Sheldon
Veteran Member
You may be taking "Jesus is the voice" literally.
How should I objectively take such claims?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You may be taking "Jesus is the voice" literally.
That is correct. I'm just stating the obvious that it is those who create and follow laws who bear responsibility. Laws can not be inherently prejudicial or just.
Laws are not humans, unlike those who write and follow the laws.
Laws are necessary to maintain harmony and wellbeing within communities.
Wouldn't this suggest such laws are inherently unjust then? Albeit based on the subjective view that just laws care about well being of course.There are laws that fulfil this function well, others that undermine well being.
Nope, that's just a subjective opinion, other humans have the right to measure your claims against science, logic and even their own subjective morality, when that is manifestly less pernicious.
The values and practices of atheist societies can also reflect all manner of prejudices.
So, I don't get it. They really believe they are not prejudiced, but they also believe that any person that is sexually attracted to a person of the same gender should not have sex with that person? But that's not being prejudiced? That is not "depriving" them of something they want to do?
For us Baha’is it comes down to fallible error prone humans vs an All Knowing infallible God Who created both man and science.
Like some Bahai's who knowingly break discrimination laws. They lack any moral conscience, but delude themselves the suffering they cause is justified because they blindly follow the bigoted doctrine of one fallible human.It is a matter of conscience. A person may knowingly do as they please regardless of the law.
Faith requires no knowledge, by definition.
Being rational is a vital part of being a human being but it is no guarantee of being free from prejudice.
That is an incorrect definition, one needs to broaden their knowledge to find the gift of Faith.
Okay, you and other Baha'is believe homosexuality is immoral. But you're not prejudiced against them for doing an immoral sexual act? And again, just to make sure this isn't some religious superstition, what scientific data do you have to support that homosexuality is immoral?
CG Didymus said: ↑
Like those people in some of the other religions that changed their views about homosexuality, they are going to have to go against the "infallibility" of their prophet and their Scriptures.
No, we don't have to change our views just to keep up with what is considered acceptable in modern society.
A false dichotomy fallacy. Science is a method or group of methods by which humans collectively can extend their objective knowledge, it would be asinine to imagine knowledge is not an aid to making moral decisions, though I can see why religions prefer to claim ignorant and blind adherence is a more moral option.Science does not make moral decisions. That to me is God’s realm and the role of the Manifestation. Science explores the material world. It does not decide right or wrong, good or bad or moral and immoral.
I don't believe you, and am unlikely to change my mind when you use such weak and irrational arguments that use circular reasoning fallacies like that.The Manifestation of God is never wrong and we Baha’is have full confidence in Baha’u’llah on all these issues.
Nonsense, your self proclaimed prophet was demonstrably a fallible error prone human, or else he'd not have projected his own homophobic bigotry into to the "message" he was claiming he'd derived his superstitious spiel from. Claiming to have received a perfect message from a perfectly moral deity carries a burden of proof, and a heavy one at that, which fails laughably if you manage to include archaic and ignorant prejudices like homophobia. One can only point and laugh as a result.
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". Like creationists that recognise an omniscient deity cannot rationally be falsified by the science of evolved apes, yet fail to see that is what their blind adherence to archaic creation myths means.
A false dichotomy fallacy. Science is a method or group of methods by which humans collectively can extend their objective knowledge, it would be asinine to imagine knowledge is not an aid to making moral decisions, though I can see why religions prefer to claim ignorant and blind adherence is a more moral option.
I know that is not what was said. Why do you think I have to respond to what was said? Do you think I am in a debate?A rather stupid straw man, as that is not at all what was said.
Knowledge is unnecessary for faith, by definition. That you choose to use a subjective and arbitrary definition doesn't change this.
Knowledge
noun
Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Faith
noun
Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
They are manifestly not synonymous in any way.
Yes, after all it’s their choice. Baha’u’llah only gives advice but humanity can and has chosen to ignore it.
I don't believe you, and am unlikely to change my mind when you use such weak and irrational arguments that use circular reasoning fallacies like that.