Homosexuality and religious.

[F1fan]

Generally when people start resorting to personal attacks or blanket attacks like your ideology is like the Nazis or KKK its a sure sign they are unwilling or unable to engage in a sensible discussion.

Well It's a good thing I wasn't doing that. What I did was name two other religious organizations that have prejudical views about categories of people similar to Bahai. It's not an attack against anyone, it is pointing out facts about three religious organizations.

There are times when religious people are so tied to their beliefs that when their religion is criticized it feels personal. This discussion is about people and religion. To my mind people and their dignity always come as a higher prioirty, and religious ideas are secondary. I am highly critical of those who value religious ideas over people.

 

[We Never Know]

Well It's a good thing I wasn't doing that. What I did was name two other religious organizations that have prejudical views about categories of people similar to Bahai. It's not an attack against anyone, it is pointing out facts about three religious organizations.

There are times when religious people are so tied to their beliefs that when their religion is criticized it feels personal. This discussion is about people and religion. To my mind people and their dignity always come as a higher prioirty, and religious ideas are secondary. I am highly critical of those who value religious ideas over people.

There are many times when the non-religious people are so tied to their lack of belief that when their lack of belief is criticized it feels personal.

It works both ways. So did you have a piont?

 

[Trailblazer]

There are many times when the non-religious people are so tied to their lack of belief that when their lack of belief is criticized it feels personal.

It works both ways. So did you have a piont?

I was thinking the same thing and I was going to write it but you beat me to the punch.

 

[We Never Know]

I was thinking the same thing and I was going to write it but you beat me to the punch.

Don't get the wrong ideal. I am not religious. I am neutral. It doesnt bother me a bit to beat on both sides.

 

[F1fan]

Because the Baha'i Faith teaches that their God is unknowable, then this God of theirs doesn't have to be real. But he becomes real inside their heads. And yet again, they are not supposed to follow superstitious beliefs. Their beliefs should be supported by science. At least I think that's how I thought it was supposed to be. But, obviously, that's not the case. The trust and "proof" is whatever their prophets told them about God, and their laws are whatever he told them were God's laws.

It would be dumb on are part not to expect and demand more proof and evidence.

I think there is a sort of cognitive dissonance that occurs when theists hold beliefs that their God is real, has thoughts, communicates with people in clear abstract ideas, and there are set rules that come from this authority. The irony is that many theists claim their God is immaterial, yet has so many material attributes, like thinking, communicating, its being, relating to humans who are material, and so on. Theists tend to adopt a traditional framework of belief and have little freedom to adjust it. Catholics and protestants have managed to reject certain rules in their beliefs, but Bahai seem really resistant. Heck even many Catholics are pro-choice these days, I mean holy crap. If they can do that, well....

I think there would be less stress if theists imagined God as more of a force, or power, or essence, etc., and this power influences the believer to be more compassionate, responsible, caring, in balance, etc. We see many more rigid believers struggle with rigid rules and ideas, and while they might like the structure of the doctrine they lose the liberty as a moral being.

 

[We Never Know]

I think there is a sort of cognitive dissonance that occurs when theists hold beliefs that their God is real, has thoughts, communicates with people in clear abstract ideas, and there are set rules that come from this authority. The irony is that many theists claim their God is immaterial, yet has so many material attributes, like thinking, communicating, its being, relating to humans who are material, and so on. Theists tend to adopt a traditional framework of belief and have little freedom to adjust it. Catholics and protestants have managed to reject certain rules in their beliefs, but Bahai seem really resistant. Heck even many Catholics are pro-choice these days, I mean holy crap. If they can do that, well....

I think there would be less stress if theists imagined God as more of a force, or power, or essence, etc., and this power influences the believer to be more compassionate, responsible, caring, in balance, etc. We see many more rigid believers struggle with rigid rules and ideas, and while they might like the structure of the doctrine they lose the liberty as a moral being.

"I think there would be less stress if theists imagined God as more of a force, or power, or essence, etc., and this power influences the believer to be more compassionate, responsible, caring, in balance, etc."

To my understanding thats near how it is. So what's your point?

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't get the wrong ideal. I am not religious. I am neutral. It doesnt bother me a bit to beat on both sides.

I know that you are not religious, which is a good thing, since you can see what is going on on both sides. I see it too even though I am religious.

 

[KWED]

All the Holy Books from the Torah, Gospels, Quran and Baha’i Writings all condemn homosexuality. As to that verse it is in a chapter called ‘Women’ and no specific punishment is mentioned. In those verses 4-15 all immoral sexual is condemned.

All those books contain punishments (often brutal or fatal) for a wide variety of "transgressions". So why do you think that in this one case, a transgression that is condemned does not warrant punishment, even though it says it requires punishment and god's infallible messenger punished people for it?

Even if you choose to ignore the sunnah of Muhammad on the issue, the Quran states that the punishment for homosexual sex is 100 lashes. As a Bahai who believes that the Quran is the infallible word of god, presumably you approve and support that punishment?

 

[KWED]

He told his gay friend in front of me not to make any advances towards me as I was not gay. That’s what was said.

Still seems a rather odd thing to do.

 

[KWED]

Happiness comes as a result of obeying and believing in God but nobody is forced against their will to believe is what I’m saying.

And yet billions of people are happy without god, or believing in the wrong god. So how does that work?
Perhaps it is the reassurance from the belief itself that makes you happy, rather then there actually being a god. If people find happiness and contentment from believing in unicorns, it doesn't make unicorns real.

 

[We Never Know]

All those books contain punishments (often brutal or fatal) for a wide variety of "transgressions". So why do you think that in this one case, a transgression that is condemned does not warrant punishment, even though it says it requires punishment and god's infallible messenger punished people for it?

Even if you choose to ignore the sunnah of Muhammad on the issue, the Quran states that the punishment for homosexual sex is 100 lashes. As a Bahai who believes that the Quran is the infallible word of god, presumably you approve and support that punishment?

"punishment for homosexual sex is 100 lashes"

Yet kiling someone is the promise of 72 virgins in heaven.

Its all a numbers BS game.

 

[We Never Know]

And yet billions of people are happy without god, or believing in the wrong god. So how does that work?
Perhaps it is the reassurance from the belief itself that makes you happy, rather then there actually being a god. If people find happiness and contentment from believing in unicorns, it doesn't make unicorns real.

"And yet billions of people are happy without god, or believing in the wrong god. So how does that work?"..

Because people are happy with what they believe, or disbelieve.

Some believe in a god and heaven when they die, some believe when they die nothing else happens,

Isn't that personal choice?

 

[KWED]

I like some of what you say so can you tell me where I can find those words of Buddha because I love them? I really appreciate those words you quoted.
It all hinges for me on the infallibility of Baha’u’llah. Baha’is aren’t strong in their beliefs out of stubbornness or blindness but acute knowledge of the Station of a Manifestation of God. We know that a Manifestation is never, ever wrong. Why do you think the Names Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, and so on have captivated peoples hearts and minds for thousands of years if They are just people?

Ironic that you say you love those words from Buddha saying not to blindly accept religious proclamations, and then immediately admit that you blindly accept religions proclamations.

 

[KWED]

Lol.

I appreciate the time and effort you spent on that response.
I thought I had raised some valid points, but your detailed and rational rebuttal certainly showed me!

 

[KWED]

The laws of past ages were very harsh to protect the community. Laws are there to act as a deterrent. Throughout history in the Torah, the Gospels, the Quran and Baha’i Writings, homosexuality is condemned.

So the community no longer needs "protecting against homosexuality (and other evil passions)"?
Has god changed his mind?

 

[KWED]

Because people are happy with what they believe, or disbelieve.
Some believe in a god and heaven when they die, some believe when they die nothing else happens,
Isn't that personal choice?

Yes, that was my point.
The truth of a religion is irrelevant. It is simply the belief in something comforting that brings happiness.

However, in many cases it isn't really a personal choice. If one is indoctrinated into a belief from infancy, and that belief involves threats and promises and is constantly reinforced by family and community, then it can be extremely difficult so see any other "choice" as a possible option.

 

[KWED]

Shoghi Effendi was educated at Oxford in English so he could better translate the Writings from Persian and Arabic.
Shoghi Effendi saw that the Kings James English better reflected the flows of the original languages. As such, this style has become the standard for translations.

The problem here is that it just sounds awfully pretentious and clunky.
You'd think that he would have wanted to translate it into a form that was attractive and easy for the reader.
And it doesn't even read like the King James Bible.

 

[KWED]

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

But by its own standards, that will never happen because Bahaism discriminates against homosexuality, so homosexuals and those who support their rights to equal treatment will never accept Bahaism.
Also, rational people do not blindly follow dogma.
"World peace and unity" (if at all possible) will only be achieved through universal, reason-based education, an equitable redistribution of wealth, and socio-political negotiation, not though questionable religious demands.

 

[KWED]

Just let you know, I will not respond to you anymore.

That's your choice. I appreciate it must be difficult for you.

 

[KWED]

Happy birthday.......

Why, thank you!