Homosexuality and religious.

[Sheldon]

Bahá’u’lláh states that there are three barriers between man and God. He exhorts the believers to pass beyond these so that they may attain His Presence.

Well he would wouldn't he, given he had a vested interest in peddling his personal superstation, with him vaunted as a prophet.

The first barrier is attachment to the things of this world,

He said, typing on a computer, using the internet. Irony overload.

the second is attachment to the rewards of the next world,

He said, whilst blindly clinging to pernicious doctrine, in the delusional and childish hope this will help him survive his own physical death.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh you have evidence that the entire scientific world is unaware of then, that being gay is genetic?

There is no ‘gay gene.’ There is no ‘straight gene.’ Sexuality is just complex, study confirms

Massive Study Finds No Single Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior

No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality

 

[Trailblazer]

they cannot choose to stop being gay, anymore than you or I could choose to stop being heterosexual.

But they can stop engaging in gay sex just as I can stop engaging in heterosexual sex.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am under no obligation to see your claims the way you choose to

Nor are we under any obligation to see our claims the way you choose to.

Yet you continually propagate your personal opinions, as if they are facts.
Your personal opinions about homosexuality are not facts, not any more than our beliefs are facts.

 

[Trailblazer]

I would have thought that a religion for this age would communicate its message in the language of today's people. Why 17th Century English?

Baha'u'llah did not use 17th century English, He wrote in Persian and Arabic.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nobody posting on RF appears to have a vendetta against the Baha'i faith or its adherents. What you have been seeing is a negative reaction to some Baha'i doctrine and to the willingness of the Baha'i to accept it without challenge, and for many, to defend it

We accept what Baha'u'llah wrote because we believe it came from God and we believe that God knows more than we know about what is beneficial and destructive for humans, since God created humans.

Also, to compound the problem, such people appear to reject the doctrine in their own lives, yet still carry water for an ideology that embraces a destructive, irrational doctrine.
In your opinion it is destructive, but what is it destroying? In my opinion what is destructive is the 'anything goes as long as it feels good' attitude towards sex in present-day society that is devoid of morals.

Can you prove your personal opinion is right and mine is wrong? If not, all you have is a personal opinion.
Once you have expressed your opinion you have expressed it. Why continue to argue about it?

So you consider it a vendetta against Baha'i to object to this? Isn't that an example of how that faith actually affects people? Here you are defending it, when without it, I am sure that you would be taking an empathetic position toward homosexuals rather than posting STD data in furtherance of a destructive religious doctrine.

I already have an empathetic position towards homosexuals and it would be no different if I was never a Baha'i.
The only difference now is that as a Baha'i I believe what Baha'u'llah wrote is the truth. I have to go with what I believe is true rather than how I feel.

And I object. Strenuously. I will denounce this doctrine and those carrying water for it. I object to what it has done to those who condone it whatever their faith, and what they in turn do to others. Why? Because it's the right thing to do, and I don't have any faith-based doctrine asking me to do otherwise. I hope you will notice how many apparently decent and intelligent people agree with this attitude, and ask yourself why. Are you on the right side of this moral issue?

I already know why so many people agree with this attitude. This is an positively immoral society that we live in when it comes to sexual behaviors and it is immoral because it goes against the Laws of God and promotes selfish desire as an alternative.

The Baha'i say that they exist to promote world unity, but who's actually doing that here? What are the Baha'i on this thread doing to promote unity, and what are the critics of its homophobic doctrine doing? Who's working for tolerance? Who's promoting love - the ones with the platitudes and accusations of vendetta, or the ones arguing against religious bigotry?

It is certainly not the critics of the Baha'i Faith's laws regarding homosexuality who are promoting unity. The constant arguing and insistence that you are right and we are wrong solely based upon your biased personal opinions is hardly indicative of anyone who desires unity. For you and those who think like you unity requires that everyone thinks like you about this issue. Baha'is by contrast just state what we believe and we never insist on it or that anyone has to change their views.

 

[Vinayaka]

Just to let you know, debate is not possible by ignoring those who hold opposing views.

Then again, nothing you've posted suggests you ever had any interest in honest debate. Food for thought about people who claim to be 100% certain of their superstitious unevidenced beliefs, you want to peddle them apparently, but don't ever want them challenged.

Ignore - ignorance, odd how those words sound so similar?

Kind regards

Sheldon

There is never any intention of debate in this situation. One cannot debate if one cannot listen/read.

 

[Trailblazer]

It casts doubt on the belief that baha'u'llah is an actual prophet, or messenger from a God. It creates a huge dilemma, why would God create gays and then condemn gays?

It casts no doubt for me, since I can see the wisdom in the Law.
God did not create gays and God does not condemn gays. God only condemns the following behaviors.

"Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery. Avoid them, O concourse of the faithful. "
Homosexuality

 

[Trailblazer]

This illustrates that you fear the Bahai authority (who represent the strict God laws) but think you can get away with it from God knowing.

I said I could 'get away with it' without the local spiritual assembly knowing.
I could not 'get away with it' without God knowing. God would know since God is all-knowing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is the point of religion to make one 'happy'?

No, absolutely not.

 

[Trailblazer]

So all those poor people out there who don't believe in God are unhappy? It seems to me that you might be wrong about that. Just a guess.

He said: "Happiness comes as a result of obeying and believing in God..."
He did not say that people who do not believe in God are unhappy.
Happiness is subjective.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is at least one and maybe more very unhappy Baha'i here.

And you know that how?
I know all the Baha'is personally and I don't know any Baha'is who are unhappy.
A person might be unhappy about their outward personal situation yet inwardly happy.

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'is keep saying that, no one forces anyone to join, but... if the Baha'i Faith is true, and there is a God, and Baha'u'llah is his manifestation, and has brought a message that can bring peace and unity to the world, it would stupid not to join.

Ubetcha. It would be stupid, and also very foolish.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I offer this from Baha'u'llah

"The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded." (“Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh”, p. 286)

This is one of those counsels, so we will not find peace until we choose to abide by that and all the counsels.

Regards Tony

I repeat something I said earlier, to which you did not reply: the means chosen by "the Most High" to make those counsels known to all mankind (assuming that He is interested in the well-being of all mankind, and not just a few) can be easily shown to be remarkably, indeed tragically, ineffective. So far, a mere one-tenth of one percent of mankind knows about what Baha'u'llah said.

In an age in which communication around the globe with practically everyone is instantaneous, this is simply inexplicable.

 

[Trailblazer]

"Made known" implies that the message is understood and accepted.

Nope.

 

[Trailblazer]

Similarly, you have been "made aware" that Bahaullah was probably delusional or dishonest. By your argument you are now expected to accept it.

Made aware by whom? Are you a Prophet of God?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then again, nothing you've posted suggests you ever had any interest in honest debate.

That is a clear case of projection if I have ever seen it.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This has been explained before CG. There are fundamental Laws that are the foundation that do not change. One such Law that has not changed is the topic we discuss.

Then there are the laws that are subject to change, like prayer and fasting etc

This just helps us understand how people do pervert the Word of God, yet think they are not.

Regards Tony

You say that one "fundamental law" that does "not change" is the topic of this thread. And yet, have you actually looked at the list of religious organizations that disagree?

LGBT-affirming religious groups - Wikipedia

Granted, you will assume that they are all wrong (in their quite literal billions), but one cannot help but again see this is as a dismal failure of an all-powerful deity. If this is so important to that deity -- and if that deity has the power to make it know to all mankind -- why is it not? One of the premises has simply got to be wrong.

(Of course, my view is that the premise that there even is such a deity is wrong, but even if I'm wrong, then at least we must admit that either the premise that He deems it wrong, or that He wants people to know it, or that He is omnipotent and capable of ensuring it is know, simply must be wrong.)

 

[Trailblazer]

Rubbish, homophobia is now seen as pernicious ignorant and bigoted superstition, and the people who cling to it are in a growing minority.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, voxpopuli,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea. Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And you (and other Baha'i) don't see that as discrimination (differential treatment).

In the matter of gay couples who are enrolled Baha'is living together as a same sex couple or being married, we do treat them differently from a married heterosexual couple. However they are not treated differently because they are gay, they are treated different because they are breaking the the laws of our faith. Same deal with a heterosexual unmarred couple or someone committing adultery. We will take action because they are an enrolled member of our faith who is flagrantly and openly violating the laws of our Faith.

The word 'discrimination' is not the best word, because you would have to apply it to someone who commits adultery, fornication, stealing or committing assault.

Incidentally, did the gay couple in the provided video attempt to obtain administrative rights or were they simply openly gay adherents?

When a Baha'i enrolls in the faith they are usually assumed to have full administrative rights. There have been a few videos posted but the one in post #1518 was someone who enrolled as a Baha'i, left, later re-enrolled and then left again. I understand that on both occasions his enrollment came with full administrative rights.

And if the former, is that why they were rejected by the faith -because they wanted administrative rights, or was it because they were openly gay.

To be clear, the Baha'is do not reject people because they are openly gay. If someone loses their administrative rights, they are free to attend all Baha'i activities other than the consultative portion of the 19 day feast and Baha'i elections. There is no shunning of those who lose their administrative rights.

What you are saying is that there is no increased penalty if a fornicator is also gay.

Correct.