Homosexuality and religious.

[samtonga43]

Before a person becomes a Baha'i, they are to investigate on their own, preferably by using mostly pro-Baha'i sources. That way, it's more likely they will come to see that the Baha'i Faith is the absolute truth. So, they join. Once they're in, then they are to do and believe whatever the Baha'i writings says for them to do and believe. And, apparently, listening to ex-Baha'is is not something they should do. And I can see that. That way the Faith continues to look all rosy. Why would they want to hear all the negative stuff?

Did you investigate on your own, CG?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Yes it's the fault of the persecuted minority for not accepting the prejudiced bigotry of religions, talk about missing the point. Like saying it's not the KKK's fault they don't allow black people to join.

If you want to compare the Baha'i Faith to the KKK, an organization that persecutes racial minorities, go ahead.

IS English not your first language? Read it again more carefully and you will see I was comparing your claim and the logical ramifications of it, with another religious organisation that openly discriminates against a people, based on who they are.

Its pretty clear you have an aversion to the Baha'i Faith so that post just makes it crystal clear.

I have an aversion to prejudice and bigotry.

The Baha'i Faith fully embraces having LGBQT in our communities.

Only if they deny who they are, and so it openly discriminates against them. As is abundantly clear in this thread.

Enrolment is another issue and being in an openly gay relationship would be a barrier. Big difference from the KKK.

Not really, if black people could change to white people I'm sure the KKK might let them in, it seem the Bahai religion are happy to have gay people in their religion, as long as they stop being gay, pathetic, and deeply pernicious, I have nothing but contempt for such prejudice, and I don't who or where it comes from.

 

[Sheldon]

God has endowed everyone with the capacity to know Him.

I don't believe you, please demonstrate some objective evidence for your claim, or even something beyond a bare assertion.

 

[Sheldon]

His teachings have established a world community working unitedly for the betterment of the world.

By espousing homophobic bigotry, and openly discriminating against gay people, that's not making a better world, that's blindly clinging to ignorant prejudice and superstition.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My apologies for that, in Spanish we have the same word for both conscience and consciousness. (which explains my confusion) and honestly I thought that you where just correcting my spelling last time (but the mistake was mine)

I didn't realize that. That's a good answer.

I'm an American living in an expat community in Mexico, where speaking Spanish is not essential, since virtually everybody in the service industries is bilingual. It's also hard to learn it through immersion for that reason. We just get a sprinkle of it.

Nevertheless, out of respect as well as completing a bucket list wish of becoming bilingual myself, I've been trying to learn Spanish. I just checked the traductor, and you are correct. That's a problem. These ideas need separate words, which Spanish does very well. In English, we just have wall. In Spanish, if I have it correctly, it's mura for the structure (we build a mura) and pared for its surface (hang a picture on the pared). Likewise with rincon and esquina, caliente and picante, and ser and estar. But it's the opposite with hacer, which is both the English to do and to make.

Ok I will paraphrase your whole point, please let me know if I am misrepresenting your view.

1 We evolved though natural selection, (whatever was beneficial for our survival was selected and more likely to become fixed and dominant in a population)

2 This includes some sort of “intuition” for example societies that don’t kill each other are probably less likely to survive that societies that help each other, so some sort of “intuition” or “instinct” that makes us feel bad after killing someone would have been beneficial, and therefore likely to be selected………..(this intuition later evolved in what we call consciousness)

3 timed passes and eventually complex brains evolved by the same mechanism of natural selection, this includes the ability to reason that was also beneficial for our survival.

4 then with the combination of our ability to reason and the intuition mentioned in point 2 (that later became our conscience) we started to determine the morally right and the morally wrong based on the things that are best for our survival, flurishment, happiness., and other stuff

5 then a few thousand years of trial and error, cultural influences and learning, molded the previous concept of morality and evolved in to what we understand today as morality.

If this a fare representation of your view if not please spot my mistakes and correct me.

That's pretty good. Thanks. Does it seem correct to you? And does that answer all of your questions on my position on the evolution of morality in man? The beasts exhibit what we might call moral behavior, but in my opinion, it shouldn't be called moral or immoral if it isn't powered by a conscience that thinks in terms of right and wrong, which the beasts cannot do since they don't have language and can't think in sentences. They don't make choices because they find them to be moral or immoral, which is goal-oriented thinking, but because of instinct, which is not. Only man can do that, and only once he is old enough to use language. Infants and small children can't be moral or immoral, either.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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)

The idea has been around for thousands of years, but has never affected what is happening in the world. And it is not going to affect world happenings in future also.

 

[Sheldon]

The Baha’i teachings teach us to treat all with love and kindness and that includes everyone.

Clearly this isn't true for gay people, as the posts in this thread amply demonstrate, including your own.

Being a Baha’i is the most wonderful blessing I have been gifted with and I just hope others will wake up from all the brainwashing society has done on them.

Like Bahai's being brainwashed into spreading hate speech and homophobia, while pretending this represents loving and respecting gay people. I don't think they're in a position to accuse others of being brainwashed.

Things like God doesn’t exist and homosexuality is great.

Demonstrate some objective evidence that a deity exists. There is nothing wrong with being gay, as has been explained it is a natural healthy variation of adult human sexual desire, it harms no one, and gay people deserve to be protected from vile religious bigotry, and to be treated the same as straight people. it's the woo woo superstition that is brainwashing, brainwashing people into hatred and discrimination.

if people aren’t happy with what He has determined then don’t join our religion.

Why would I want anything to do with an unevidenced imaginary deity and hateful homophobic bigotry? This is about challenging such bigotry, as it is a moral duty for an decent person.

We are told to treat all people with love and kindness and that’s how I find most Baha’is to be.

Unless they're gay obviously as has been irrefutably demonstrated in this thread from their own words. Openly discriminating against gay people, and espousing hateful homophobia is not my idea of treating people with loving kindness. Now convincing someone it is, is what I would call brainwashing, and deeply pernicious brainwashing at that.

 

[Sheldon]

That’s great if it worked for you. In my case it didn’t.

As I said, that is your problem not theirs.

 

[Sheldon]

You don’t believe in God so now you’re blaming Him? You can’t have it both ways.

its obviously a hypothetical question. Which you have dodged by dishonestly pretending it was meant literally. So again if your deity thinks gay people are an aberration as Bahai's claim, then why did it create gay people, in its own image at that?

Any defects were not God created in my understanding.

So you don't believe it created "everything" then? This all seems very muddled thinking.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is in the sense they are both wrong or harmful. A pear is not an apple, but analogously they are both fruit, see? It seems you really don't understand analogies. Analogous doesn't mean they are the identical...

Whether depriving people of sex is wrong or harmful is a moot point because nobody is depriving anyone of sex. Just because religious laws exist that is not depriving anyone of sex as very few people obey the religious laws and obedience is voluntary.

 

[Trailblazer]

Like you freely choosing to post shameful and appalling homophobia. That you really ought to apologise for.

The passages from the Baha'i Writings is not homophobia, it is scriptures and laws.

@KWED is the one who posted these so he is the one who should be offering the apologies.

 

[Trailblazer]

So unambiguously clear, you claimed there was no argument that gay people are not evil, shameful, unnatural and should not be purged etc.

So unambiguously clear, I claimed there was no argument that gay people are evil, shameful, unnatural or should be purged etc.

 

[leroy]

Nevertheless, out of respect as well as completing a bucket list wish of becoming bilingual myself, I've been trying to learn Spanish. I just checked the traductor, and you are correct. That's a problem. These ideas need separate words, which Spanish does very well. In English, we just have wall. In Spanish, if I have it correctly, it's mura for the structure (we build a mura) and pared for its surface (hang a picture on the pared). Likewise with rincon and esquina, caliente and picante, and ser and estar. But it's the opposite with hacer, which is both the English to do and to make.

Yes I suppose all languages have the same issues, I am assuming that some distinctions are regional and perhaps other Mexicans mean something else but

Pared: Simply means wall (the thing that divides two rooms for example)………Muro would be more like a “strog/thick wall” like the structures that prevent buildings from falling or the Berlin Wall would also be a "Muro"

Esquina means a literal corner (literally like in the corner of a square, rincón means just a remote place, (may or may not be a corner)

And so on,

That's pretty good. Thanks. Does it seem correct to you? And does that answer all of your questions on my position on the evolution of morality in man? The beasts exhibit what we might call moral behavior, but in my opinion, it shouldn't be called moral or immoral if it isn't powered by a conscience that thinks in terms of right and wrong, which the beasts cannot do since they don't have language and can't think in sentences. They don't make choices because they find them to be moral or immoral, which is goal-oriented thinking, but because of instinct, which is not. Only man can do that, and only once he is old enough to use language. Infants and small children can't be moral or immoral, either.

Ok, so the next question would be, do you understand my objection? Do you understand why would I object? Do you understand why would I say that conscience (+ reason) is unlikely to be a reliable moral guide?

Care to paraphrase my objection to see if you understand?.........

 

[Vinayaka]

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

Which God? (Hint: It's only your version of God)

 

[Vinayaka]

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

As a Baha'i you simply can't do that. If you did, you would be going against your own faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

As I stated in a previous post, we all have been given the capacity to recognise God and His Messengers.

Yes, we have that capacity. If we did not have that capacity we could not be held accountable to God.

“I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

“He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings, pp. 105-106

 

[Trailblazer]

So if Bahais say you broke a Bahai law, and it was for something you thought was OK, how do you get punished?

It does not matter if we thought it was okay. If we were aware of the law and broke it there could be a punishment. That punishment would be determined by the Baha'i institutions (the spiritual assembly or the UHJ).

And give us an examle of a law in Bahai that you are supposed to follow. Apart from gay sex I'm not aware of anyone mentioning any laws, nor the punishments.

There is an entire Book of Laws written by Baha'u'llah.

The book is called The Kitáb-i-Aqdas and it is considered The Most Holy Book of the Baha'i Faith.

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas | Bahá’í Reference Library

The suggested punishments are in the Aqdas but the penalties are administered by the Baha'i institutions. Many of those laws are not in force yet, as the UHJ determines when the laws will be applied.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

The Baha'i Faith is no more affecting society than Jainism and Wicca. The Baha'i Faith has zero effect on public policy and perception in the West, as most people do not even know what it is, and even if they have heard of it in passing, they do not know much about it or what it teaches.

Skeptics never mention the Baha'i Faith or even think of it unless somebody on this forum who has a vendetta against the Baha'i Faith brings it up.

 

[F1fan]

It does not matter if we thought it was okay. If we were aware of the law and broke it there could be a punishment. That punishment would be determined by the Baha'i institutions (the spiritual assembly or the UHJ).

There is an entire Book of Laws written by Baha'u'llah.

The book is called The Kitáb-i-Aqdas and it is considered The Most Holy Book of the Baha'i Faith.

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas | Bahá’í Reference Library

The suggested punishments are in the Aqdas but the penalties are administered by the Baha'i institutions. Many of those laws are not in force yet, as the UHJ determines when the laws will be applied.

Well then can't the UHJ just declare that homosexuality is n longer condemned and is recognized as a moral norm, and no longer sees gays in a negative way?

 

[dybmh]

Well then can't the UHJ just declare that homosexuality is n longer condemned and is recognized as a moral norm, and no longer sees gays in a negative way?

they could certainly choose not to enforce the law allowing gay people full participation.