Number of times the word "homosexuality" appears in Baha'i scriptures

[Deeje]

@Deeje Even though this feels futile to me, I want to point out that you posted two long replies to my posts, completely ignoring my whole reason for posting: my appeal to you to find ways to tell people about the sexual behavior that is prohibited between two men, without using the word "homosexuality."

That appears to be a futile exercise in semantics Jim.....taking the word away alters nothing about the issue from God's perspective.

Homosexual sex is against God's law...period. Between males more so, as I have explained. You can't dance around the issue by not saying that word. You either hold God's view about it, or the world's view...it a choice. That is how I see it.

 

[oldbadger]

Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity, or religious institution, is the source from which all authority derives.

The word theocracy originates from the Greek θεοκρατία meaning "the rule of God". This in turn derives from θεός (theos), meaning "god", and κρατέω (krateo), meaning "to rule". Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was "rule by god(s)" or human incarnation(s) of god(s).
Theocracy - Wikipedia


I suggest you do a little more research into your chosen religion. Best of luck.

This...... ^^^^^^^

 

[oldbadger]

"The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed."

New World Order........ a BAHAI WORLD.
Why do some Bahais dislike this term, Bahai World?

The Baha'i Administrative system is unique and no one word will describe it. There are no priests and it is not here to rule the world, but to guide all spiritually.

Oh, so it's civil and criminal laws, and its police forces, and its Houses of Justice.......... they are just going to be there, in a Bahai World for fun.

Double Think
Double Talk

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That appears to be a futile exercise in semantics Jim.....taking the word away alters nothing about the issue from God's perspective.

Homosexual sex is against God's law...period. Between males more so, as I have explained. You can't dance around the issue by not saying that word. You either hold God's view about it, or the world's view...it a choice. That is how I see it.

It is not a word we can remove from the Baha'i writings either. It was used in our book of laws.

We do have to seperate what is not lawful from the use of that word with any other prejudices we may have.

As we know it is not for us to judge any mans heart and love for God, but the law must be upheld.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

New World Order........ a BAHAI WORLD.
Why do some Bahais dislike this term, Bahai World?



Oh, so it's civil and criminal laws, and its police forces, and its Houses of Justice.......... they are just going to be there, in a Bahai World for fun.

Double Think
Double Talk

Why are you so concerned about what will not happen for a long time? I have heard you and Vinayaka say may times there is no future for the Baha'i Faith.

Also Baha'u'llahs comments are all embracing. If you are under the impression that mankind as a whole is not influenced by what Baha'u'llah has offered, I will offer this would be a wrong impression.

You are free to share a vision of the future and what is best for it. Personally I have no concerns what humanity in the future may choose to call the Lesser peace unity of Nations, it will not be the Baha' Administrative Order.

Currently it is called the United Nations after the League of Nations failed to fulfill its goal.

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

Why are you so concerned about what will not happen for a long time?

What an amazing question!
So why do you talk of World Orders ... Bahai Worlds, if yopu don'#t like @Vinayaka and self making sure that everybody knows?
The whole main objective of Bahai is THE BAHAI WORLD!

And the World needs to be warned... regularly, because Bahais sure won't be crustal clear about it all.

Also Baha'u'llahs comments are all embracing.

Embracing exactly what?
What does that mean?
It appears as if several billion people in the World don't want to be embraced by Bahauallah's ideas.

You are free to share a vision of the future and what is best for it.

I don't need you telling me what I'm free to dio, Tony.

Personally I have no concerns what humanity in the future may choose to call the Lesser peace unity of Nations, it will not be the Baha' Administrative Order.

I'll bet that very people who Bahais talk to know exactly what the Bahai MO is. Because Bahai just doesn't tell them. There are some descriptive words for that conduct.

And when the World might somehow enter a period of civilised togetherness, it sure wion't be a Bahai World, Tony, because there are thousands of religions, political factions, individuals and more out there who will most definitely be saying it is their World, your voice claiming success will be one drowned out by millions.

Currently it is called the United Nations after the League of Nations failed to fulfill its goal.

Regards Tony

I remember when Bahais used to boast that Bahai advises the UN, and that it helped set it up. Some of the claims are so untrue that it's hard to decide whether to laugh out load or shriek in anger.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Some of the claims are so untrue that it's hard to decide whether to laugh out load or shriek in anger.

Abdul'baha gave a tablet to the Hague and explained what was needed. Abdul'baha advised the Leauge of Nations would not be sufficient. It is good to note that the power required to ensure the peace and security of mankind has still not been given to the United Nations.

Tablet to The Hague - Wikipedia

A reply was given to Abdul'baha and Abdul'baha supplied a 2nd reply;

Star of the West/Volume 11/Issue 17/Text - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith (Page 288)

Regards Tony

 

[Marcion]

Homosexual sex is against God's law...period. Between males more so, as I have explained. You can't dance around the issue by not saying that word. You either hold God's view about it, or the world's view...it a choice. That is how I see it.

You have that same slavish attitude to religious dogma as some of the Bahai people here have. Dogma no more!

 

[Deeje]

You have that same slavish attitude to religious dogma as some of the Bahai people here have. Dogma no more!

But I suppose you are not a slave to your own belief system or anything?

I see you have done some tidying up on your signatures....why has shiva stopped dancing on your profile?

 

[Marcion]

But I suppose you are not a slave to your own belief system or anything?

I see you have done some tidying up on your signatures....why has shiva stopped dancing on your profile?

That remark is a fallacy, why should there be anything dogmatic about choosing a certain ideology? If I would find something better I would surely shift to that one. But I would never shift to an ideology that tries to force me to accept dogmatic ways of thinking.

I removed that avatar because Shiva was dancing with four arms and the real (historical) Shiva had only two arms.
I could not find a better picture of the dancing Shiva that satisfies me, so this one is a drawing of me dancing the tandava dance after doing my asana's.

 

[Jim]

@adrian009 I thought I was finished with this, but now I have some new thoughts about it.

The word “homosexuality” means different things to different people, and sometimes even to the same person at different times and in different contexts.

Here are two definitions from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

——

1: sexual attraction or the tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex : the quality or state of being homosexual

2: sexual activity with another of the same sex

——

Also, what people actually think that “homosexuality” means, in a public discussion, might sometimes be different from either one of those definitions. For example, I know from people’s conversations that sometimes they think it includes an incapacity to ever have a healthy sexual relationship with a person of the opposite sex.

Please tell me if you disagree with anything I’ve said in this post.

 

[oldbadger]

Abdul'baha gave a tablet to the Hague and explained what was needed. Abdul'baha advised the Leauge of Nations would not be sufficient. It is good to note that the power required to ensure the peace and security of mankind has still not been given to the United Nations.

Tablet to The Hague - Wikipedia

A tablet.........
So he wrote a letter....?
Tomorrow I'll write a tablet to the USA, advising that its President be voted out of office as soon as possible. If by any chance this might happen, one day, then the whole World will know how wise Oldbadger truly was.

A reply was given to Abdul'baha and Abdul'baha supplied a 2nd reply;

Now I'm not quite sure whether the White House will acknowledge my letter or its clarity of vision, purpose and wisdom, but I can assure you that if you would write to your Queen with any recommendations for the World then you WILL receive a reply and acknowledgement with suitable diplomatic response, and you could then leave this proof of your prophetic wonderfulness to your offspring, to be cradled with amazement down through the ages to come.

Star of the West/Volume 11/Issue 17/Text - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith (Page 288)

Regards Tony

Tony, sadly I no longer take much notice of what Bahai says about its history. I've discovered too much of that to be so absolutely false over these last months.

But I tell you what I'll do..... I'll open that link and read through it, and then spend twenty minutes on some research about it...... I might come back on it, or not...... can't be sure at this time.

But I certainly hope that there is no suggestion that Bahai advises the UN, because, along with many scores of other institutions, all it has is an observer's (only!) seat upon one board, human-rights if I remember correctly.

 

[oldbadger]

Star of the West/Volume 11/Issue 17/Text - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith (Page 288)

Regards Tony

Oh Tony! Tony.......
Now let's offer you my interpretation in a precis of that letter, because it certainly looks as if Abdul Baha hides his real meanings amongst all that waffle.

It's amazing how a couple of sentences can be hidden amongst all those nightingales and stars and brilliant glorifications.

I'm not good at this, but @Vinayaka probably is, so I will ask both yourself and him to precis that piece as well so that my mistakes can be corrected.

Here it is:-Star of the West:[-
Dear America,
Best regards! At this time you influence the West, and if you survive long enough you will influence many countries in the East This is the first Bahai letter to you and although it is little known, if we hang on, survive and get strength , then there'll be lots of Bahais around soon, masses of them everywhere. We could even become the First religion of the Whole World, but all this depends upon strength of purpose.
(Signed) ABDUL-BAHA ABBAS.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Oh Tony! Tony.......

Scroll down for 2nd letter. It is also on page 289.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian009 I thought I was finished with this, but now I have some new thoughts about it.

The word “homosexuality” means different things to different people, and sometimes even to the same person at different times and in different contexts.

Here are two definitions from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

——

1: sexual attraction or the tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex : the quality or state of being homosexual

2: sexual activity with another of the same sex

——

Also, what people actually think that “homosexuality” means, in a public discussion, might sometimes be different from either one of those definitions. For example, I know from people’s conversations that sometimes they think it includes an incapacity to ever have a healthy sexual relationship with a person of the opposite sex.

Please tell me if you disagree with anything I’ve said in this post.

I like it that as we start a thread we consider other things as we go along.

I agree that the word homosexual can mean different things to different people. The two main meanings are homosexual attraction and homosexual acts. The latter is considered against the laws of God for Baha'is and conservative Christians, the former is not.

If we look at the Baha'i writings as a body as well as what the Universal House of Justice says, for me the issue is crystal clear.

In conversation if someone asks me I would say having a same sex attraction is not against Baha'i law, expressing it in sexual acts is.

The language we have around homosexuality is probably not perfect in a lot of cultures as its been a taboo subject for so long. As I see it the language used by the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice makes the best and most appropriate use of the English language and does consider the dual meaning of the word 'homosexual'.

That's just my view and of course your concerns may remain.

 

[Jim]

@adrian Thank you. I'll try to put all my cards on the table like I did with Deeje. I'm still trying to explain to you why I think it's better not to use the word "homosexuality," in public discussions, when we tell people what kind of behavior we think God prohibits between two men or two women. I might disagree with you and most other Baha'is about that, but for my purposes now it that doesn't matter. For now we can take it as a given that what God prohibits is whatever you would call "sexual acts" between two women or two men.

Do you believe the story that I've seen many people telling, of despising themselves, and feeling despised by others and by God, because of their same-sex temptations, even if they fight to resist them, and even if they succeed in resisting them?

 

[Jim]

@adrian009 I'm not disagreeing with the way Shoghi Effendi used the word "homosexuality." I do disagree with the way the House of Justice has used it sometimes. Shoghi Effendi only ever used the word in private messages to people who were asking about it, and one other time, in the Synopsis and Codification of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, never in general messages to Baha'is or Baha'i institutions. All the times that the House of Justice has used it might have been in responses to questions about it from individuals Baha'is and Baha'i institutions, and not in general messages to Baha'is or Baha'i institutions.

 

[Vinayaka]

Dear America,
Best regards! At this time you influence the West, and if you survive long enough you will influence many countries in the East This is the first Bahai letter to you and although it is little known, if we hang on, survive and get strength , then there'll be lots of Bahais around soon, masses of them everywhere. We could even become the First religion of the Whole World, but all this depends upon strength of purpose.
(Signed) ABDUL-BAHA ABBAS.

Totally unrealistic daydreaming of someone with delusions of grandeur. The Baha'is have had a miniscule effect on this planet, if any at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If I wanted to tell people about what I kind of behavior I think God has prohibited between two men, I would say exactly that. I think that there is some kind of behavior that God has prohibited between two men, and that it has something to do with what Baha'u'llah calls "the subject of boys." From my research, I think that what's prohibited might be substituting a man in the place of a woman, in an imitation of procreative union.

Was thinking a better word to use is sexual promiscuity because it doesnt single out homosexuals as having a predesposition to lust that heterosexuals are claimed to have less of the same thing. It also focuses on the act and intent rather than the gender and sex (and orientation) of the people involved.

 

[Jim]

Was thinking a better word to use is sexual promiscuity because it doesnt single out homosexuals as having a predesposition to lust that heterosexuals are claimed to have less of the same thing. It also focuses on the act and intent rather than the gender and sex (and orientation) of the people involved.

Actually, what I think God prohibits between two men has nothing at all to do with being gay. Straight men do it too, possibly as much as gay men, or maybe even more. In absolute numbers, I would guess that most of the people who do it are straight men, at least in the eyes of people around them.

ETA:

That's part of the injustice of it all. Men who violate the prohibition with men, but who are promiscuous with women, don't consider themselves gay, and aren't considered gay in popular thinking. They are not targeted, and don't feel targeted, by condemnations of homosexuality, while men who fight and fight against same-sex attractions, if they aren't attracted to women, consider themselves as homosexual, and despise themselves and feel despised by God for it, because of the prejudices against gays. It's completely backwards. The worst offenders against sexual prohibitions, including the one between two men, are completely ignored and unaffected by anti-gay prejudice and discrimination, and some of the people who never violate the prohibitions at all are penalized and grievously demoralized by that prejudice and discrimination.