Why do some Atheists say Christianity is harmful?

[Trailblazer]

The issue is the evidence stands firmly against your opinion.

My opinion on what?
What evidence?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My opinion on what?
What evidence?

Your views on sex and homosexuality, and by evidence I mean the many research papers, text books and academic articles written about the topics.
By the way, you know how guys end up in the hospital with a broken penis, especially from the cowgirl position?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

boyfriend? I never had a boyfriend, most homosexuals just want sex anyway.

Odd that. I got to know my partner before we ever ventured into the physical part of our relationship, which didn't begin until we knew that we really did care about one another.

It seems to me that you are admitting you couldn't wait to find out if you cared about the person who "took your virginity," but rather you wanted sex and went for it.

Is it possible that explains why my partner and I have been together 30 years, and you've never had a boyfriend?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

boyfriend? I never had a boyfriend, most homosexuals just want sex anyway.

Well, setting aside the issue that MEN want sex, regardless of whether they are straight or gay, the issue of how many gay men are in relationships is actually complicated:

"Of the 4215 men who participated in the study, almost 70 percent reported having a regular partner, but this included 26 percent with two or more regular partners. Despite the majority having at least one regular partner, only half of them described themselves as being ‘in a relationship’ with any of those partners. A quarter indicated that they had a monogamous arrangement."

Study reveals complexity of gay men’s relationships | Kirby Institute

www.kirby.unsw.edu.au

I was not able to find a similar website about straight guys to compare, but certainly, many straight men do not have girlfriends, much less are married.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, setting aside the issue that MEN want sex, regardless of whether they are straight or gay, the issue of how many gay men are in relationships is actually complicated:

"Of the 4215 men who participated in the study, almost 70 percent reported having a regular partner, but this included 26 percent with two or more regular partners. Despite the majority having at least one regular partner, only half of them described themselves as being ‘in a relationship’ with any of those partners. A quarter indicated that they had a monogamous arrangement."

Study reveals complexity of gay men’s relationships | Kirby Institute

www.kirby.unsw.edu.au

I was not able to find a similar website about straight guys to compare, but certainly, many straight men do not have girlfriends, much less are married.

You should see my family tree! (And it should be obvious that it is the "work" of heterosexual types.) I have 2 parents, but I have 16 half-brothers/sisters. who are the offspring not just of my parents, but another 6 individuals who made the beast with two backs with one or the other of my parents. The generation following that is even more complicated! I've been working on the tree for 5 years, and it's crazy hard!

 

[danieldemol]

I do not write the definitions.

*sigh*
You said;

I could argue that homosexual practices are harmful to health but I won't waste my time.

To which I said, "Suit yourself"

You are welcome to your opinion but you don't have a leg to stand on regarding the health risks.

You stopped your sentence a little short there in my view. The health risks of what? Homosexuality or promiscuous anal sex? There is a venn diagram representing the two, however they are not wholly identical and this is crucial to the discussion of whether homosexuality should be banned or not.

Who is trying to justify a complete ban on homosexuality?

I already explained who - the Universal House of Justice based in Haifa whose Baha'i group you are nominally a member of.

Nobody can ban any sexual activity, be it heterosexual or homosexual.
What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms cannot be monitored, nor should it be.

There is a bit to unpack here.

First I can see that my use of the words, "complete ban on homosexuality" could be understood to mean restricting it by monitoring people in the privacy of their own bedrooms, so I apologise for the ambiguity and clarify that I meant a ban on any public homosexual acts or public admission of homosexuality or homosexual marriage even in an ideal monogomous sense.

Second of all the fact that what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms cannot be monitored is precisely why it is impractical to ban anal sex - which is what your health argument addresses as opposed to homosexuality. Perhaps this explains why your idol Baha'u'lah never banned anal sex. Hence the irrelevance of your health statistics on anal sex in my opinion.

The Baha'i laws have nothing to do with the Baha'i Faith (loyal to shoghi effendi and the Haifa based Universal House of Justice)

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223​

This has nothing to do with the Covenant. If the other Baha'i groups go against the Aqdas, they are going against Baha'u'llah.

So click on your link and read it and then tell me which group of nine people authored that page of the Aqdas given that it quotes a letter written by Shoghi Effendi decades after Baha'u'llah's death.

Baha'u'llah only permitted sex between a man and a woman who are married to each other, and that means that homosexuals cannot have sex and still adhere to Baha'i law.

Quote Baha'u'llah (as opposed to those who came after him) saying that please.

You can show me examples of that but if they employ hate speech against homosexuals they would be going against what the UHJ instructed us to do.

Perhaps, but if an institution or the central figures both employed hate speech and counseled against it, then it is little wonder if people follow in their footsteps.

Here is an example of hate speech by a Baha'i towards other Baha'i groups that has been upvoted 6 times (it has 5 upvotes cause I personally downvoted it) from reddit r/bahai. The context is being asked to explain being a covenant breaker (which as you know is Baha'i lingo for other Baha'i groups);

'Imagine someone you love more than anything, who had never misguided you about anything and always showed you the greatest love and care, gave you very specific instructions on what to do after they died, promised that these instructions would be in your best interests as well as those of everyone else and the whole world.

But because you didn't inherit the family farm you decided that you knew better than this person and started preaching against their wishes, turning members of said family against each other/trying to assassinate them.

Now that I think about it, breaking the covenant requires the emotional maturity and intellectual inquisitiveness of a 5 year old.'

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/bahai/comments/18f7739/_/kcsrqye
Basically implying that covenant breakers are assasins in my view.

Then there is this kind of speech from Baha'u'llah;
'Know thou for a certainty that whoso disbelieveth in God is neither trustworthy nor truthful.'
Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, Pages 185-241

 

[Trailblazer]

You stopped your sentence a little short there in my view. The health risks of what? Homosexuality or promiscuous anal sex? There is a venn diagram representing the two, however they are not wholly identical and this is crucial to the discussion of whether homosexuality should be banned or not.

As I said, the Baha'i Faith is not trying to ban homosexuality, not to mention that that would be impossible.

I already explained who - the Universal House of Justice based in Haifa whose Baha'i group you are nominally a member of.

I have never been so glad as I am today to be a member of the Baha'i Faith, and as @TransmutingSoul said, there is only one Baha'i Faith.
I would never be a member of those other Baha'i groups because I would never ascribe to what I consider immoral.

There is a bit to unpack here.

First I can see that my use of the words, "complete ban on homosexuality" could be understood to mean restricting it by monitoring people in the privacy of their own bedrooms, so I apologise for the ambiguity and clarify that I meant a ban on any public homosexual acts or public admission of homosexuality or homosexual marriage even in an ideal monogomous sense.

The restriction on any public homosexual acts or public admission of homosexuality or homosexual marriage only applies to members of the Baha'i Faith. Nobody has to join unless they want to.

Second of all the fact that what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms cannot be monitored is precisely why it is impractical to ban anal sex - which is what your health argument addresses as opposed to homosexuality. Perhaps this explains why your idol Baha'u'lah never banned anal sex. Hence the irrelevance of your health statistics on anal sex in my opinion.

It is not irrelevant that anal sex carries many health risks. The human body was created by God for penile–vaginal sex and the possibility of creating offspring, sex between a man and woman, since the primary purpose of sex is procreation. People take what God created and use it for that which it was not created for, just for the sake of pleasure.

That argument will not work. Baha'u'llah did not have to write that for us to know it.

The Bible concurs with the Baha'i Faith teachings regarding homosexuality.

The Bible clearly and explicitly condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). The Bible strongly condemns rape, as well (Deuteronomy 22:25–27). The question is, does the Bible condemn all anal sex, even if it does not involve homosexuality or coercion? Outside of marriage, all forms of sex, including anal sex, are sinful and immoral.​

What does the Bible say about anal sex? What is sodomy according to the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible say about anal sex? What is sodomy according to the Bible? What is a sodomite? What are sodomites? Is anal sex before or within marriage a sin?

www.gotquestions.org

Your new age Baha'is want to roll that back and say that Baha'u'llah never said anything about it, nor did Baha'u'llah say it is acceptable. Pathetic.

So click on your link and read it and then tell me which group of nine people authored that page of the Aqdas given that it quotes a letter written by Shoghi Effendi decades after Baha'u'llah's death.

Quote Baha'u'llah (as opposed to those who came after him) saying that please.

No, you quote it. You do not know what Baha'u'llah said unless you can read Arabic, not that it matters, because we do know what the Bible says and that law is not going to abrogated by a bunch of new age Baha'is.

There are Baha'is who can read Arabic so they know what Baha'u'llah wrote. They are not your new age Baha'is. I don't wonder why.

Perhaps, but if an institution or the central figures both employed hate speech and counseled against it, then it is little wonder if people follow in their footsteps.

I do not hate anyone but I do hate what I consider to be immoral behavior. As Jesus said, love the sinner but hate the sin.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I do not hate anyone but I do hate what I consider to be immoral behavior. As Jesus said, love the sinner but hate the sin.

And as you say, what you "consider to be immoral behavior." Other people have other views. How do you decide which are correct? How do you decide which you will allow in your religion, and which you won't? Personal preference?

The restriction on any public homosexual acts or public admission of homosexuality or homosexual marriage only applies to members of the Baha'i Faith. Nobody has to join unless they want to.

So very like all private clubs. Totally antithetical to what "religion" should really be about.

It is not irrelevant that anal sex carries many health risks.

Every physical contact between humans carries health risks. The more invasive, the greater the risk. So do you think humans should discontinue all of those -- things like open mouth kissing, cunnilingus, fellatio, vaginal penetration, they all carry risk of transmisson of disease, tissue damage and so on. Do you advocate stopping all of those?

 

[Revoltingest]

But lets assume for one second atheism is true. Life has no meaning.

Religion only offers the illusion of meaning.
I have all the meaning I want.
It just doesn't involve sky fairies.

 

[Trailblazer]

And as you say, what you "consider to be immoral behavior." Other people have other views. How do you decide which are correct?

I do not decide what is correct for anyone except myself.

How do you decide which you will allow in your religion, and which you won't? Personal preference?

I try to follow all the teachings and laws of my religion to the best of my ability.

So very like all private clubs. Totally antithetical to what "religion" should really be about.

That is not what the Baha'i Faith is about. It is not about whether people should have sex or not and how or with whom they should have it.

Every physical contact between humans carries health risks. The more invasive, the greater the risk. So do you think humans should discontinue all of those -- things like open mouth kissing, cunnilingus, fellatio, vaginal penetration, they all carry risk of transmisson of disease, tissue damage and so on. Do you advocate stopping all of those?

I do not advocate stopping any of those. I only decide what I will do. I am not that worried about health risks because if I ever had sex again it would only be with a man I am married to. However, since I am not interested in sex I will probably never get married again.

 

[InChrist]

This is a common but ridiculous slander of ex-Christians.

No, it’s not. It’s specifically about wolves in sheep’s clothing who claim to be following and serving Christ, but who are actually putting on a show while fleecing and harming Christians. Former Christians are not going to be trying to justify themselves to Jesus, are they?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, it’s not. It’s specifically about wolves in sheep’s clothing who claim to be following and serving Christ, but who are actually putting on a show while fleecing and harming Christians. Former Christians are not going to be trying to justify themselves to Jesus, are they?

Oh please. People just change their minds sometimes. A person can fully and authentically love Jesus, and then later in their life, decide that it's not true.

 

[InChrist]

Oh please. People just change their minds sometimes. A person can fully and authentically love Jesus, and then later in their life, decide that it's not true.

Certainly. a person who fully adheres to the Christian religion can change their mind. But Jesus said that one must be born again or born from above to enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:-3-7) Someone who has had a spiritual new birth in Christ and received eternal life, cannot be unborn, anymore than someone who is physically alive can be unborn. I think it’s impossible.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Certainly. a person who fully adheres to the Christian religion can change their mind. But Jesus said that one must be born again or born from above to enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:-3-7) Someone who has had a spiritual new birth in Christ and received eternal life, cannot be unborn, anymore than someone who physically alive can be unborn. I think it’s impossible.

The problem with that belief is that it is denied by reality. Authentic Christians do sometimes leave Christianity. My suggestion to you is that you amend your theology so that it aligns with the evidence. There are plenty of Christians who believe that a Christian can lose their salvation, for example.

 

[InChrist]

The problem with that belief is that it is denied by reality. Authentic Christians do sometimes leave Christianity. My suggestion to you is that you amend your theology so that it aligns with the evidence. There are plenty of Christians who believe that a Christian can lose their salvation, for example.

Yes, there are some Christians who believe salvation can be lost. But I think that is contrary to the scriptures.

Ephesians 1:13-14
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, there are some Christians who believe salvation can be lost. But I think that is contrary to the scriptures.

Ephesians 1:13-14
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Think again. You need to have your beliefs gel with reality. If you want to say, "Well my sacred text says that the moon is made of cheese" you can do that, of course, but no one will respect you because of course the evidence says otherwise.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The problem with that belief is that it is denied by reality. Authentic Christians do sometimes leave Christianity. My suggestion to you is that you amend your theology so that it aligns with the evidence. There are plenty of Christians who believe that a Christian can lose their salvation, for example.

I think it's also worth noting that Christians don't agree on whether salvation in Jesus is unconditional or not, although they all read the Bible. They believe diverse biblical interpretations and church doctrines about salvation, which is defined as Calvinism vs. Arminianism (unconditional salvation vs. conditional salvation). Some Christians claim that salvation is conditional, and they will quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief. Other Christians claim that salvation is unconditional (OSAS), and they quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief. Yet other Christians claim that speaking in tongues or baptism is required for salvation, and they also quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief. It's ironic that they all claim the Holy Spirit gave them "spiritual discernment" to properly understand the Bible, but it's obvious that they all contradict each other. They all cite the Bible in an attempt to defend their answers, even though their answers are very different and contradictory. They also believe that they are correct about their preferred beliefs and everyone else (including other Christians) is wrong about theirs, but they have the audacity to claim that the Bible is the word of God and Christianity is the only true religion. In my opinion, there's no reason to believe any of them. I think it's also unreasonable for any Christian to claim that their biblical interpretation and theology are correct while insisting that other Christians are wrong, that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that Christianity is the only true religion. I think it's unreasonable for them to expect non-Christians to accept the Bible as divinely inspired, yet they can't agree on what the Bible says.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Think again. You need to have your beliefs gel with reality. If you want to say, "Well my sacred text says that the moon is made of cheese" you can do that, of course, but no one will respect you because of course the evidence says otherwise.

In addition to my other post, I'd like to repost what I wrote earlier in this thread in response to your post here and your previous one.

According to Romans 10:8–13, whoever declares with their mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believes in their heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved. Not only that, but they are justified by the belief in their heart and the profession of their faith in Jesus, and they will not be put to shame. In fact, verse 13 plainly states, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Furthermore, Ephesians 2:8–9 states, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." However, there is an apparent loophole in this seemingly hopeful promise, such as the implication that a person could lose their salvation and be eternally damned if they don't follow God's will.

I'm speaking of Matthew 7:21, which states, "Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven," and the parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31–46). In this parable, the "sheep" were rewarded with eternal life for their good works of feeding the hungry, giving water to people who are thirsty, inviting in a stranger, clothing the needy, and visiting the sick or people in prison. However, Jesus lambasted the "goats" for failing to feed the hungry, quench the thirst of the thirsty, welcome strangers, clothe the needy, or pay visits to the ill or those in prison. Jesus cursed them and sent them to eternal damnation. As implied, the "goats" lacked the good works to be rewarded with eternal life, in spite of the fact that they were Christians who accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. Herein lies another inconsistent message in the Bible, in my opinion, as Romans 10:8–13 states that a person will be saved if they declare with their mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead. Ephesians 2:8–9 also states, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves; it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." In my opinion, if someone gives you something as a gift but arbitrarily takes the gift away because you don't follow their rules, then it isn't a gift. I don't consider something a gift if the one who gave it to me could ruthlessly take it away if I don't obey them.

 

[InChrist]

Think again. You need to have your beliefs gel with reality. If you want to say, "Well my sacred text says that the moon is made of cheese" you can do that, of course, but no one will respect you because of course the evidence says otherwise.

We are not talking about a text that says the moon is made of cheese, which you’re correct, we know that it in fact is not. We are talking about the Bible and what it says about salvation and new life in Christ.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We are talking about a text that says the moon is made of cheese, which you’re correct, we know that it in fact is not. We are talking about the Bible and what it says about salvation and new life in Christ.

Look, there are plenty of Christians who believe in the exact same bible as you, and they manage to understand that someone can be a Christian and then leave. So, I really am not sympathetic to your argument.