Homosexuality and religious.

[Sgt. Pepper]

Every good thing is of God, and every evil thing is from yourselves. Will ye not comprehend?

Bahá’u’lláh,

Not according to Isaiah 45:7, which clearly states, "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" (King James Version). To be honest, it's not surprising to me in the least that most Christians and other Abrahamic theists often swiftly strive to adamantly dismiss this verse because it plainly states that God creates evil. I also realize that it's highly unlikely that I will ever see a devout Christian or any Abrahamic theist honestly admit openly that their "loving, just, and merciful" God creates disasters and calamities, which in turn will inevitably wreck total havoc in the lives of countless people throughout the world.

The core of Abrahamic religions like Christianity is the well-known "God is love" or "God loves you" theme. As a matter of fact, it's an essential component of the evangelical strategy that many Christians employ to persuade nonbelievers to accept Christianity. So, it's completely expected that Christians will unapologetically refute the notion that their "loving, merciful" God is the root cause of evil or natural disasters and calamities. Instead of saying, "God is love, but you should know that the Bible says that our loving God creates evil, disasters, and calamities that inflict immeasurable pain and suffering on numerous people throughout the world," Christians are more likely to win converts with affirmative statements like, "God is love" or "God loves you," and I'm sure that's why they adamantly refute the notion that God deliberately creates evil (disaster and calamity in two other versions) as clearly stated in Isaiah 45:7.

Isaiah 45:7

KJV: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Evil:
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked, 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful, 3. Characterized by or indicating misfortune; ominous.

NIV: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

Disaster:
1. An occurrence causing widespread destruction and distress; a catastrophe; 2. A grave misfortune, and 3. A total failure.

ESV: "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things."

Calamity: 1. An event that brings terrible loss, lasting distress, or severe affliction; a disaster, 2. Dire distress resulting from loss or tragedy; 3. Any great misfortune or cause of misery; in general, any event or disaster which produces extensive evils, as loss of crops, earthquakes, etc., but also applied to any misfortune which brings great distress on a person; misfortune; distress; adversity.

 

[F1fan]

Everyone is welcome to be part of the Baha'i community whatever their sexual orientation. You don't even need ro be a Baha'i.

If someone wants to become an enrolled member of the Baha'i Faith there are qualifications to become a member and expectations.

If you are a gay couple and want to be part of the Baha'i community, that is great. However if you want to become a Baha'i and enrolled member of the faith community, there will be barriers.

Understandably those who identify as gay want to be in an openly gay relationship AND be an enrolled member of the Baha'i community with full administrative rights. When obstacles arise they become hurt. They complain their rights are being violated and accuse the Baha'is of being unloving.

The bahai are being unloving. When human beings use their ideology to judge others, they aren't loving. When theists value their own dogma over the dignity and freedom of others, they are not being loving. When you open the door to people who you condemn with certain promises of love, and you know full well you enforce discrimination against them, that is cruel.

This is a common blindspot for theists. When a believer can't express unconditional love due to religious or political dogma, then the dogma is anti-social and desctructive. If Bahai can't eliminate the discrimination in it's dogma, then it is a rotten religion. It tells us that the Bahai have no moral autonomy and are agents for their prophet and their dogma, and that is a dangerous behavior.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Where? None of you have been able to demonstrate God actually condemns this. All you have is a guy who claims he speaks for an absent God.

Is it possible you got duped by your prophet?


But God isn't writing, it's your prophet. Are you cofusing your mortal prophet with a god?


Should you be expelled? You just repeating what your prophet believes is a form of discrimination. Why? Because no matter what your mortal prophet believes and claims and writes YOU have moral autonomy. You can just keep this horrible and immoral view to yourself, and not even discuss it. The Bahai sound disgusting to atheists because you repeat and are obliged to an immoral view. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can repeat the prohibition, but then insist you aren't prejudiced. Yet you won't admit that your prophet was wrong and immoral to say it in the first place. That is Bahai valuing their beliefs, their dogma, their prophet over the moral obligation you owe all human beings including gays.

You guys are trapped. He claims to speak for God and you believe him. You have no freedom to denounce the bigotry of this one issue. You can keev the rest, just admit your prophet was wrong about some things that are immoral. That would help your image greatly. What are you afraid of?


Not if other Bahai abused gays too. How hard would it be for you to join up with a select group of Bahai who abuse gays, and you guys decide you are the militatnt arm of Bahai, and are authorized to abuse those who do wrong according to your prophet? THIS is the problem with religions that have prohibitions on certain things, they get aggressive and violent if there is no secular laws keeping them in control. Theocracies have a way of bringing out the worst in people.

Just like some believe Jesus spoke for God or that Buddha received enlightenment we believe Baha’u’llah is the Promised One foretold in all the scriptures of all the religions. That’s our belief. So we accept all religions.

 

[F1fan]

God does what He pleases and I believe that whatever He ordains is best for humanity.

Yet you aren't following any God, you are following a man who claims to speak for an absent God. What does that tell us about you that you frame it inaccurately? How much farther will you distort the truth of these matters to justify what you get out of it? This is what people worry about in theists, expsecially if they ever attain significant power. It is a threat to society.

Can you acknowledge that you follow a prophet who claims to speak for an absent God?

Homosexuals are people like you and I and know many and they are my friends.

Until you look at them through the prejudice of your religion.

Why do atheists need to teach you believers this?

This is the major flaw of religions, the believer get so lost in the dogma they think in idealistic and unrealistic ways, and lack the freedom to think beyond their dogma. This is the prison theists find themselves in, and they think the prison is a type of freedom.

 

[F1fan]

I would never ever think about condemning any Prophet or Buddha or Muhammad, Christ etc.

Why not? What makes them beyond criticism? Buddha (Siddartha) actually told his students that if there is anything he taught that they didn't like or believe then they could reject it. That is humility and truth. Your prophet is exepmt, and you are left without any moral autonomy or authority for yourself. When people believe they need a guru to follow they need to be very careful about what they are looking for. I suggest the lesson they need to learn is trusting themselves to make moral choices.

I don’t know if you believe in Buddha but Baha’is believe Baha’u’llah is Maitreya, the fifth Buddha foretold by Gautama to Ananda before He passed away. As far as I’m concerned Buddha or any of the Masters are Enlightened Ones and tell us things we need to know even if we don’t like it. They do so out of love and compassion for all beings. It’s not dangerous to follow Buddha or any of the Great Educators. . They all call us to be noble and humble and to live virtuous and holy lives.

Bahai's also believe that homosexuality is to be condemned, so their judgment is in question.

 

[F1fan]

Just like some believe Jesus spoke for God

Yes, and that set of claims and beliefs are also in question. Why would a person need middlement to God? This is what humans get, middlemen, no actual God. Yet believers treat these mortal middlemen as if they are God. Don't you see a problem with this?

or that Buddha received enlightenment

Siddartha rejected Hindu gods. What he learned was through his own experiences and non-theistic approach to his mind. To say "he received..." is inaccurate. He worked for it himself, and I see theists eager to be followers not doing the same. There's a certain laziness in being a follower, and this laziness can lead to a believer accepting immoral dictates.

we believe Baha’u’llah is the Promised One foretold in all the scriptures of all the religions. That’s our belief. So we accept all religions.

Sure, it's what you believe. Do you concede that you could be mistaken in your beliefs?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Not according to Isaiah 45:7, which clearly states, "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" (King James Version). To be honest, it's not surprising to me in the least that most Christians and other Abrahamic theists often swiftly strive to adamantly dismiss this verse because it plainly states that God creates evil. I also realize that it's highly unlikely that I will ever see a devout Christian or any Abrahamic theist honestly admit openly that their "loving, just, and merciful" God creates disasters and calamities, which in turn will inevitably wreck total havoc in the lives of countless people throughout the world.

The core of Abrahamic religions like Christianity is the well-known "God is love" or "God loves you" theme. As a matter of fact, it's an essential component of the evangelical strategy that many Christians employ to persuade nonbelievers to accept Christianity. So, it's completely expected that Christians will unapologetically refute the notion that their "loving, merciful" God is the root cause of evil or natural disasters and calamities. Instead of saying, "God is love, but you should know that the Bible says that our loving God creates evil, disasters, and calamities that inflict immeasurable pain and suffering on numerous people throughout the world," Christians are more likely to win converts with affirmative statements like, "God is love" or "God loves you," and I'm sure that's why they adamantly refute the notion that God deliberately creates evil (disaster and calamity in two other versions) as clearly stated in Isaiah 45:7.

Isaiah 45:7

KJV: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Evil:
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked, 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful, 3. Characterized by or indicating misfortune; ominous.

NIV: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

Disaster:
1. An occurrence causing widespread destruction and distress; a catastrophe; 2. A grave misfortune, and 3. A total failure.

ESV: "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things."

Calamity: 1. An event that brings terrible loss, lasting distress, or severe affliction; a disaster, 2. Dire distress resulting from loss or tragedy; 3. Any great misfortune or cause of misery; in general, any event or disaster which produces extensive evils, as loss of crops, earthquakes, etc., but also applied to any misfortune which brings great distress on a person; misfortune; distress; adversity.

The reference to evil is not a positive existence. There is actually no such thing as darkness or evil as positive existences.

Darkness is the absence of light but does not have an existence. The sun exists but the shadow is where there lack of sunlight. So by creating good it’s ‘lack’ also was created.
So when God created light it’s an axiomatic fact that when there is lack of light there will be darkness but darkness is not an actual existence.

Again by creating peace it’s ‘lack’ will occur at times which we call war. But war is actually lack of peace. So to get rid of war we must create peace.

When God created anything in this world it’s ‘lack’ was part of the creation.

As to thy question, “That Abdul-Baha hath said to some of the believers that evil never exists, nay rather, it is a non-existent thing:“ This is but truth, inasmuch as the greatest evil is (man’s) going astray and being veiled from Truth. Error is lack of guidance; darkness is absence of light; ignorance is lack of knowledge; falsehood is lack of truthfulness; blindness is lack of sight; and deafness is lack of hearing. Therefore, error, blindness, deafness and ignorance are non-existent things. If we say that according to the text of the bible, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” that he not believe in Moses, this signifies that, verily, He did not soften his heart. And when we wish to say that God hath not guided a certain one of His servants, this would be interpreted (by people) that God led him astray.

The darkness spoken of in the Bible as being created by God, signifieth that, verily, God hath not caused light to shine; inasmuch as where there is no light, there will be darkness; when there is no sight, there will be blindness; when there is no life, there ill be death; when there is no riches, there will be poverty; and when there is no knowledge, there will be ignorance.

To summarize, one thing may be evil in relation to another but not evil within the limits of its own being. It follows therefore that there is no evil in existence: Whatsoever God has created, He has created good. Evil consists merely in non-existence. For example, death is the absence of life: When man is no longer sustained by the power of life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: When light is no more, darkness reigns. Light is a positively existing thing, but darkness has no positive existence; it is merely its absence. Likewise, wealth is a positively existing thing but poverty is merely its absence.

It is thus evident that all evil is mere non-existence. Good has a positive existence; evil is merely its absence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Abdul'baha was the example of knowing how to respond to such situations and mostly would not discuss such subjects when he knew the frame of reference of the person being addressed, was not compatible.

Sort of "if you don't see things as I do, I won't talk to you" attitude. I see.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I do not need to look at videos that are made by disgruntled Baha'i CG. The laws are plain and simple. They hold to a high standard of morality and it is the elected Universal House of Justice that will guide us on this matter in the future.

Basically this argument is between those people and God, not me, or any Baha'i in fact.

I will most likely not offer much else here, it is pointless. This will not change the Baha'i Law.

Regards Tony

For the record, I regard this as the very essence of what "shunning" or "excommunication" really mean.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If you ACTUALLY believed that you would condemn the homophobia and move on. But you don't, so you don't. We get it.

Not at all. I treat homosexuals as equals. Nothing for me to condemn. God’s laws are are for His followers only.

 

[F1fan]

Not at all. I treat homosexuals as equals. Nothing for me to condemn. God’s laws are are for His followers only.

That is what we are worried about. You pretend a prophet is God, so how can we trust you "followers"? What will you decide to "follow" next?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Baha'is writing in this thread have reminded why I so much prefer Quakers. The Society of Friends actually does have honesty, love, non-judgement, and admission of fallibility on their side.

Agreed, and that opinion contradicts the one that humanists are intolerant of religion. No, they're intolerant of bigotry. The Baha'i here see themselves as the moral equivalent (at least) of the Quakers, and want the same reaction from people like you and me as we reserve for hate-free isms, since they claim to have one.

Take the blinkers off...look a little deeper into what they're writing ... Some of us believe that actually learning about the world can answer a lot of questions -- and much, much better than religious credulity

That's the crux of the matter - they can't. The blinkers are the faith-based confirmation bias that limits what they can see. For anybody interested in reading more about that from a former young earth creationist turned old earth creationist after obtaining a degree in geology. This article was a game-changer for me: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002 (talkorigins.org)

The fact that some members are speaking out against what I personally view as clear religious prejudice against you and other LGBTQ+ people pleases me.

Me, too. I sense we're at an inflection point in this cultural struggle between faith and reason, and the side of reason is taking the upper hand. The skeptics posting on RF are becoming more assertive. The theists are used to doing the finger wagging, not being its target.

Why are the non-Baha'is more open to listening and hearing what they have to say? Baha'is have to be able to get in there without the prejudices and biases of their religion and just listen to what they have to say.

I think you know the answer to that. The religious are faith-based thinkers. Their opinions don't come from evidence such as seeing anguished gay Baha'i, or seeing the reaction their words cause in threads like this including the words of an eminently decent gay man who is deeply offended by their comments about homosexuality, words that meant nothing to them. Your opinions are evidence-bas

I do not need to look at videos that are made by disgruntled Baha'i CG. The laws are plain and simple. They hold to a high standard of morality and it is the elected Universal House of Justice that will guide us on this matter in the future.

Yes, you do need to look at them. I didn't need to look at them.

It is becoming apparent that large part of RF is not into Faith. A place a person of Faith, should most likely avoid and leave them unto themselves.

This is encouraging as well. You are addressing what Sgt Pepper did, but from the receiving end of this trend in invigorating skeptics. Yes, the hope is that this kind of thinking will become less prevalent. Fewer prophets and messengers, and more empiricists and rational ethicists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is not a fact that that homosexuality is not more spiritually destructive than heterosexuality unless you can prove it.

Use your eyes. The evidence is in the world. My part of Mexico is very gay-friendly, and I have come to know dozens of gay individuals and couples fairly well. Their spiritual gloom diminished upon relocating from more homophobic environments to this one. They are just like straight people spiritually, maybe more so because of the extra oppression. Not surprisingly, they are mostly liberal.

I cannot prove anything to you that contradicts what your faith teaches. The only method I have available is t present evidenced argument, as I am attempting to do here, but I understand that my words have essentially zero chance of penetrating a faith-based confirmation bias. You didn't come to your present position evaluating evidence, and you can't be budged from it by evidence. There is never a burden of proof with somebody who is not willing and able to evaluate an evidenced argument dispassionately and with the willingness to change his mind in the presence of a compelling argument. That's how things are proven. If that isn't possible, proving isn't possible, and there is no burden of proof.

Lesbian, gay and bisexual older adults suffer more chronic health conditions than heterosexuals, study finds

That's not an argument that homosexuality is spiritually destructive, or even physically harmful. The gay people I know are just as healthy as their straight counterparts and live just as long. That's the kind of empiric evidence to which I refer. These are the kinds of observations that inform my opinion that the only harm homosexuality encounters is from systemic homophobia in the cultures

What claim do you make that is demonstrably correct and irrefutable?

That homosexuality is not spiritually harmful, but systemic homophobia is. But then, my path to belief is different from yours. It is empirical and depends on demonstration (evidence). The faith-based thinker is impervious to that when the demonstration of correctness is presented. Ask yourself, if you were wrong, what evidence could demonstrate that to you. I expect your answer to be that you can't be wrong because you agree with God, which is not an answer to that question. The answer either has to be evidence with a description of what evidence would suffice, or that no evidence at all would persuade you even if you were wrong, because it will be one of those. Are you aware that the moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." I contend that most if not all faith-based thinkers fall into that second category. And, of course, there is no burden of proof with somebody like Ham. He lacks the necessary skills to recognize and assimilate a proof.

Please present the empirical evidence

My evidence has been the absence of what you claim is present - spiritual harm to people for engaging in same sex relations. It's just not there. Gays removed from homophobic environments are indistinguishable from their straight neighbors. But I don't expect that to matter to you.

Oh I see, the blame game. It is all the religionists fault.

I made the argument that it is. I identified a variety of possible other sources of systemic homophobia and found that none could be the cause, not science, nor Hollywood, nor Major League Baseball, nor Dominoe's Pizza. You didn't refute it. I assume that that is because you can't, and I believe that you can't because the claim is correct.

No, Imo they feel guilty because they know their behavior is wrong, just as I would feel guilty if I engaged in extramarital sex. There is this thing called a conscience, and some people have it, some don't. That is why there are religious Laws.

Gays that feel guilt feel the disapproval of the people that the religion have taught that homosexuality is immoral. The gay people I know have no problem with their homosexuality.

Diseases are not dangerous?

They can be. Homosexuality doesn't cause venereal or other disease. Careless sex does.

I am not saying anything to anyone about homosexuality. I am just responding to posts on a forum.

Except that homosexuality leads to disease, spiritual harm, and that it is frowned upon by the creator of the universe.

disease has nothing to do with morality.

Yet you offered it as evidence that homosexuality is immoral.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The main difference between our views as I understand it is that of belief in God.

Agreed, although I would word it as you are a faith-based thinker, and I am an empiricist. Everything else follows from that distinction.

This Faith is irresistible.

Plenty of people posting here find it the opposite, and the more they learn about it, the angrier they are becoming.

if you don’t want to become a Baha’i ever, then it’s best you forget we exist.

It's more than not wanting to be a Baha'i. Many want that religion to stop teaching homophobia. Antitheists will forget religions when they are no longer damaging society, after which they will have no reason to think about them again. Consider the religions that have zero effect on public policy and perception in the West, like Jainism and Wicca. Skeptics never mention them or even think of them unless somebody else brings them up.

All people have been given the capacity to recognise a Manifestation of God when He appears.

But not all have the ability to recognize somebody merely making that claim for himself, an equally valuable form of discernment.

I think it very reasonable and rational that Baha’u’llah teaches the unity of mankind and peace between races, religions and nations in an age where leaders like Putin are threatening world war 3. Not to mention despotism in Syria, Iran, Yemen and Myanmar.

The Baha'i are teaching the world nothing. Nor are their adherents learning anything of value to anybody but themselves as we see on this thread. I haven't seen a good idea form any of them yet beyond let's all get along as they defend homophobia. It appears to be a religion that makes people feel good by giving them the impression that they are promulgating unity and world peace by talking about it, generally in ineffectual platitudes. Look at the net effect your religion and those promoting it has had in this thread. If you were into evidence rather than feeling good about yourselves, you wouldn't dismiss that reaction as signifying nothing relevant about the religion - only about the "haters."

So we humans have created a really wonderful world haven’t we? It’s time we tried Baha’u’llah’s teachings and if they don’t work we can always have another world war.

How are they working in this thread? It's time to turn away from faith-based thought entirely. It does not promote harmony or anything else of value. Talking about it isn't doing it. The Christians have a problem there with "love one another." Just empty words, as they continue to spread hatreds and attempt to impose their religion on others. The Baha'i aren't nearly as bad as that, but they are the same in smaller way.

But do you know what ism does work? Humanism. No hypocrisy there. No faith. No divisive teaching. It is pure reason and love. It's about actually empowering people, about moral rectitude, about tolerance. It's about getting out the vote against theocracy. It's active opposition to ideologies of despair and hatred as you are seeing here. That's love. That's courage. That's constructive. I would ask the religions to get out of its way. It's already given man so much.

You have your own mind to think with so why don’t you investigate these things for yourself? If you have already done so and come to the conclusion that you are right and I am wrong then nothing I say will convince you.

You're projecting faith-based thought such as that expressed by Ken Ham above. Those minds are closed and impervious to evidence. As Nye said, present evidence if you have it. If it is compelling, it will be recognized as such and change minds. Look at how the evidence that IS being presented here is changing minds, albeit not the way the Baha'i would prefer.

Just out of interest. Have you got all the facts correct about this? I’ve read similar reports but the letter from the Baha’i institution was very reasonable and fair.

Not if one doesn't consider homophobia fair.

it’s unfair to us Baha’is to slander us publicly without presenting the full story. I just think the full facts should be presented here. I have noticed a lot of ‘editing’ of Baha’i Writings, joining separate letters together misrepresenting what was really stated and way out of context. Please, if you consider yourselves to be upright and just then let’s present the complete context.

Slander? What's been said about the Baha'i faith or its adherents that's untrue. It's not slander if it's true.

Also, the out-of-context claim is meaningless if you can't demonstrate that there is other context that changes the meaning of the citied passages. Every citation is removed from context, including all of these Bahaullah quotes we see. Words preceded and followed the ones cited, but unless they change the apparent meaning of the excised text, they are irrelevant, as is the mere mention that the citation is not in its original context. If you can't show that this has happened, then you have no legitimate complaint.

That’s why God has given us the gift of science and the power of understanding to be able to correct defects that might be passed on.

How did that work out for God? There's a reason the religions are antagonistic to reason. It never works out well for them.

Science was a gift of humanism and its insistence on reason over faith to humanity. It converted astrology and creationism, two sterile isms that never generated a single good or useful idea, the astronomy and evolution science. Gods had nothing to do with it. The Enlightenment did.

By spiritual values it’s referring to virtues such as love, compassion, justice, forgiveness etc

How does homophobia fit in there?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes, and that set of claims and beliefs are also in question. Why would a person need middlement to God? This is what humans get, middlemen, no actual God. Yet believers treat these mortal middlemen as if they are God. Don't you see a problem with this?



Siddartha rejected Hindu gods. What he learned was through his own experiences and non-theistic approach to his mind. To say "he received..." is inaccurate. He worked for it himself, and I see theists eager to be followers not doing the same. There's a certain laziness in being a follower, and this laziness can lead to a believer accepting immoral dictates.



Sure, it's what you believe. Do you concede that you could be mistaken in your beliefs?

I understand and appreciate very much your concern. My understanding is that it’s mostly religious leaders which have caused strife and mischief throughout the ages not the Buddha or Founders of religions like Christ, Moses or Baha’u’llah.

My life now is so enriched because I turn to all the scriptures for guidance. For example because we are taught that Buddha taught truth I regularly read His Words and the same with the Gita and other Holy Books. They all teach virtuous character and that helps me have inner peace and contentment. I’m much happier now that I accept all truth and not just bits and pieces of one religion.

It brings joy to be at peace with all. It’s spiritually liberating to accept Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Muhammad and Baha’u’llah all as my Teachers and mix with all their followers. It’s so uplifting. It’s such a wonderful experience to celebrate all the religions. It’s a good way to be and I think humanity has a lot to gain from accepting all faiths not just one.

 

[dybmh]

Abdul-Baha hath said to some of the believers that evil never exists, nay rather, it is a non-existent thing:

The problem with this approach ( evil is the non-existence of good ) is the implication that when a person engages in an "evil passion" they are lacking good. This describes the transgressor as lacking good, inferior, and deficient. This contradicts the Baha'i doctrine that all humanity is equal.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is what we are worried about. You pretend a prophet is God, so how can we trust you "followers"? What will you decide to "follow" next?

God is Lord of all humanity but He lets people choose to follow Him or not. Baha’u’llah we believe to be the Promised One of all religions. No pretending here. Baha’u’llah to me is the Messenger of God for this age.

 

[samtonga43]

It is not a fact that that homosexuality is not more spiritually destructive than heterosexuality

[/QUOTE]
Double Negatives Don’t Not Make Your Writing Confusing, so Avoid Using Them!
Why You Shouldn’t Use Double Negatives

 

[loverofhumanity]

The problem with this approach ( evil is the non-existence of good ) is the implication that when a person engages in an "evil passion" they are lacking good. This describes the transgressor as lacking good, inferior, and deficient. This contradicts the Baha'i doctrine that all humanity is equal.

By equality we mean do not mean sameness. There are levels and degrees of education for example. But all are human. But whether there is lack of good still the person is to be considered as an equal human.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The problem with this approach ( evil is the non-existence of good ) is the implication that when a person engages in an "evil passion" they are lacking good. This describes the transgressor as lacking good, inferior, and deficient. This contradicts the Baha'i doctrine that all humanity is equal.

The good thing about the Baha’i view is that it tries to avoid punishment preferring education. So if a person commits a crime, the hope would be to instil into the person such a longing and desire to be of value to society tyat to offend again would be unthinkable.

This is the idea, to raise the positive aspects.

When a thought of war comes, oppose it by a stronger thought of peace. A thought of hatred must be destroyed by a more powerful thought of love. Thoughts of war bring destruction to all harmony, well-being, restfulness and content. ...
Thoughts of love are constructive of brotherhood, peace, friendship, and happiness. If you desire with all your heart, friendship with every race on earth, your thought, spiritual and positive, will spread; it will become the desire of others, growing stronger and stronger, until it reaches the minds of all men. (Abdul-Baha)