Homosexuality and religious.

[loverofhumanity]

The dilemma is that why would you be wary of sharing God's truth, unless you realize there is something wrong about it?

You Bahai are doing your best to defend the religion even though the odds are stacked against you.

To my mind if a theist actually has God's truth it won't offend anyone.

I’m happy to continue discussing if others are.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I can see the utility of a religion being oen to what other religions say, esvecially the greatest hits. What I find odd is how rigid Bahai are about their own texts being FROM God, and exclusive. This discussion has revealed the leadership can't change anything, yet they can adopt the texts of other religions?

Each Manifestation of God is given a specific mission from God and that may involve changing or revealing new social laws or confirming old ones. But only the Manifestation can change laws. But all the spiritual virtues such as love, justice, forgiveness never change. This age requires nations, religions and races to cooperate and collaborate so Baha’u’llah brought teachings focused on oneness.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Changed to what? Each religion that believes and follows any of those Scriptures, believe very different things. A couple of examples that even Baha'is disagree on. Christians that believe Jesus is God and believe Satan is real. Hindus that believe Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu and believe in other Gods as being real. Lots of people have believed those things and have been changed. But the Baha'i Faith says those things aren't true. So, what can we learn from that? Beliefs in things that aren't true can change people.

I mean changed and became believers. If you consider the Manifestation is our only connection with God then to call Him God is not incorrect as He represents God. A lot of the gods people believe in are in reality attributes of God that they have created a deity for. So the God of Justice or the God of love. We understand them differently that’s all.

 

[Vinayaka]

How ironic is that? Gays have been attacked, bullied and scorned for who knows how long. And the Baha'is feel bullied, attacked and insulted for believing that homosexuality is abnormal.

It is legitimately how they feel. I don't question the feelings, just the cause of said feelings. Nobody is bullying, that I can tell. There is no name calling or other bullying tactics.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I consider my self and other Baha'is to be critical thinkers and we see the evidence.

What makes one a critical thinker is not seeing evidence, but how one evaluates it. There are rules for going from evidence to sound conclusions about it, the violation of which leads to fallacy and the derailing of critical thought. If your scriptures supported your belief that they are of divine origin, then skilled critical thinkers everywhere would be believers.

I've given you the analogy using arithmetic. It also has strict rules that guide one infallibly from addends to a correct sum if applied flawlessly. 6+7 must always equal 13, and 5+4 must always equal 9 every time, or the process fails. What would you think of a person who didn't know these rules, who looked at a column of numbers and came up with a different sum from the one the procedure produces, and claimed that they were doing "critical" adding, meaning formally correct adding? It's how the claims of those who come to unsound conclusions and claim that their thinking is critical anyway are viewed.

That Baha’is don’t endorse homosexuality does not make it bigotry.

What makes it homophobia is not the lack of endorsement. It's the irrational and destructive double standard for gay and straight people.

How else are you going to still the tempest of wars and hatred without coming together as Baha’u’llah proposed?

How did Baha'u'llah propose accomplishing that? Whatever the plan if any, it's had no impact. You blame the world for that. I blame the "plan." The plan seems to be to say come together a lot. It didn't work for Jesus or Gandhi, and it isn't working for Baha'ullah. I've already explained that I see humanism as the path to greater tolerance and human well-being, not the religions. And those values ARE being promoted, but by secular organizations embodying those values.

It acts worse than the worst fanatical extremist religionists that's why I’m labelling it as if it’s a religion. It undermines freedom of worship and belief and abuses the rights of others to believe what they will without harassment and false accusations of homophobia. Just because Baha’is don’t endorse homosexuality doesn’t mean they are homophobic or hate gays but in the fanaticism of the gay lobby, that’s the tactics they employ to try and fanatically force people to endorse their views and anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is labelled a homophobic.

The gay lobby? Did you mean the tolerance lobby? Is that what you are calling fanaticism?

Homosexuals are equal human beings and no one has the right to kill or harm them.

Homophobia hurts gay people. You'd be able to see that on this thread if you looked or cared.

But at the same time it should not be the case that people who don’t believe in it are attacked for not endorsing it.

Your doctrine is destructive to people. If you are being criticized, it is for defending homophobic doctrine. It is unreasonable for you to ask people whose morals condemn such an attitude to be silent about it, as well as expect them to stop objecting because such objection is uncomfortable for those defending it. I suspect that will never stop in our lifetimes. It will always be considered unacceptable by rational ethicists. Always.

fanatics have a habit of forcing their beliefs on others instead of just agreeing to disagree.

Is that what you see happening here - you being forced to accept beliefs? That would be a pretty poor plan, since that's not possible. You will never give up those beliefs. That's how faith works. Thus, we will always disagree. I don't think anybody expects you to give up your religious belief that gay people disappoint your god.

It’s how I treat the people that matters and I treat them as equals

You are not believed. Nobody treats those they consider inferior the same as those they approve of. How have you treated the gay man posting here who has expressed the pain that Baha'i doctrine being argued here has caused him just reading it? Have you shown empathy or expressed any regret for what such ideas do to him? Of course not. Why? Isn't it obvious? What if a straight man poured his heart out to you like that? Would you remain indifferent? I don't think so. Why? The straight man doesn't offend your god in your mind, and you follow suit imitating your god as you understand it. And then you tell the thread how egalitarian you are. No, you are not. You are blind to this, but others see it clearly. You might want to think about that for a while rather than continuing to object that you are being treated unfairly.

It’s perfectly ok to disagree with the Baha’i teachings.

Your lack of insight is staggering. You've been ranting about others disagreeing with some of its teachings, and now that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Homosexuality is sexual behavior, a life style between same sexes.

When you make categorical statements, it's often best to actually check whether you are right or not. Unfortunately, in this case, you are NOT.

Homosexuality is an orientation. If a man is attracted to men (or a woman to women), whether they act on that attraction or not does not change the fact that they are homosexual.

And in fact, many homosexuals are married to opposite-sex partners, have children, go to church, and live a heterosexual life-style in their communities, so it is not a life-style either.

You don't, you see, actually know what you are talking about, although you like to pretend to be an authority.

All I see here are hetrophobes badgering straight folks that don't agree with homosexuality.

Hetrophobes fear straight people that don't agree, don't like, (or whatever you wanted to call it)with homosexuality.

Constantly badgering them because you don't like their answer or stance is pointless.

Whether I agree or not, who cares?

It's spelled heterophobes, just fyi.

And again, your definition is far from the mark. A heterophobe (using the same definitional terms as used in defining homophobes) would be somebody who dislikes heterosexuals -- period, irrespective of those heterosexuals' views on homosexuality.

Its your life live it and be happy.

With that said, for me, this thread is pointless to return to.

Well, it's your life; live it and be happy. (Thought you'd appreciate seeing the correct punctuation.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

...it is against our laws to discriminate against homosexuals.

Unless I misunderstand the meaning of the word "discriminate" as used in this context, I don't see how that is possible.

Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

If the Baha'i faith has a rule that says people can get married within the religion, or be called to some official position within the religion -- unless they are practicing homosexuals -- it is discriminating on the basis of sex.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What makes one a critical thinker is not seeing evidence, but how one evaluates it. There are rules for going from evidence to sound conclusions about it, the violation of which leads to fallacy and the derailing of critical thought. If your scriptures supported your belief that they are of divine origin, then skilled critical thinkers everywhere would be believers.

I've given you the analogy using arithmetic. It also has strict rules that guide one infallibly from addends to a correct sum if applied flawlessly. 6+7 must always equal 13, and 5+4 must always equal 9 every time, or the process fails. What would you think of a person who didn't know these rules, who looked at a column of numbers and came up with a different sum from the one the procedure produces, and claimed that they were doing "critical" adding, meaning formally correct adding? It's how the claims of those who come to unsound conclusions and claim that their thinking is critical anyway are viewed.



What makes it homophobia is not the lack of endorsement. It's the irrational and destructive double standard for gay and straight people.



How did Baha'u'llah propose accomplishing that? Whatever the plan if any, it's had no impact. You blame the world for that. I blame the "plan." The plan seems to be to say come together a lot. It didn't work for Jesus or Gandhi, and it isn't working for Baha'ullah. I've already explained that I see humanism as the path to greater tolerance and human well-being, not the religions. And those values ARE being promoted, but by secular organizations embodying those values.



The gay lobby? Did you mean the tolerance lobby? Is that what you are calling fanaticism?



Homophobia hurts gay people. You'd be able to see that on this thread if you looked or cared.



Your doctrine is destructive to people. If you are being criticized, it is for defending homophobic doctrine. It is unreasonable for you to ask people whose morals condemn such an attitude to be silent about it, as well as expect them to stop objecting because such objection is uncomfortable for those defending it. I suspect that will never stop in our lifetimes. It will always be considered unacceptable by rational ethicists. Always.



Is that what you see happening here - you being forced to accept beliefs? That would be a pretty poor plan, since that's not possible. You will never give up those beliefs. That's how faith works. Thus, we will always disagree. I don't think anybody expects you to give up your religious belief that gay people disappoint your god.



You are not believed. Nobody treats those they consider inferior the same as those they approve of. How have you treated the gay man posting here who has expressed the pain that Baha'i doctrine being argued here has caused him just reading it? Have you shown empathy or expressed any regret for what such ideas do to him? Of course not. Why? Isn't it obvious? What if a straight man poured his heart out to you like that? Would you remain indifferent? I don't think so. Why? The straight man doesn't offend your god in your mind, and you follow suit imitating your god as you understand it. And then you tell the thread how egalitarian you are. No, you are not. You are blind to this, but others see it clearly. You might want to think about that for a while rather than continuing to object that you are being treated unfairly.



Your lack of insight is staggering. You've been ranting about others disagreeing with some of its teachings, and now that.

It all comes down I believe, to whether Baha’u’llah is Who He claims to be. From my investigation I have found His claims to be a Manifestation of God and the Promised One of all religions to be true, and therefore am absolutely certain that Whatever He has prescribed for humanity is best for us but it is understandable that those Who do not recognise His Station and Spiritual Sovereignty will oppose and slander His rulings.

This is not new. All the Messengers of God whenever They appear are treated with disdain and contempt at first. Some have been crucified and tortured, Others executed, imprisoned and exiled. But in time They all prevailed and so too I believe shall Baha’u’llah.

As to a peace plan. One has already been submitted to the UN. But that is another topic which needs much explanation. You continue to place your whole trust in your critical thinking and I in Baha’u’llah.

 

[dybmh]

We all express ourselves differently. That’s diversity.

Sure. However if someone's aspiration is to show kindness and love to all AND not to judge, then it's appropriate to self-censor any judgements and unkind comments. Writing them out simply reinforces them. Do you disagree that "immoral, unnatural, etc" are judgements? Do you disagree that "disgusting" is unkind?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You continue to place your whole trust in your critical thinking and I in Baha’u’llah.

Yes. Correct. I am an empiricist, you a faith-based thinker. I trust my mind, you trust the mind of another. I used to be like that myself, trusting parents and teachers, for example, to tell me what was true and what was right and good. As I matured, I eventually assumed that role for myself after a decade-long hiatus in Christianity.

it is understandable that those Who do not recognise His Station and Spiritual Sovereignty will oppose and slander His rulings.

Just the homophobic ones so far, criticism of which does not rise to the level of slander. If it's true as a believer said earlier that the Baha'i are commanded to remain apolitical, that deserves criticism as well.

I recognize MY station as an independent, contemplative moral agent, and MY sovereignty as such, which is why I reject Baha'u'llah's ideas that contradict my moral position.

Anyway, you ignored most of my post and all of its questions, so I'll answer them myself. You are always free to chime in if you think that I've guessed your answer incorrectly or made a factually incorrect statement, but thus far, you haven't shown any interest in these questions:

• "How did Baha'u'llah propose accomplishing that? [still the tempest of wars and hatred without coming together as Baha’u’llah proposed]"

He didn't. He had no plan.​

• "Is that what you see happening here - you being forced to accept beliefs?"

Yes. People disagreeing with you is what you called forcing me to accept their beliefs.​

• "How have you treated the gay man posting here who has expressed the pain that Baha'i doctrine being argued here has caused him just reading it? Have you shown empathy or expressed any regret for what such ideas do to him?"

No, you have not. You have ignored his explanation of how your religion harms him, and have ignored his emotional appeal for empathy. Your interest is not in his pain, but in defending your religion from criticism right or wrong.​

• "What if a straight man poured his heart out to you like that? Would you remain indifferent?"

No. That's a person you would comfort. You say that you treat gay and straight alike, but you do not.​

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It all comes down I believe, to whether Baha’u’llah is Who He claims to be. From my investigation I have found His claims to be a Manifestation of God and the Promised One of all religions to be true, and therefore am absolutely certain that Whatever He has prescribed for humanity is best for us but it is understandable that those Who do not recognise His Station and Spiritual Sovereignty will oppose and slander His rulings.

What "investigations," I wonder? If reading something somebody has merely said is an "investigation," then every written claim by every human being deserves more credence than either you or I would be wiling to give them.

This is not new. All the Messengers of God whenever They appear are treated with disdain and contempt at first. Some have been crucified and tortured, Others executed, imprisoned and exiled. But in time They all prevailed and so too I believe shall Baha’u’llah.

Of all those who have made claims to be messengers of God (and there have been many), which ones are those that you credit with being "true" messengers of God? Moses? Jesus? Muhammad? Baha'u'llah? Joseph Smith? Jim Jones? David Koresh? Adnan Oktar? Bahram Chobin?

And if they all were, how is it possible that everything they said is true? I mean, if Muhammad declared himself to be the very last prophet, correctly, if you accept that he was a true messenger, how could Baha'u'llah subsequently usurp that position? That in itself is a conflict -- both cannot be true.

 

[Vinayaka]

It all comes down I believe, to whether Baha’u’llah is Who He claims to be. From my investigation I have found His claims to be a Manifestation of God and the Promised One of all religions to be true, and therefore am absolutely certain that Whatever He has prescribed for humanity is best for us but it is understandable that those Who do not recognise His Station and Spiritual Sovereignty will oppose and slander His rulings.

This is not new. All the Messengers of God whenever They appear are treated with disdain and contempt at first. Some have been crucified and tortured, Others executed, imprisoned and exiled. But in time They all prevailed and so too I believe shall Baha’u’llah.

As to a peace plan. One has already been submitted to the UN. But that is another topic which needs much explanation. You continue to place your whole trust in your critical thinking and I in Baha’u’llah.

Slander? That's a legal term. If there was real slander, the Baha'i legal team could sue the slanderers and get some much needed money for the organization. Could you point ta a legal case?

note ... disagreement is not slander, jeepers.

 

[Vinayaka]

What "investigations," I wonder? If reading something somebody has merely said is an "investigation," then every written claim by every human being deserves more credence than either you or I would be wiling to give them.


Of all those who have made claims to be messengers of God (and there have been many), which ones are those that you credit with being "true" messengers of God? Moses? Jesus? Muhammad? Baha'u'llah? Joseph Smith? Jim Jones? David Koresh? Adnan Oktar? Bahram Chobin?

And if they all were, how is it possible that everything they said is true? I mean, if Muhammad declared himself to be the very last prophet, correctly, if you accept that he was a true messenger, how could Baha'u'llah subsequently usurp that position? That in itself is a conflict -- both cannot be true.

When the Baha'is 'investigate', they are only allowed to use Baha'i approved sources.

 

[Trailblazer]

When the Baha'is 'investigate', they are only allowed to use Baha'i approved sources.

No, that is not true. We are encouraged to look at all sources while we are investigating the Faith.

 

[Vinayaka]

No, that is not true. We are encouraged to look at all sources while we are investigating the Faith.

Whenever I asked for information, I was only ever directed to Baha'i sources. That's what I'm going on. Also, if I asked, "What did you read?" the only thing I ever got was Baha'i sources. So I'm only going on my experiences with many interactions, but of course I could be wrong. What non-Baha'i sources about Baha'i did you read before becoming Baha'i?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Unless I misunderstand the meaning of the word "discriminate" as used in this context, I don't see how that is possible.

Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

If the Baha'i faith has a rule that says people can get married within the religion, or be called to some official position within the religion -- unless they are practicing homosexuals -- it is discriminating on the basis of sex.

The Baha’i Faith recognises marriage only between a man and woman.

As I’ve said over and again. It all comes down to IS Baha’u’llah Who He claims to be? If He is, then He is absolutely right in His judgements on this matter.

 

[Trailblazer]

Whenever I asked for information, I was only ever directed to Baha'i sources. That's what I'm going on. Also, if I asked, "What did you read?" the only thing I ever got was Baha'i sources. So I'm only going on my experiences with many interactions, but of course I could be wrong. What non-Baha'i sources about Baha'i did you read before becoming Baha'i?

I am not sure what you mean by 'Baha'i sources.' Do you mean what is in the Baha'i Reference Library, which is the Writings of the central figures of the Baha'i Faith? There are other books and articles written about the Baha'i Faith, but most of those were written by Baha'is, the reason being that there would be no reason why a non-Baha'i would be doing research and write a book about the Baha'i Faith. However, there are articles and commentaries written by non-Baha'is and you can find those on the internet. For example, Edward Granville Browne was a historian who studied the history of Persia and he wrote about the Babi and Baha'i religions.

Edward Granville Browne - Wikipedia

Welcome to Encyclopaedia Iranica

Before I became a Baha'i, I read all the books that I knew about that were available at that time. Mind you, there as no internet back then, so I had to rely upon books that had been published.

One of the first books I read was Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, which is general information about the Baha'i Faith than anyone should know before becoming a Baha'i.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I am not sure what you mean by 'Baha'i sources.' Do you mean what is in the Baha'i Reference Library, which is the Writings of the central figures of the Baha'i Faith? There are other books and articles written about the Baha'i Faith, but most of those were written by Baha'is, the reason being that there would be no reason why a non-Baha'i would be doing research and write a book about the Baha'i Faith. However, there are articles and commentaries written by non-Baha'is and you can find those on the internet. For example, Edward Granville Browne was a historian who studied the history of Persia and he wrote about the Babi and Baha'i religions.

Edward Granville Browne - Wikipedia

Welcome to Encyclopaedia Iranica

Before I became a Baha'i, I read all the books that I knew about that were available at that time. Mind you, there as no internet back then, so I had to rely upon books that had been published.

One of the first books I read was Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, which is general information about the Baha'i Faith than anyone should know before becoming a Baha'i.

Very importantly is that he was the only westerner to ever meet Baha’u’llah and what was his impression? For people who want non Baha’i sources of westerners who met Baha’u’llah, this is one example.

The face of him on whom I gazed I can never forget, though I cannot describe it. Those piercing eyes seemed to read one’s very soul; power and authority sat on that ample brow; while the deep lines on the forehead and face implied an age which the jet-black hair and beard flowing down in indistinguishable luxuriance almost to the waist seemed to belie. No need to ask in whose presence I stood, as I bowed myself before one who is the object of a devotion and love which kings might envy and emperors sigh for in vain!

https://www.upliftingwords.org/post/edward-granville-browne

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Baha’i Faith recognises marriage only between a man and woman.

As I’ve said over and again. It all comes down to IS Baha’u’llah Who He claims to be? If He is, then He is absolutely right in His judgements on this matter.

And whether he is or he is not, the religion unfairly stigmatizes some members of society. And since I believe the precise number of humans who can speak for God, throughout all of history, is exactly zero, then I also don't accept what he claims to be. Nor do I accept the same from any other human in our history.

Thus as unfairness, doing harm to others are things that I do not like, I will never be a Baha'i, a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or any other religion you can name. Religions -- each and every one of them throughout the history of humanity, has found specious arguments for why it is sometimes right and necessary to stigmatize, harm, shun -- even kill -- other people. They assuage what should be their guilty consciences by claiming "God said so." As specious an argument as it is possible to raise.

 

[CG Didymus]

I’m happy to continue discussing if others are.

What more can you say? Baha'is believe their Scriptures are the inerrant and infallible word of God. And in your teachings your leaders have declared that God believes homosexuality to be abnormal and all those other bad things that your religion says about it.

But the Baha'i Faith is not alone. Christians, or I should say some Christians, the conservative ones, also say their Scriptures are the inerrant and infallible truth from God. Yet, some Christians, the liberal ones, have eased up on believing that. So, they're taking a closer look at this whole thing about their Scriptures being infallible. Will Baha'is someday do the same? Since this attitude about homosexuality is already outdated.