Homosexuality and religious.

[loverofhumanity]

So, accepting gay marriage and allowing them to have sex with each other is wrong and should be forbidden, because God said so. And if the creator of the Universe said so, wouldn't that be a law that everyone should obey? Or God told Baha'u'llah that for Baha'is homosexuality is abnormal and for Baha'is it is forbidden?

I accept the law as a Baha’i but I can’t tell other people what to do. Baha’i laws apply to Baha’is only. The laws were revealed for all but belief in Baha’u’llah is voluntary so the laws can only apply to those who voluntarily place themselves under His care.

 

[dybmh]

All through history from the Torah to the New Testament, Quran and now Baha’u’llah, God has been consistent about homosexuality.

Not true for the Torah. Homosexuality in the Torah is the subject of debate.

 

[dybmh]

@loverofhumanity ,

"the translation of the phrase, miškĕbȇ ’iššâ, indicates that Lev. 18:22 prohibits incestuous male-on-male rape with a boy. Incestuous rape is also prohibited in ancient Near Eastern law codes, such as the Hittite law 189: “If a man violates his own mother, it is a capital crime. If a man violates his daughter; it is a capital crime. If a man violates his son; it is a capital crime.”[11] The Hittite law mentions three cases of incestuous rape: that of a man’s mother, daughter, or son. In other words, ancient Near Eastern legislation knows of incestuous rape, including of sons. Read within the context of Gen. 49:6, Gen. 35:22, and ancient Near Eastern legislation, Lev. 18:22 prohibits not homosexuality but male-on-male incestuous rape. The Hebrew sentence, ve’et zākar lo’ tîškab miškĕbȇ ’iššâ tô‘ēbâ hiw’, ought to be translated accordingly:

You (masculine singular) shall not rape a (young) male; it is like the rape of a woman (of the family); it is an abomination.​

The modified translation helps people to engage in tough conversations about the experiences of many children and teenagers. The goal of these conversations is to contribute to the ending of incest. The translation also ensures that Lev. 18:22 does no longer harm LGBTQI people and their families. It is high time for official Bible translators to repent from centuries-enduring, damaging, and still persistent heteronormative and homophobic interpretations of this notorious biblical verse."

Reading Leviticus 18:22 as a prohibition of male-on-male incestuous rape | CRCOnline

 

[loverofhumanity]

Thanks, love to you and your family also


All this is irrelevant to Baha'u'llah 's claim that if you keep copper molten in its mine it will change into gold.



This is the way religions work, by making empty claims which are swallowed uncritically. Can you link to a peer reviewed scientific paper which says that if copper remains molten in its mine for seventy years it will change into gold?



Great, so since the discovery of atomic energy is what was stopping Baha'is from testing Baha'u'llah's claim and exposing Him since we already have atomic energy there is no further need to put off testing these claims.


Since pilgrims notes are not authoritative in the Baha'i faith they are irrelevant

In my opinion.

Im unaware of any scientific paper although that doesn’t mean there aren’t classified ones as something like this could destabilise the world economy. So I don’t think even if it is known to a few whether they would let on.

The comment on nuclear power by Baha’u’llah did end up being verified as we all now know and agree on its danger to be able to destroy the entire world. The thing is, how did Baha’u’llah know that? So let’s see if time will have anything to say about the copper to gold statement. It may be discovered or it’s discovery revealed at a later date.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I appreciate your views and that you wish no harm to anyone which is a noble and humane sentiment. But also that it is fruitless to continue debating this issue because we both have diametrically opposing views that we are both standing by.

And that is all well and good -- yet it disturbs me that you call yourself "lover of humanity." You see, here's the case against the Baha'i restriction:

• It is well understood by science now (while it was probably not in the mid-nineteenth century) that homosexual orientation is not elective -- one does not get to choose.
• While you may suggest that acting on an unelectable orientation is in fact a "choice," it is not a choice you would care to be asked to make with your significant other.
• That which you cannot choose cannot be blameworthy.
• Restrictions based on that which cannot be blameworthy are merely prejudicial, and if also harmful to others, reprehensible. One restriction is, as I pointed out above, to demand avoiding acting on one's orientation
• Restrictions can include exclusion. Consider, for example, the gay son of a Baha'i family, who wishes to celebrate his love for his partner -- he cannot, and remain within the faith. Thus, he is barred from his family's faith.

Thus, in my view, there is at least a part of humanity that you have chosen (yes, it's your choice, now) not to love. Blaming ancient writings isn't an excuse. Even Baha'u'llah admits that when science shows something to the case, then religion must accept it as the case, because true science and true religion cannot be in conflict.

 

[loverofhumanity]

@loverofhumanity ,

"the translation of the phrase, miškĕbȇ ’iššâ, indicates that Lev. 18:22 prohibits incestuous male-on-male rape with a boy. Incestuous rape is also prohibited in ancient Near Eastern law codes, such as the Hittite law 189: “If a man violates his own mother, it is a capital crime. If a man violates his daughter; it is a capital crime. If a man violates his son; it is a capital crime.”[11] The Hittite law mentions three cases of incestuous rape: that of a man’s mother, daughter, or son. In other words, ancient Near Eastern legislation knows of incestuous rape, including of sons. Read within the context of Gen. 49:6, Gen. 35:22, and ancient Near Eastern legislation, Lev. 18:22 prohibits not homosexuality but male-on-male incestuous rape. The Hebrew sentence, ve’et zākar lo’ tîškab miškĕbȇ ’iššâ tô‘ēbâ hiw’, ought to be translated accordingly:

You (masculine singular) shall not rape a (young) male; it is like the rape of a woman (of the family); it is an abomination.​

The modified translation helps people to engage in tough conversations about the experiences of many children and teenagers. The goal of these conversations is to contribute to the ending of incest. The translation also ensures that Lev. 18:22 does no longer harm LGBTQI people and their families. It is high time for official Bible translators to repent from centuries-enduring, damaging, and still persistent heteronormative and homophobic interpretations of this notorious biblical verse."

Reading Leviticus 18:22 as a prohibition of male-on-male incestuous rape | CRCOnline

The fact that latter Prophets of God namely the New Testament, Quran and Baha’i Writings disapprove of it trump such an interpretation as They all regard homosexuality as wrong not just incest and only God knows the true purpose of human life so I defer to God in this situation as I believe He knows what’s good or not good for us.

 

[Vinayaka]

This psychological dissertation may help some understand what's going on here. APA PsycNet

 

[loverofhumanity]

And that is all well and good -- yet it disturbs me that you call yourself "lover of humanity." You see, here's the case against the Baha'i restriction:

• It is well understood by science now (while it was probably not in the mid-nineteenth century) that homosexual orientation is not elective -- one does not get to choose.
• While you may suggest that acting on an unelectable orientation is in fact a "choice," it is not a choice you would care to be asked to make with your significant other.
• That which you cannot choose cannot be blameworthy.
• Restrictions based on that which cannot be blameworthy are merely prejudicial, and if also harmful to others, reprehensible. One restriction is, as I pointed out above, to demand avoiding acting on one's orientation
• Restrictions can include exclusion. Consider, for example, the gay son of a Baha'i family, who wishes to celebrate his love for his partner -- he cannot, and remain within the faith. Thus, he is barred from his family's faith.

Thus, in my view, there is at least a part of humanity that you have chosen (yes, it's your choice, now) not to love. Blaming ancient writings isn't an excuse. Even Baha'u'llah admits that when science shows something to the case, then religion must accept it as the case, because true science and true religion cannot be in conflict.

I believe unlike yourself that only God knows what is good or not good for us and that while you consider it opposed to love, it is an act of love by God to tell us when we are going astray. Only an irresponsible parent would allow his children complete freedom despite the child throwing a tantrum, because the parent is looking after the child, but the child sees it as hate or punishment.

 

[dybmh]

The fact that latter Prophets of God namely the New Testament, Quran and Baha’i Writings disapprove of it trump such an interpretation as They all regard homosexuality as wrong not just incest and only God knows the true purpose of human life so I defer to God in this situation as I believe He knows what’s good or not good for us.

Sure, but please don't group the Torah with the others. Thank you,

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe unlike yourself that only God knows what is good or not good for us and that while you consider it opposed to love, it is an act of love by God to tell us when we are going astray. Only an irresponsible parent would allow his children complete freedom despite the child throwing a tantrum, because the parent is looking after the child, but the child sees it as hate or punishment.

You also know that God does not speak directly to any of us, but you get to CHOOSE who you believe is the one and only human being who could speak for God -- and was correct even when it flies in the face of reality. This is not reasonable.

I told you about my relationship with my partner of 30 years. What about it do you consider "going astray?" Please be specific, explain how he would have been better off with NOT A PERSON IN THE WORLD to help him through a dreadful illness, as I did. So I really want to know. How have I gone astray? What about that do you think God would disapprove of, and why?

As to the latter part of the question, I'll tell you "why." Because your idol said so.

I stand by my opinion -- you love your idolatry much more than you love humanity.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Sure, but please don't group the Torah with the others. Thank you,

Why not? I consider the Torah holy and sacred and to be the Word of God.

 

[CG Didymus]

That is mathematically calculable. But I will not offer much more about that on RF.

Regards Tony

Yes, especially the 1260 day prophecies. Those work out perfect for Baha'is, because you start them with the Hegira, and they all come out to the year 1844. My problem with those is that it is six different things that didn't begin nor end at the same time, yet Baha'is have them all start and stop at the same time. Like one of them the two witnesses, Baha'is say that is Muhammad and Ali, prophesied for the 1260 lunar years. But then after the two witnesses prophesy for the 1260 lunar years, they are killed, and their bodies are in the street for 1260 lunar years? Both starting with the Hejira and ending in 1844? And how does that make any sense?

 

[CG Didymus]

"Understanding" a prophecy always seems to look so much like "assigning a likely meaning and going with that."

A "likely" meaning or a meaning they "like"?

 

[dybmh]

Why not? I consider the Torah holy and sacred and to be the Word of God.

Because , on the topic of homosexuality, the subject is the topic of debate, where as in the later texts you mentioned, it is consistently condemned.

You said: "The fact that latter Prophets of God namely the New Testament, Quran and Baha’i Writings disapprove of it trump such an interpretation as They all regard homosexuality as wrong not just incest"

This ^^ is why the Torah should not be grouped in with the others. It's , per your words, "the later prophets of God, trump [one of its] interpretation".

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, especially the 1260 day prophecies. Those work out perfect for Baha'is, because you start them with the Hegira, and they all come out to the year 1844. My problem with those is that it is six different things that didn't begin nor end at the same time, yet Baha'is have them all start and stop at the same time. Like one of them the two witnesses, Baha'is say that is Muhammad and Ali, prophesied for the 1260 lunar years. But then after the two witnesses prophesy for the 1260 lunar years, they are killed, and their bodies are in the street for 1260 lunar years? Both starting with the Hejira and ending in 1844? And how does that make any sense?

Since when does 'making sense' come into the picture?

 

[CG Didymus]

Reason is only useful if applied properly to true premises and evidence. This is how sound conclusions are formed.

And isn't that what is happening with the Baha'i Faith? They start with God is real and Baha'u'llah is his messenger/manifestation, therefore anything he says is the infallible truth from God. Then, the other question that comes up is how do they prove or know God is real? And Baha'u'llah and other manifestations are given as proof that God is real. And then they say they know that Baha'u'llah is real because of his character, his mission and his writings. It makes sense to Baha'is, but to who else?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A "likely" meaning or a meaning they "like"?

Exactly. Well noted!

 

[loverofhumanity]

You also know that God does not speak directly to any of us, but you get to CHOOSE who you believe is the one and only human being who could speak for God -- and was correct even when it flies in the face of reality. This is not reasonable.

I told you about my relationship with my partner of 30 years. What about it do you consider "going astray?" Please be specific, explain how he would have been better off with NOT A PERSON IN THE WORLD to help him through a dreadful illness, as I did. So I really want to know. How have I gone astray? What about that do you think God would disapprove of, and why?

As to the latter part of the question, I'll tell you "why." Because your idol said so.

I stand by my opinion -- you love your idolatry much more than you love humanity.

Ok. Firstly I i don’t only believe Baha’u’llah spoke for God but also Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, Muhammad, the Bab and recently Baha’u’llah. So at different times God sent His Teachers with guidance if we wanted it for our age. This age we need to all work together so God sent Baha’u’llah with teachings on how to create a world community and world civilisation where we can all enjoy lives of comfort and all get along.

Next your situation, it is very praiseworthy to assist and help those who are ill. I used to do nursing myself and loved helping those who were suffering. So that is a commendable thing to do. And God I believe loves all believer or not.

About your private life and God? That’s really your business. God praises loving one another, caring for the sick so there is everything to be pleased about. I personally believe God would commend you for being so humane towards your partner. I think harsh judgement would be reserved for people like religious leaders, those who commit genocide and those like Hitler but not people who just choose to live a different lifestyle.

Think about it. What sort of God would God be if on the one hand He deliberately gave us free will and yet on the other threatened us if we didn’t listen to Him He would cast us in fire? So I think God looks at the good we do not anything else unless we are doing really nasty things. But like a loving parent He may use strong words to tell us behaviours or acts He wants us to avoid but then even if we don’t God loves us anyway because His love is unconditional.

So my belief is God praises all the good you do and will never punish you for not choosing to follow Him because He gave us all freedom of choice. Only as a Father He tells us what He thinks is best for us but we are not condemned if we choose differently.

God judges each soul on its own merits. The Guardian cannot tell you what the attitude of God would be towards a person who lives a good life in most ways, but not in this way.(Shoghi Effendi)

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, especially the 1260 day prophecies. Those work out perfect for Baha'is, because you start them with the Hegira, and they all come out to the year 1844. My problem with those is that it is six different things that didn't begin nor end at the same time, yet Baha'is have them all start and stop at the same time. Like one of them the two witnesses, Baha'is say that is Muhammad and Ali, prophesied for the 1260 lunar years. But then after the two witnesses prophesy for the 1260 lunar years, they are killed, and their bodies are in the street for 1260 lunar years? Both starting with the Hejira and ending in 1844? And how does that make any sense?

Wrong type of maths.

Gather all the Biblical Prophecies.

Then put a probability factor against each Prophecy, depending on what it offers.

Then go about estimating the probale amount of persons that could apply to that Prophecy and calculate away.

Some have already done this by the way, books written on it.

This would be a good one

Isaiah 54:5
For your Maker is your husband,
The Lord of hosts is His name;
And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel;
He is called fthe God of the whole earth

So how many people have given/claimed a message from God - Estimate?

How many were married - Calculate?

How many had the Lord of Hosts as a name, or was attributed to them - Calculate?

How many came to redeem Israel - Calculate?

How many gave a global Message and offered that the redemption of earth was the goal - Calculate?

My guess that the probability factor on this one runs into about 3 people. Muhammad, Bab and Baha'u'llah. Jesus can not be included as he never had a wife.

There may be other claiments that can fit, but then that is only Prophecy One! We have hundreds we can then use.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

When a person has a religious belief, they may missinterpret weak evidence for strong evidence. Then this skews the confidence in the conclusion. When this happens, the person is no longer being critical in their thinking. It's not that the conclusion is wrong, but, the reasons contributing to the conclusion may not be reliable.

So, I am guessing, that often the investigation begins with critical thinking, then once someone is convinced, it stops being critical.

And "strong" evidence seems to be the Scriptures of that religion. But then again, ironically, Baha'is say it is wrong for the other religions to take their Scriptures too literally, but it's necessary to take Baha'u'llah's writings as literal as possible. Which is why we're in this mess we're in with their beliefs about gays.