Homosexuality and religious.

[mikkel_the_dane]

The values and practices of atheist societies can also reflect all manner of prejudices.

No, not as purely atheistic. But as secular, humanistic, naturalistic, rational and so on, yes.

 

[Sheldon]

Would you listen to Baha'u'llah if you knew He was from God?
That is where the Baha'is are coming from.

Not if he espoused homophobia, nor if it came directly from a deity, I guess I'm just too moral for that.

 

[Sheldon]

Is there any science that you've come across that supports the Baha'i belief that homosexuality is unnatural?

Since homosexuality has been demonstrated to occur in multiple species, the prospect is very dubious.

 

[Sheldon]

The values and practices of atheist societies can also reflect all manner of prejudices.

Of course, but this rather misses the point, think perfect day, think fallible evolved ape. Your expectation ought logically not to be the same, even as a hypothetical exercise.

 

[Sheldon]

What I have or haven't been through in life isn't the discussion.

I own guns, some people don't like that and complain about that.
I dang sure am not going to go parading around with my guns to get their attention and ire up then complain when that happens.

Owning guns is a choice, being gay isn't. Being maligned for a choice is reasonable, being maligned as immoral for who you are is not.

 

[Sheldon]

I suspect we may be onto a fascinating look into how humans work. Our dialogue may help future anthropologists discover just how many ways humans can avoid answering a simple question.

Hey -- you could be famous!

Infamous...

 

[Sheldon]

But at least I am happy and not full of hate. This is directly for you...

View attachment 67175

Homophobia is a deeply hateful prejudice.

 

[Sheldon]

Unnatural
1. contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
"death by unnatural causes"

unnatural - Google Search

Do you really want an anatomy lesson or discussion about the birds and bees?

Being gay isn't contrary to the ordinary course of nature, it is a natural derivation of it. This I think was his point, not being the norm doesn't equate to unnatural.

I'd also point out that natural doesnt equate to good or moral, cancer, malaria, polio, MS etc etc, medical science, surgery, hospitals, etc etc, unnatural things can be moral or good, while natural things can be bad or pernicious.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Rational people do. But what rational people don't do is hold a prejudical view of any class of people just because they are as they are.

Being rational is a vital part of being a human being but it is no guarantee of being free from prejudice.

OK, sarcasm. You are obviously feeling hurt. Now imagine that hurt being felt by gays your religion condemns. And you are compicit with that prejudice whether you agree or not. If a religion not only teaches that prejudice and harm is bad, but also enforces a type of prejudice that leaderhsip won't eliminate, then it is bad religion.

Stick to the facts and stop imagining you know me or how I feel. You would best consider your own prejudices than lecture about mine.

I understand that most of the Bahai here are trying to minimize this one prejudice, but it's not that simple. It suggests that any type of prejudice is allowable and acceptable. And from a religion whose goal is global unity. It smacks of irony and hypocrisy, and is self-destructive.

Baha'is avoid fault finding in others and endeavour to see the good in all. If others identify as gay and are in a same sex relationship, that is their business and it does not affect my relationship them.

Whether countries or communities have laws that allow or forbid homosexuality is a matter for those countries and communities to decide. The matter is obviously a delicate and emotive one where opinions are divided. One side using inflammatory language and insisting that everyone believes as they do is what causes disunity.

If the Bahai leadership can't change it's laws, then why are you a member?

I'm good with being a Baha'i and have no issues with Baha'i laws. You clearly do, but who is asking you to become a Baha'i?

 

[Sheldon]

I am amazed people ask such questions.

But I will admit, I can never come to terms with such activity anyway, must be part of my nature and nurture.

My guess Nature and Nurture is a key to understanding this topic a lot better as well.

As I have a son who is gay, I have considered all this in deep reflection, he had great turmoil in the very important development years.

Regards Tony

And if he's lucky enough to find a partner he loves, would you really think that immoral?

 

[We Never Know]

What objective evidence can you demonstrate that being gay is genetic.

When you're done wiping that egg off your face, gay people can and do reproduce having heterosexual sex. They're are also born overwhelmingly to straight parents.

Dear oh dear...

As always you are pages behind. I used to think you were just a gaslighter but changed my mind. You are like the guy standing in the crowd jumping up and down, waiving his arms, seeking attention saying look at me.

 

[F1fan]

But that doesn't mean the God does not exist.
Lots of things that were not known to exist were discovered later.

And none of the many gods in man's religious lore has been discovered as real. So why are many theists acting as if it has been? There should be a great deal of humility and honesty that any God is an unknown entity.

When believers treat other humans, who actually exist, with a set of rules supposedly from a God that isn't known to exist, it can only be said that these rules are being enforced by mortals who might be in error. For believers to say the rules they live by, and impose on others, comes from a God is a dubious thing. The social sciences know why people behave this way, but believers carry on as if they don't care.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And none of the many gods in man's religious lore has been discovered as real. So why are many theists acting as if it has been? There should be a great deal of humility and honesty that any God is an unknown entity.

When believers treat other humans, who actually exist, with a set of rules supposedly from a God that isn't known to exist, it can only be said that these rules are being enforced by mortals who might be in error. For believers to say the rules they live by, and impose on others, comes from a God is a dubious thing. The social sciences know why people behave this way, but believers carry on as if they don't care.

That is in sociology and psychology not limited to religion, if you want to be fair.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, and supposedly not them either. You know, the 'independent" investigation of truth. But that independent investigation, unfortunately, stopped when they signed their declaration card. From that point on they have to believe it all or they are not true believers.

Just like my previous point, they can't be sure that Baha'u'llah was genuine. They don;t know if the God he claims to speak for exists, but they behave as if it does. They make judgments based on this assumption and pretend they are not accountable for what they believe. It doesn't wash. It's learned arrogance through bad faith. The search for truth? No, it's finding a questionable certainty. And it remains certain if you don't question any of it.

To my mind this faith is absurd. How can any theist be this confident? They don't know their God exists but act confidently as if it is, unless the confidence is fake. To my mind would anyone feel confidence if they were in a plane that is going to crash and the crew gives you a parachute, and then says "There might not be a parachute in this kit." Would a person feel confident jumping out? This is how theists should feel all the time. They seek some deliverance from anxiety and fear, a lack of meaning, and they take a leap of faith. They never know if the God is real, no more than they know if there is a parachute in the kit. It's all gambling, it's all risk, all the time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just like my previous point, they can't be sure that Baha'u'llah was genuine. They don;t know if the God he claims to speak for exists, but they behave as if it does. They make judgments based on this assumption and pretend they are not accountable for what they believe. It doesn't wash. It's learned arrogance through bad faith. The search for truth? No, it's finding a questionable certainty. And it remains certain if you don't question any of it.

To my mind this faith is absurd. How can any theist be this confident? They don't know their God exists but act confidently as if it is, unless the confidence is fake. To my mind would anyone feel confidence if they were in a plane that is going to crash and the crew gives you a parachute, and then says "There might not be a parachute in this kit." Would a person feel confident jumping out? This is how theists should feel all the time. They seek some deliverance from anxiety and fear, a lack of meaning, and they take a leap of faith. They never know if the God is real, no more than they know if there is a parachute in the kit. It's all gambling, it's all risk, all the time.

Well, you can do the same if you put to much stock in reason, logic and evidence.

 

[F1fan]

That is very untrue statement CG.

In fact the investigation really just begins when one signs that card.

So they sign the card while being ignorant of any of it? That sounds like fraud tactics. "Don't read the fine print, just sign the contract."

Enough was known when signing that card, to have Faith, that what we will seek, we will find.

Wait, so you just said the investigation begins with signing the card, and now you say it's enough? Well if they know enough what more is there to investigate?

 

[F1fan]

The values and practices of atheist societies can also reflect all manner of prejudices.

Should religious societies be better? You seem to be saying that both religious and atheistic societies have prejudices, so the religious offers no advantage other than passing off accountability to a perfect God?

 

[F1fan]

Well, you can do the same if you put to much stock in reason, logic and evidence.

Give examples.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Give examples.

Here is one:
"
Logic

All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

—Ayn Rand Lexicon"

 

[F1fan]

Here is one:
"
Logic

All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

—Ayn Rand Lexicon"

This is the antitheists of faith. Faith involved people deciding some idea is true despite a lack of evidence, and even contrary to evidence. the motive isn't truth.

With logic and reason the person intends to discern truth via evidence, even if the conclusion is that a conclusion can be reached due to a lack of evidence. This doesn't mean people are necesarily skilled, but the intention is there, and the learning curve available to the thinker.