Homosexuality and religious.

[Truthseeker]

If your scriptures supported your belief that they are of divine origin, then skilled critical thinkers everywhere would be believers.

Oh, really? For one thing critical thinking is good, but there is also a spiritual or moral component to believing a religion. And critical thinking philosophers have always disagreed using reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, really? For one thing critical thinking is good, but there is also a spiritual or moral component to believing a religion. And critical thinking philosophers have always disagreed using reason.

If you are a truthseeker I am methodological falseseeker.
I can't use reason on everything, nor can I make morality objective in any sense, thus I have subjective moral beliefs which are without objective truth, reason or logic.
You just do it differently, yet still without objective truth, reason or logic. Even if I grant you that you have objective truth, reason or logic, I can still do it differently with subjective beliefs.

 

[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.

You know that's strange. Hindus haven't written very much, but this man from Persia is claiming to be the return of Krishna, the Kalki avatar. You'd think, if that were true, that Hindus would be excited, a new age has begun.

Same thing with Christians, Jesus has returned. The most incredible event ever, and it happened over 150 years ago? I heard both sides of the story. Why the Baha'i prophet can't be Jesus, or Krishna. And, the Baha'is side of the story, on why he can be. Because it is the "spirit" of Christ, not the same person. Maybe, maybe not. There's enough "evidence" to convince some that he is. And enough evidence to prove that he isn't for others.

Now I don't know that much about Hinduism, but with the little I do know, I don't see how Baha'u'llah or his religion, the Baha'i Faith fits into Hindu religious and spiritual thought. What I can see is how the Baha'i Faith fits very well into Islam. But as a liberal type of Islam... that has eased up on the laws. Even easing up on the laws regarding homosexuals. They won't be killed or tortured physically for their behavior, just mentally... by being told God, their creator, rejects their behavior and wants them to and expects them to change to fully be accepted into his, God's, religion.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Yes, there are some prophesies that work well for the Baha'is, but some don't. The one I always mention is that there will be wars and rumors of wars, but that is not yet the end. And in that and other prophesies it is Jesus that comes. And Jesus puts an end to evil. He doesn't come, get rejected, dies, and the world continues with wars and rumors of wars. Still, Baha'is maybe right. but maybe not. It's not all that clear cut.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Yes, and they are also vague enough to make them fit whatever someone wants them to fit. One of them is that there will be three "Woes" and after the second one, the third one will come quickly. So obviously, for Baha'is, the first "woe" is Muhammad, the second is the Bab, and the third one, that comes quickly, is Baha'u'llah. Except to me, in the book of Revelation, the "woes" are bad things, judgements against the evil doers, and have nothing to do with being "manifestations" of God. But, for Baha'is, it's close enough. And who really cares about the context.

But with the book of Revelation, who really knows what's going on? So, it's easy for Baha'is to tell people what's going on and who's going to know for sure, or care?

Yeah, prophecies are too vague to be meaningful.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yes, and they are also vague enough to make them fit whatever someone wants them to fit. One of them is that there will be three "Woes" and after the second one, the third one will come quickly. So obviously, for Baha'is, the first "woe" is Muhammad, the second is the Bab, and the third one, that comes quickly, is Baha'u'llah. Except to me, in the book of Revelation, the "woes" are bad things, judgements against the evil doers, and have nothing to do with being "manifestations" of God. But, for Baha'is, it's close enough. And who really cares about the context.

But with the book of Revelation, who really knows what's going on? So, it's easy for Baha'is to tell people what's going on and who's going to know for sure, or care?

Yeah, prophecies are too vague to be meaningful.

Its no problem that you don't believe it, but others may see it different and are able to understand the prophecy. People are different you know

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh, really? For one thing critical thinking is good, but there is also a spiritual or moral component to believing a religion. And critical thinking philosophers have always disagreed using reason.

Why can't critical thinking go hand in hand with believing a religion? If one used critical thinking to arrive at that destination I don't know why not.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, and they are also vague enough to make them fit whatever someone wants them to fit.

That is mathematically calculable. But I will not offer much more about that on RF.

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

Hi Daniel. Love to all your family.

Thanks, love to you and your family also

... came across this transcript of a talk given by Adib Taherzadeh. I think he was a former House of Justice member. Anyway it’s his view.

This is the link

Transcript:Adib Taherzadeh/Growing in the Bahá’í Faith/Day 3 - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith


14]And the third sign - which is also has happened and has taken place already on a smaller scale but anyhow, it has taken place - is that the alchemy, he says, will become an achieved, alchemy will be achieved. That is, the transmusion of copper into gold of any metal, the transmission, the changing of elements. Now this has already taken place in the atomic laboratories and you can do this through the processes of the atomic physics, but it is so expensive that if you change them, it's going to be very expensive.

All this is irrelevant to Baha'u'llah 's claim that if you keep copper molten in its mine it will change into gold.

I read some time ago in the newspapers years ago that one of the nations, Russians have said they can produce gold or they will produce gold which would be cheaper than what is in the market.

This is the way religions work, by making empty claims which are swallowed uncritically. Can you link to a peer reviewed scientific paper which says that if copper remains molten in its mine for seventy years it will change into gold?

But during Bahá’u’lláh's lifetime also, many of His disciples, many of His disciples during His lifetime were involving themselves in this act of producing, of testing and experimenting. And Bahá’u’lláh stopped them. He said this is not the time for it. He told them to stop this. And He said when the time comes, it will be discovered. And He said when it will be discovered, we have a tablet of Bahá’u’lláh, which is very striking. He says when it is discovered, mankind will discover a force which can destroy the whole world. And He prays that God will not-- and this is as I said, associated with the discovery of the atomic energy.

Great, so since the discovery of atomic energy is what was stopping Baha'is from testing Baha'u'llah's claim and exposing Him since we already have atomic energy there is no further need to put off testing these claims.

So now you see, these are the signs of the coming of age of humanity. And in this pilgrim's note, we heard Shoghi Effendi said that the Lesser Peace and the coming of age of humanity is the same thing which, from the signs that I mentioned to you, it's very likely. (Adib Taherzadeh)

Since pilgrims notes are not authoritative in the Baha'i faith they are irrelevant

In my opinion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Its no problem that you don't believe it, but others may see it different and are able to understand the prophecy. People are different you know

"Understanding" a prophecy always seems to look so much like "assigning a likely meaning and going with that."

 

[Spirit of Light]

"Understanding" a prophecy always seems to look so much like "assigning a likely meaning and going with that."

To understand a prophecy is not done right away, it can take years before one realize the truth in it. And no assigning a meaning is not nessessary

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

critical thinking is good, but there is also a spiritual or moral component to believing a religion.

Critical thinking is a prescribed or constrained path based in the proper application of reason to evidence. The empiricist claims that this is the only path to truth by which he means demonstrably correct ideas about reality - ideas that help one predict outcomes. This way of thinking about truth is called the correspondence theory of truth, and underlies empiricism. All ideas that can be called correct are confirmed to be that by this method.

Other methods of arriving at beliefs do not produce truth. Ideas arrived at by other ways of "knowing" can only be believed by faith. Whatever you mean by a spiritual or moral component to belief must fit in this latter category - faith. Faith is not a path to truth. That should be obvious. A path to truth is what critical analysis provides. Its sound conclusions are invariably useful in navigating reality. Faith isn't really a path at all, as it is 100% unconstrained and untethered to reality. By this method, any incorrect idea can be believed to be correct. And that is the "path" to religious belief.

"Truth" has no meaning to me if divorced from sensory experience or making decisions. The evolutionary value of belief itself resides in its ability to inform decisions and drive actions, which lead to events in the external world, which in turn lead to objective consequences evident to the senses. Take away any of these elements and "truth" immediately loses all relevance. The ultimate measure of a true or false proposition lies in its capacity to produce expected results.

If an idea is true or correct, it can be used in the real world to generate predictable consequences, and different ones if that idea turned out to be false. In other words, the ultimate measure of a true proposition is its capacity to successfully inform decisions under the expectation of desirable consequences. By this method, one accumulates demonstrably correct ideas - one's fund of knowledge - and generates a mental map of reality that corresponds with the features of reality the way a literal map corresponds to actual geographic features one might encounter. If your map is wrong, you won't reach your desired location, and the only way to have a correct map is to survey the landscape it intends to map.

If this is not one's definition of truth, then whatever it is he is calling truth has no value navigating reality. One's religious beliefs may comfort him, but to the extent that faith-based beliefs inform his decisions, they range from useless to harmful. If you believe in angels in heaven, then you hold an idea with no practical value. If you believe they protect you when driving and drink intoxicated for that reason - that is, if this belief actually informs a decision - it can lead to harm.

critical thinking philosophers have always disagreed using reason.

Reason is only useful if applied properly to true premises and evidence. This is how sound conclusions are formed.

Why can't critical thinking go hand in hand with believing a religion? If one used critical thinking to arrive at that destination I don't know why not.

One cannot arrive at a god belief using critical thinking. There is no sound argument that ends, "therefore God." One must inject faith into the process to do that, which immediately makes it something else.

Also, one doesn't just try hard and think critically. It is an acquired skill, and in my experience, one rarely acquired outside of an academic institution. It's like doing integral calculus. You don't do it by trying hard. There is a method that must be learned, and NOBODY who hasn't studied the subject can do it. NOBODY. With all due respect, your thinking is often fallacious. Many have commented on it, but I doubt that you believe them, since you have no way to judge if they are correct or not. Nevertheless, you frequently violate the rules of critical thinking, yet consider it valid critical thought.

I know this sounds elitist to you, but don't you have training in naturopathic remedies - or maybe it's homeopathic? Mine is in medicine, or what some call allopathic medicine. Either of us can recognize when others get it wrong, because we have specialized training. It is not elitism to reject the contrary opinions of those less well trained that we can see are incorrect. Going through the pandemic was an eye-opener regarding how many people think they understand medical principles but don't. And such people routinely reject correction from those who DO have that specialized training, mistakenly assuming that their thinking is just as well informed.

 

[dybmh]

Why can't critical thinking go hand in hand with believing a religion? If one used critical thinking to arrive at that destination I don't know why not.

When a person has a religious belief, they may missinterpret weak evidence for strong evidence. Then this skews the confidence in the conclusion. When this happens, the person is no longer being critical in their thinking. It's not that the conclusion is wrong, but, the reasons contributing to the conclusion may not be reliable.

So, I am guessing, that often the investigation begins with critical thinking, then once someone is convinced, it stops being critical.

 

[Trailblazer]

To understand a prophecy is not done right away, it can take years before one realize the truth in it. And no assigning a meaning is not nessessary

That might be true, but in certain cases the understanding is not difficult and can be understood immediately, if one knows Baha'i history.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That might be true, but in certain cases the understanding is not difficult and can be understood immediately, if one knows Baha'i history.

Yes, believers can be open enough that one word would be enough to realize the truth from a prophet or a manifistation of God.
Those who doubt or disbelieve are not open to the truth the same way.

 

[Trailblazer]

When a person has a religious belief, they may missinterpret weak evidence for strong evidence. Then this skews the confidence in the conclusion. When this happens, the person is no longer being critical in their thinking. It's not that the conclusion is wrong, but, the reasons contributing to the conclusion may not be reliable.

So, I am guessing, that often the investigation begins with critical thinking, then once someone is convinced, it stops being critical.

That can happen with religious beliefs, but it does not 'necessarily' happen all the time.
The opposite can also happen. A believer can interpret strong evidence as strong evidence.
When this happens, the person is being critical in their thinking.

When atheists look at strong evidence for a religious belief and interpret it as weak evidence, or no evidence at all, this skews the confidence in the conclusion. When this happens, the person is no longer being critical in their thinking.

In other words, this cuts both ways. Atheists who 'believe' they are the only critical thinkers are mistaken.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

I appreciate your views and that you wish no harm to anyone which is a noble and humane sentiment. But also that it is fruitless to continue debating this issue because we both have diametrically opposing views that we are both standing by.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

All through history from the Torah to the New Testament, Quran and now Baha’u’llah, God has been consistent about homosexuality. It is for each individual to decide whether to follow God or society on any matter.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

The Baha’i teachings say that only God knows what’s best for us and He reveals that guidance through His Manifestations. Is the world currently better or worse for having so far rejected His call to unite? We have civil wars arising all over the planet unable to stop them. Same with His other laws and counsels.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

The Bible is a ‘spiritual Book’ speaking about spiritual matters not this material world. So many happenings have deep spiritual meanings such as the days of creation, Adam and Eve and the Resurrection. To believe Christ had the power of the Holy Spirit and could breathe new spiritual life into the world is true. Born again is not returning to one’s mothers’s womb to be physically born again. So things like this in the Gospels need to be looked at with spiritual eyes and understood spiritually.

Christ, speaking to Nicodemus explained that rebirth was of the spirit not the body, an illusion to His own resurrection which too was spiritual and not of the body. Christ rejected the concept of bodily resurrection or rebirth when He spoke to Nicodemus. That is abundantly clear.


4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.