Homosexuality and religious.

[CG Didymus]

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.

But people change laws, add laws, re-interpret old, outdated laws. I don't believe in the Baha'i concept of progressive revelation. Although, I do believe religions and religious and spiritual thought and beliefs evolve. With progressive revelation we are stuck with the Baha'i laws for 1000 years. Without it, without believing that the Baha'i laws are true and absolute, we can accept, change or add laws that fit the times.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

It was those notions that Baha'is believe were wrong that changed the people. For instance, Christians told the people about hell and Satan, that they were lost sinners, and had inherited sin from Adam. But if they believed in Jesus, that he died to pay the penalty for that sin, then they were saved. Oh, and I might as well mention the other thing that Baha'is say is not true, the resurrection. Those converts to Christianity were taught that Jesus died and that he rose again. Those are some of the beliefs that "changed" people's lives. But most all of them are wrong.... according to Baha'i beliefs.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

And then there's the names that we've been called. What bothers me, and something I've tried to point out to Baha'is, they have been called to be the peacemakers.... the ones that see the good qualities in others and disregard the bad... that use reason and not just spout off religious dogma. If they could actually do that, I might still not believe in their teachings, but I'd have to admit that they were fine examples of people that were living up to the teachings of their religion.

 

[CG Didymus]

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 more like they are being "asked"... What is that belief based on? Is it supported by science and rational thinking or is it just a belief held by a religion with no support other than "God and his prophet said so"? Is homosexuality a mental disorder? Is it an imbalance of hormones? What makes it abnormal?

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

'Continue the discussion' simple means 'reiterate what we've said before'. I try to bring in new points, like 'other sources' like the POV of gay Baha'is who were really hurt by it, but the Baha;'i refuse to read it or watch it. So there ain't much we can do, is there.

 

[Vinayaka]

And then there's the names that we've been called. What bothers me, and something I've tried to point out to Baha'is, they have been called to be the peacemakers.... the ones that see the good qualities in others and disregard the bad... that use reason and not just spout off religious dogma. If they could actually do that, I might still not believe in their teachings, but I'd have to admit that they were fine examples of people that were living up to the teachings of their religion.

I've added 'slanderer' to the list.

 

[CG Didymus]

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?

Baha'i sources, "Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ and everybody else." Christian source, "Baha'u'llah is a false prophet. He is not the return of Christ. Jesus is the only way and is the Messiah." Jewish source, "Jesus is not the Messiah. He did not fulfill the prophecies." An Atheist source, "All these claims but no proof or evidence." Yeah, better just stick with Baha'i sources.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It was those notions that Baha'is believe were wrong that changed the people. For instance, Christians told the people about hell and Satan, that they were lost sinners, and had inherited sin from Adam. But if they believed in Jesus, that he died to pay the penalty for that sin, then they were saved. Oh, and I might as well mention the other thing that Baha'is say is not true, the resurrection. Those converts to Christianity were taught that Jesus died and that he rose again. Those are some of the beliefs that "changed" people's lives. But most all of them are wrong.... according to Baha'i beliefs.

But this is what I constantly say -- for the Baha'is to believe in progressive revelation, but then to deny what was "truth" in a previous revelation, is to deny the infallibility of all revelations, for the simple reason that if they can deny what came before, the next revelation can deny theirs. In the same way, the Baha'is deny the validity of the Muslim revelation by denying one of the things it "reveals," that the last prophet of God is Muhammad.

This is a conundrum they choose not to consider, because of course, there's no rational answer to it.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

Yes back then it would be tricky. The internet has really changed things. I've seen this article before due to confirmation bias, but that's fine. There are also lots of articles criticizing the Bahai faith so these days it's easier to make a call.

 

[Vinayaka]

Baha'i sources, "Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ and everybody else." Christian source, "Baha'u'llah is a false prophet. He is not the return of Christ. Jesus is the only way and is the Messiah." Jewish source, "Jesus is not the Messiah. He did not fulfill the prophecies." An Atheist source, "All these claims but no proof or evidence." Yeah, better just stick with Baha'i sources.

The Christian have written quite a bit about it, generally employing the term 'cult'. Hindus have written very little, and as a whole remain largely indifferent other than to the excessive proselytizing that can cause a lot of pain within families. Most Hindus wouldn't have even heard of it. I only did because of RF. Muslims are exceptionally critical usually, but they have an advantage, a big advantage: they can read Arabic.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

So, accepting gay marriage and allowing them to have sex with each other is wrong and should be forbidden, because God said so. And if the creator of the Universe said so, wouldn't that be a law that everyone should obey? Or God told Baha'u'llah that for Baha'is homosexuality is abnormal and for Baha'is it is forbidden?

 

[CG Didymus]

'Continue the discussion' simple means 'reiterate what we've said before'. I try to bring in new points, like 'other sources' like the POV of gay Baha'is who were really hurt by it, but the Baha;'i refuse to read it or watch it. So there ain't much we can do, is there.

Just like other people that loved the Faith but were sanctioned, shunned or declared covenant-breakers, I think a new sect of the Baha'i Fath that accepts gays is the only option. Of course, it won't be recognized by the "normal" Baha'i Faith, that way they can continue to claim that the Baha'i Faith cannot be divided into sects.

But I do believe there is a problem with the ultra-conservative Baha'is. They do have their enforcers that go meet with these people that aren't doing things correctly. Juan Cole, the editor of Dialogue Magazine and Denis MacEoin were all pushed out of the Baha'i Faith.

Juan Cole... Here I wish to examine social control mechanisms in the American Baha’i community. These include mandatory prepublication censorship of everything Baha'is publish about their religion, administrative expulsion, blackballing, shunning and threats of shunning. What are the ideological bases of these control mechanisms? How is power attained and managed in a lay community without a clergy?

A Modest Proposal: Recommendations Toward the Revitalization of the American Baha'i Community
The purpose of this essay is to attempt a beginning at the discussion of potential remedies for our plight. `Abdu'l-Baha assures us that the solutions to tests and difficulties come from frank and honest consultation. Hopefully, this proposal will serve to launch earnest and soul-searching discussion within the community. By no means does this essay pretend to be; all-inclusive, nor does it portend to have all or even one of the answers. We have restricted our observations and proposals to a limited range of national policy issues that can be consulted on and implemented or rejected in a timely manner. It is our hope that the implementation of new policies, designed to open up the f1ow of information between the believers and their institutions, will bring about more honest communication and consultation and thereby assist us all to more effectively address such issues as deficiencies in Baha’i devotional life, or problems with racism,

This is what Juan Cole narrates regarding Dennis MacEoin:
Denis MacEoin did not withdraw from the faith, he was chased out by powerful Baha'i fundamentalists who were deeply threatened by the implications of his historical work.



​

 

[CG Didymus]

The Christian have written quite a bit about it, generally employing the term 'cult'. Hindus have written very little, and as a whole remain largely indifferent other than to the excessive proselytizing that can cause a lot of pain within families. Most Hindus wouldn't have even heard of it. I only did because of RF. Muslims are exceptionally critical usually, but they have an advantage, a big advantage: they can read Arabic.

I researched just a few of the "fulfilled" prophecies and found lots of reasons to question Baha'is on how they were finding prophecies and then interpreting them. Too many were just one or two verses taken out of context. "He will come to you from Assyria" "When the spirit of truth comes." And of course, every time the Bible said, "Glory of God", that was obviously speaking of Baha'u'llah. Only problem is... he took the title of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Vinayaka]

I researched just a few of the "fulfilled" prophecies and found lots of reasons to question Baha'is on how they were finding prophecies and then interpreting them. Too many were just one or two verses taken out of context. "He will come to you from Assyria" "When the spirit of truth comes." And of course, every time the Bible said, "Glory of God", that was obviously speaking of Baha'u'llah. Only problem is... he took the title of Baha'u'llah.

For sure it would take very little these days with regard to actual research to bring on more questions. Unless you have some sort of mental block to reading critiques, it's right there. Seekers can go to any ex- ______ reddit, and read about why folks left, etc. I was curious more about real life Baha'is so I did some research on the community here in Canada. I was also very anti-proselytising then, (still am) and for the most part Baha'i on this forum have stopped that to abide by the rules of the forum.

I think that starting a pro gay Baha'i subgroup would work for some, but not for others. For many people disillusioned with the faith, the gay thing is only one of many challenges, the other one being the all male UHJ.

 

[CG Didymus]

But this is what I constantly say -- for the Baha'is to believe in progressive revelation, but then to deny what was "truth" in a previous revelation, is to deny the infallibility of all revelations, for the simple reason that if they can deny what came before, the next revelation can deny theirs. In the same way, the Baha'is deny the validity of the Muslim revelation by denying one of the things it "reveals," that the last prophet of God is Muhammad.

This is a conundrum they choose not to consider, because of course, there's no rational answer to it.

Yeah, I go round and round with them over the resurrection of Jesus. I say the gospels are clear... that he was dead and came back to life. Baha'is say that he didn't physically come back to life, that he symbolically resurrected. So, part of the new revelation they say is to clear up misconceptions about the old revelation. Which means they can change whatever they want.

When I first heard of the Baha'i Faith, all those things were big pluses. I thought it was crazy to believe the gospels stories literally.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Only problem is... he took the title of Baha'u'llah.

Fulfills prophecy by doing so.

Isaiah 62:2 The nations will see your righteousness, And all kings your glory;
And you will be called by a new name
Which the mouth of the Lord will designate

Baha'u'llah was to give the New Name he was to be called by, which the Bab did also, the new name promised by Jesus.

Wouldn't the Christains be happy if they had this many prophecies pointing towards Jesus!

Regards Tony

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wouldn't the Christains be happy if they had this many prophecies pointing towards Jesus!

Regards Tony

Oh, they do! They made them up, just like you do. That is the sine qua non of all religions.

How flipping often it turns out that "fulfilled prophecies" is all about nothing more than mis-reading, mis-translating and mis-characterizing anything that might contain a word, phrase or hint that true believers are willing to bend their knee to.

I just happen to believe you'd be better off bending your knee (or even better, your brain) to that which can be demonstrated.

 

[Vinayaka]

Baha'i sources, "Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ and everybody else." Christian source, "Baha'u'llah is a false prophet. He is not the return of Christ. Jesus is the only way and is the Messiah." Jewish source, "Jesus is not the Messiah. He did not fulfill the prophecies." An Atheist source, "All these claims but no proof or evidence." Yeah, better just stick with Baha'i sources.

I've never researched prophecy because the very idea of anyone being able to predict the future is preposterous to me. Wisdom, that little old lady with kind eyes and crooked brown hat says, "Wait and see." Other than wild guesses coming true by chance, or obvious stuff like night following day, I know of no provable prophecies.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Oh, they do! They made them up, just like you do. That is the sine qua non of all religions.

How flipping often it turns out that "fulfilled prophecies" is all about nothing more than mis-reading, mis-translating and mis-characterizing anything that might contain a word, phrase or hint that true believers are willing to bend their knee to.

I just happen to believe you'd be better off bending your knee (or even better, your brain) to that which can be demonstrated.

I expect many may have this view based on their own hopes and desires.

Regards Tony

 

[We Never Know]

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.


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.

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

I'm not so petty that I need to complain about punctuation. But evidently you are.