugnant to humanists, and that has not abated at all. Why would it?

 

[samtonga43]

Humans are different from animals, since humans have an animal nature, but humans also have a spiritual nature that other animals do not have.
What is natural for animals is natural for humans if humans only follow their animal nature, but if humans follow their spiritual nature then it is not natural for humans to behave like animals.

I disagree.
Animals love, play, feel joy, grieve, share, eat, think, communicate, feel sorrow, reason...
Humans love, play, feel joy, grieve, share, eat, think, communicate, feel sorrow, reason...

 

[ADigitalArtist]

"what reason could you have to disagree with mixed raced marriage that wouldn't be racist?"

How did we switch to racism?

Because it's a helpful analogy to highlight internal biases towards discrimination.

And the social and legal pathways towards accepting mixed race relationship is very similar to those of gay relationships, as well as the same tired stumbling blocks.

What reason could you have to disagree with mixed race relationships that isn't racist?

What reason could you have to disagree with gay relationships that isn't homophobic?

 

[ppp]

Don't agree:
To not share the same opinion or feeling as someone

I disagree with hookers life, drug users life, etc. but don't hate them."

A life is neither an opinion nor a feeling