Homosexuality and religious.

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only if they asked my beliefs. But it’s not for me to judge anyone but myself.

But you still act according to your beliefs and that can have consequences for other humans. That is true for us all.

 

[loverofhumanity]

what comment on nuclear power?
Baha'u'llah said that there is a force that can destroy the world, he could have got that from considering the force that sets the sun ablaze, or it could have been a guess, after all even a broken clock is right twice a day.

In my opinion.

Abdul-Baha elaborated on this power to the Japanese Ambassador to Spain. To me it’s very obvious.

Scientific discoveries have greatly increased material civilization. There is in existence a stupendous force, as yet, happily, undiscovered by man. Let us supplicate God, the Beloved, that this force be not discovered by science until Spiritual Civilization, i.e. the Kingdom, shall dominate the human mind. In the hands of men of lower material nature, this power would be able to destroy the whole earth. (Abdul-Baha)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Abdul-Baha elaborated on this power to the Japanese Ambassador to Spain. To me it’s very obvious.

Scientific discoveries have greatly increased material civilization. There is in existence a stupendous force, as yet, happily, undiscovered by man. Let us supplicate God, the Beloved, that this force be not discovered by science until Spiritual Civilization, i.e. the Kingdom, shall dominate the human mind. In the hands of men of lower material nature, this power would be able to destroy the whole earth. (Abdul-Baha)

Science is also about sociology and psychology.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Every society has rules and laws to protect itself. The Baha’i society is no different.

So the laws regarding homosexuality are to protect the Baha'i religion? From what? Homosexuals occupying certain select roles in the organization? Hopefully, you can see that the claim that the Baha'i are protecting themselves from anything with such rules has no traction.

I reject any and all accusations of homophobia because I treat everyone with dignity and humanely.

Yes, I know. You've said so a few times. All of the Baha'i here have made some variation of that argument in defense of the criticisms being levied against Baha'i doctrine, and it has been repeatedly rejected. It's simply not possible to consider somebody morally defective and in opposition to the admonitions of a good god equal, and as we have seen in this thread, it manifests in how they treat the people about whom they feel this way even if they can't see it.

Do you know why you're avoiding the empathy issue? I think I do. I wrote, "How about you? Empathy is a noble and humane sentiment. You have none for this man. I can't help but believe that as a humanist, you'd have more empathy in this area ... not one Baha'i ... has expressed any such compassion." This speaks louder than any words you wrote denying that Baha'i doctrine had any effect on how you treat gay people.

I’m not trusting my error prone mind like you Instead I am referring to Baha’u’llah because I believe He is the Voice of God and God can judge as He is infallible.

Yes, you are using your error-prone mind, and in my estimation, made an error right there.

No one is really in a position to judge another because you do not know them well enough to judge anyone but ourselves.

Disagree. I do it successfully quite often. I'm doing it now.

It's a recurrent theme in these threads that some posters think that what THEY don't know defines what is known or knowable to others. They also seem to think that their thoughts are more hidden than they are. They seem unaware of how much they reveal with their words. Here you are thinking that others can't see that you disesteem gays, or that you think with an error-prone mind and make many errors including being unaware that choosing to believe what you do might be an error, or that one can't be good judges of the characters or intentions or beliefs of others from the outside.

Recently, I was involved in a discussion with a theist who refused to answer a question a couple of times. I don't recall the exact issue, but it was of the nature that an honest answer would have led to doctrinal criticism of the nature we are seeing in this thread - maybe of the nature, "Do you think I'll be going to hell for my atheism?" I generally get tired of that game, and just tell the other guy what I think his beliefs are, and offer him the chance to correct me if I'm wrong in his opinion. He objected not to my guess, but that I guessed at all. He said that I had no idea what his opinion was. Really? One answer would be easy to give and be well received, the opposite would be treated oppositely, he declined to answer, and I have no idea what his position was if he didn't explicitly tell me?

My judgement i openly admit is human and faulty. I make terrible mistakes. That’s why I follow God because He does not make mistakes and He is always right.

And you don't see the problem with this concept? I do, even with my error-prone mind. The answer is not guessing who to follow and following them. The answer is to learn critical thinking and decide these things for yourself. Your error rate will plummet if you can do it. You wouldn't have made the comment above.

 

[F1fan]

Immorality.

Yet being gay and gays behaving according to their nature isn't immoral.

And why do you think gays are immoral? Because it's written in some texts by a guy making claims that he is a Messenger from God. And there is no God coming forth to confirm this. You aren't even making this moral judgment yourself, you are an agent for an ideology. To my mind acting mindlessly through an ideology is immoral, because you have no say as a being to decide what is moral or not.

So do you personally agree that homosexuality is immoral? Did you make this mroal hjidgment against indevendently of Bahai, or just adot what the text says and have a different moral sense about it?

 

[loverofhumanity]

So the laws regarding homosexuality are to protect the Baha'i religion? From what? Homosexuals occupying certain select roles in the organization? Hopefully, you can see that the claim that the Baha'i are protecting themselves from anything with such rules has no traction.



Yes, I know. You've said so a few times. All of the Baha'i here have made some variation of that argument in defense of the criticisms being levied against Baha'i doctrine, and it has been repeatedly rejected. It's simply not possible to consider somebody morally defective and in opposition to the admonitions of a good god equal, and as we have seen in this thread, it manifests in how they treat the people about whom they feel this way even if they can't see it.

Do you know why you're avoiding the empathy issue? I think I do. I wrote, "How about you? Empathy is a noble and humane sentiment. You have none for this man. I can't help but believe that as a humanist, you'd have more empathy in this area ... not one Baha'i ... has expressed any such compassion." This speaks louder than any words you wrote denying that Baha'i doctrine had any effect on how you treat gay people.



Yes, you are using your error-prone mind, and in my estimation, made an error right there.



Disagree. I do it successfully quite often. I'm doing it now.

It's a recurrent theme in these threads that some posters think that what THEY don't know defines what is known or knowable to others. They also seem to think that their thoughts are more hidden than they are. They seem unaware of how much they reveal with their words. Here you are thinking that others can't see that you disesteem gays, or that you think with an error-prone mind and make many errors including being unaware that choosing to believe what you do might be an error, or that one can't be good judges of the characters or intentions or beliefs of others from the outside.

Recently, I was involved in a discussion with a theist who refused to answer a question a couple of times. I don't recall the exact issue, but it was of the nature that an honest answer would have led to doctrinal criticism of the nature we are seeing in this thread - maybe of the nature, "Do you think I'll be going to hell for my atheism?" I generally get tired of that game, and just tell the other guy what I think his beliefs are, and offer him the chance to correct me if I'm wrong in his opinion. He objected not to my guess, but that I guessed at all. He said that I had no idea what his opinion was. Really? One answer would be easy to give and be well received, the opposite would be treated oppositely, he declined to answer, and I have no idea what his position was if he didn't explicitly tell me?



And you don't see the problem with this concept? I do, even with my error-prone mind. The answer is not guessing who to follow and following them. The answer is to learn critical thinking and decide these things for yourself. Your error rate will plummet if you can do it. You wouldn't have made the comment above.

You have your beliefs and as I’ve stated I refer to God on these matters as I believe He knows all. And I believe He cannot err like you and I because He is God. God’s infallibility to me trumps any amount of critical thinking however astute.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have your beliefs and as I’ve stated I refer to God on these matters as I believe He knows all. And I believe He cannot err like you and I because He is God. God’s infallibility to me trumps any amount of critical thinking however astute.

So you can err, but you can't err in your belief about God,

 

[F1fan]

One only has to read what Baha'u'llah offered for themselves.

And the low number of adherents illustrates how few are impressed. I'm not impressed by the texts, as they aren't anything a mortal could invent themselves. there is nothing revealing that only a God would know. And of those who are believers, their arguments are not very compelling either. We don't see them as more special or enlightened than any other believer. And to cap off the whole issue of homosexual bigotry is a huge problem for decent and moral people. Moral thinkers can't see how anyone can go along with a religious ideology that targets and shames a class of people, and also refuses to change that law, and then cliams their intent is oneness and unity.

You can't have it both ways, you either accept gays for who they are and work towards oneness and unity, or be hypocrits.

The concept is not hard to grasp. Gid does not decend into creation. God sends a Messenger who appears in the human body, the Spirit that emanated from those Meseengers are all we know about God, so to see them as God is not wrong and to see them as a Messenger is also not wrong.

And there being no God at all would look the same. Bahai don't seem willing to consider their Messenger is a fraud.

 

[F1fan]

So you can err, but you can't err in your belief about God,

Right, if there was an actual God showing up and saying all these things then we would all acknowledge the God exists, and what it says has authority.

But Bahai only have a mortal that claims to speak for an absent God, so the believer has to make a series of judgments. One is to trust what this mortal says is infallible and perfect, and second to assume the God referred to actually exists despite no evidence for it. An even if the Messenger is trustworthy, and the God actually exists,, the mortal believer doesn't know, they are relying on their own thinking to make this rather dubious judgment of these fantastic claims.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Right, if there was an actual God showing up and saying all these things then we would all acknowledge the God exists, and what it says has authority.

But Bahai only have a mortal that claims to speak for an absent God, so the believer has to make a series of judgments. One is to trust what this mortal says is infallible and perfect, and second to assume the God referred to actually exists despite no evidence for it. An even if the Messenger is trustworthy, and the God actually exists,, the mortal believer doesn't know, they are relying on their own thinking to make this rather dubious judgment of these fantastic claims.

Yeah, but that is in effect not limited to religion.

Anyone can declare something subjective objective and that is not about just religion.

 

[dybmh]

As you can see, my poor effort at an explanation is as viable as any other ever given

Per your explanation:

Verse 1, the "you" is the Jewish nation, the subject is the Jewish nation.
Verse 2, the subject switches to "faith of God"
Verse 3, now the subject is "all nations"
Verse 4, now the subject switches back to the Jewish nation
Verse 5, now the subject is "everything ha been made new", though there's nothing about that in the verse
Verse 6, now the subject switches again to "all nations"
Verse 7, now the subject switches to "the message"
Verse 8, and the subject, according to you, is still the "hidden message"

As you can see, your explanation is all over the place. If you compare that to the interpretation I brought mine is much more consistent. The verses all talk about God's relationship with the Jewish nation. An interpretation which reflects a consistent and coherent narrative is better than an explanation which switches topic vritually every line.

we can now ask, who else could fulfil those verses? Who else has a Global Message that due to circumstances, ended up being given from and now resides in Israel?

Isaiah isn't a global message. That's the assumption which is leading you astray.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I refer to God on these matters as I believe He knows all. And I believe He cannot err like you and I because He is God.

Yes, you've already said so. And I critiqued that comment, which claim you ignored. I believe that I have demonstrated the error you make with such a comment, which you didn't attempt to rebut. You and I come from radically different traditions on how to decide what is true about the world. Mine involves dialectic, or debate - the process through which two experienced critical thinkers resolve a difference of opinion. Like a couple of attorneys trying to convince a jury of guilt or innocence, dialectic continues as long as each party thinks he can rebut the other's last claim, that is, show it to be incorrect. We don't have two people doing that here in this discussion, so not surprisingly, the only rebuttal came from me - you cannot escape risking making mistakes by choosing to that a particular god exists by faith - and so, the debate is concluded and the matter resolved with my rebuttal.

Why? Because critical thinking when applied to evidence and true premises without fallacy reliably generates sound conclusions, which are correct conclusions unless somebody can show that they were not really sound by revealing an error in the argument. This cannot be done with correct conclusions. They cannot be successfully rebutted, just as a correct theory of a crime cannot be successfully rebutted. Once again, the last plausible, unrebutted conclusion is considered provisionally correct, and the jury votes according to who made that argument. How do you think the jury would vote here?

God’s infallibility to me trumps any amount of critical thinking however astute.

Isn't this the definition of a closed mind? What you're saying is that if you are demonstrably wrong, there is no way for you to discover that.

You're not alone. Two very well-known theists agree with you that neither evidence nor reason could change their minds about what they have chosen to believe by faith, and are proud to tell you so:

• The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

• "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

 

[dybmh]

Baha'u'llah has explained how the Messenger is the Self of God amongst us

If this were true, Baha'u'llah would have known the future objections to his message from the world's major religions and refutted them in advance. For example, he could have given proof that he shares a spirit with the other, so-called, manifestations. Instead, the message is divisive, not unifying. The methods employed do not reflect the Self of God. The Self of God would know more and be more effective at bringing unity.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yet being gay and gays behaving according to their nature isn't immoral.

And why do you think gays are immoral? Because it's written in some texts by a guy making claims that he is a Messenger from God. And there is no God coming forth to confirm this. You aren't even making this moral judgment yourself, you are an agent for an ideology. To my mind acting mindlessly through an ideology is immoral, because you have no say as a being to decide what is moral or not.

So do you personally agree that homosexuality is immoral? Did you make this mroal hjidgment against indevendently of Bahai, or just adot what the text says and have a different moral sense about it?

Baha’u’llah, God’s Messenger, teaches what is right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral but Baha’is are to leave people free to make their own choices in life and not to condemn or judge them. It is only for God to judge others.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I still read different books than you and view the concept of Messengers differently.

That is life and the choices we face.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This isn't written by a God any more than Islam is.

That is a choice you get. All the best I life, may it produce all you desire.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And there being no God at all would look the same. Bahai don't seem willing to consider their Messenger is a fraud.

We do not have to, as it is evidently the truth.

That was you choice, which you are not able to project on to any follower of Baha'u'llah, or any Messenger when it comes down to the crunch.

Just as I am not able to change any person's heart in these matters.

So live long live happy.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We do not have to, as it is evidently the truth.

That was you choice, which you are not able to project on to any follower of Baha'u'llah, or any Messenger when it comes down to the crunch.

Just as I am not able to change any person's heart in these matters.

So live long live happy.

Regards Tony

Well as honest as I can do it. We might all die, be reincarnated or go to Heaven/Hell. But I don't know. So we might even meet in Hell. Who knows?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Isaiah isn't a global message. That's the assumption which is leading you astray.

That is an option you could choose to reply with.

I personally see that All of what God offers is eternal, for all creation, for every world of God and every creature in all those worlds.

I see every letter is a creation, every sound and every syllable of God creates.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Well as honest as I can do it. We might all die, be reincarnated or go to Heaven/Hell. But I don't know. So we might even meet in Hell. Who knows?

You are correct, who really knows, well nit me anyway but there is a lot offered for us to consider.

I see we do meet in our next existence, hell is only our state of mind. I see there are no barriers to unity when we wake from the death we all face, what we share now in virtues, I see we always share as a human, on this journey to discover our own selves.

Regards Tony