Homosexuality and religious.

[dybmh]

no filthy rich hoarding wealth.

noted

 

[Vinayaka]

It's interesting to consider the way the law has changed, in theory, throughout the ages. The law, according to Baha'i, has changed to be more inclusive, less tribal, with more humane punishments. This strongly suggests humanity is progressing.

And yet, humanity on the whole, has not and does not adhere to the laws of God. How can there be progress, if progress **only** occurs through adherence? Using the word "only" makes the assertion difficult to defend. Any example of progress, in this case the law progressing, makes the entire idea invalid.

In some cases it's not progressive, but positively regressive.

 

[dybmh]

Do you see why pulling that verse out, but not giving what Baha'u'llah taught about the abolition of extreme wealth and poverty, can be seen as a way to discredited what was said by offering just the one verse!

The question still stands, why admonish an entire group of people many of whom are highly charitable. It's stereotyping.

I found this:

The fundamentals of the whole economic condition are divine in nature and are associated with the world of the heart and spirit. This is fully explained in the Baha’i teaching, and without knowledge of its principles no improvement in the economic state can be realized. The Baha’is will bring about this improvement and betterment but not through sedition and appeal to physical force – not through warfare, but welfare. Hearts must be so cemented together, love must become so dominant that the rich shall most willingly extend assistance to the poor and take steps to establish these economic adjustments permanently. If it is accomplished in this way, it will be most praiseworthy because then it will be for the sake of God and in the pathway of His service. – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace
​

So, how does "admonishing the rich" lead the to "most willingly extend assistance"?

And I still don't know what they're being admonished for. I've searched a bit on it; found nothing.

 

[Vinayaka]

The question still stands, why admonish an entire group of people many of whom are highly charitable. It's stereotyping.

I found this:

The fundamentals of the whole economic condition are divine in nature and are associated with the world of the heart and spirit. This is fully explained in the Baha’i teaching, and without knowledge of its principles no improvement in the economic state can be realized. The Baha’is will bring about this improvement and betterment but not through sedition and appeal to physical force – not through warfare, but welfare. Hearts must be so cemented together, love must become so dominant that the rich shall most willingly extend assistance to the poor and take steps to establish these economic adjustments permanently. If it is accomplished in this way, it will be most praiseworthy because then it will be for the sake of God and in the pathway of His service. – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace
​

So, how does "admonishing the rich" lead the to "most willingly extend assistance"?

And I still don't know what they're being admonished for. I've searched a bit on it; found nothing.

I'll add this ... The Giving Pledge - Wikipedia I guess the Baha'i would admonish these guys.

 

[dybmh]

In some cases it's not progressive, but positively regressive.

That's a good point. Thank you,

 

[dybmh]

I'll add this ... The Giving Pledge - Wikipedia I guess the Baha'i would admonish these guys.

wow, nice.

 

[Vinayaka]

wow, nice.

It's truly amazing what some rich have done for society. One person can do a lot more than an entire sect or religion. Without charity, this world would really be in a mess.

Edited to add ... $100 Million Gift from Jeff Bezos | Feeding America.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, you are saying that. You are the one who is a fallible being but adopting a suposedly infallible text that you cannot confirm. Your religion is a trap, and you are willing to subject yourself to it. You talk as if you have the knowledge of God despite being fallible. THAT is exactly what humble people who know they are fallible would avoid. Yet you immerse yourself in it.

The Bahai text gives clues that it isn't infallible, and you ignore it.

Because you do not believe in God you dispute infallibility but I believe in God so to me infallibility is real. So it’s a matter of belief in God. But I’m not going to argue that issue because only people who have found God know He exists while those who have not found Him will dispute forever endlessly so it’s really a waste of time. If you can’t believe in God then that’s not my problem for I have found God and I’m more than happy with my find.

 

[Vinayaka]

Because you do not believe in God you dispute infallibility but I believe in God so to me infallibility is real. So it’s a matter of belief in God. But I’m not going to argue that issue because only people who have found God know He exists while those who have not found Him will dispute forever endlessly so it’s really a waste of time. If you can’t believe in God then that’s not my problem for I have found God and I’m more than happy with my find.

Lots of folks who have strong beliefs in God don't believe in infallibility. I'll dispute the idea of infallibility all day, but I absolutely believe in God. Just were are you getting this information from?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The question still stands, why admonish an entire group of people many of whom are highly charitable. It's stereotyping.

If they are highly charitable, they are not being admonished.

Baha'u'llah came from a very wealthy family as did his partner Ásíyih Khánum. They both spent their time helping the poor and needy.

There is much offered on this. Sorry busy.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You said, clearly. "That will change." The fact is you don't know that at all. It may change, but not in the way you insinuated. Isn't anyone who feels they can predict the future a prophet (from prophecy) of sorts. I have absolutely no idea what this world has in store for mankind.

Luckily there has been a picture of the future offered that does indicate that, I am 100% confident that is an accurate picture, albeit the details are yet to be painted, the outline is obvious.

Yet to see this, I would agree one must look at what is being painted.

Regards Tony

 

[loverofhumanity]

wow, nice.

So they are obeying the spirit of God’s Revelation for t

That's probably a comforting thought for you, but the evidence contradicts it. All progress has come from empiricism, not faith, and not from the pronouncements of men speaking for gods. From them we get ideas like homosexuals displeasing gods.

Following biblical scripture gave man the Middle Ages, with its pseudosciences and authoritarian regimes allegedly sanctioned by a deity (divine right of kings). People were subjects living under the thumb of kings and dying left and right of infectious disease and food poisoning, many children not making it to two years, and many of their mothers dying in childbirth. Is that what you meant by the height of wisdom and understanding of the divine physician? He lost a lot of patients needlessly.

Humanism and Enlightenment values replaced that with something much, much, much better. We received science, which has made life longer, more functional, more comfortable, easier, more safe, and more interesting, as with the Internet and RF. And it transformed subjects without rights into autonomous citizens.



Just rebutted. If you had counterexamples, you would post them. I know that you do not. Believing by faith that a system of thought is perfect and complete because it comes from a god is how one stagnates. It's why the Baha'i will never update their moral code regarding homosexuality. They can't without conceding that they are the source of it, not a god.



No. Faith is unrelated to education, which is teaching by showing. Faith is imparted via indoctrination, which skips the showing part and simply makes unsupported claims that it repeats until they are believed. That is NOT education.



If they can be rendered into non-religious forms, then what do they have to do with religion? What is religion's contribution to moral theory?

I think you have it backward about who is stealing from whom. How many times a month do we see Christians claiming that America was founded in Christian principles or that science was a Christian invention because there were Christian scientists? One RF poster has argued that humanism itself, a repudiation of faith as a path to truth, is a product of Christianity. Humanist morals have surpassed the Christian moral set and has been informing it and modifying it for the last few centuries, just as science has been doing for Christianity for an equal time.

Before humanism, Christianity was like Islam is today, which still has people being pushed off of towers, being burned alive, stonings, and having hands removed. Christianity's equivalent was crusades, inquisitions, and witch hangings. Why shouldn't it have been? They look about the same on paper, and the Christian Domininists are champing at the bit to return to the good old days barbarism.

Islam has only recently begun experiencing the benefit of humanistic advances. Iranians are revolting for freedom, a humanist value. Afghanis lost their major humanist influence when the West withdrew and relapsed into its older religious version of life. In America, the Christians defeated the humanists regarding abortion, and threaten to return American women to the world their religion envisions.

You've got it completely wrong. These religions are anchors to human progress, both intellectual and moral. Humanists don't steal their ethics. They improve them, with clergy kicking and screaming all the way. And then, when the new values are assimilated and seem mainstream, Christianity tries to take credit for that.

• "We hear a Pope saying slave trading is wrong, and see him sending an expedition to Africa to stop it. The texts remain; it is the practice that has changed. Why? Because the world has corrected the Bible. The Church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession--and take the credit of the correction. As she will presently do in this instance." - Mark Twain

• "It is no credit to the orthodox that they do not now believe all the absurdities that were believed 150 years ago. The gradual emasculation of the Christian doctrine has been effected in spite of the most vigorous resistance, and solely as the result of the onslaughts of freethinkers." - Bertrand Russell

How about the teaching that reason and empiricism are the only paths to truth about the world? What do you suppose any of the religions could teach humanists about loving one another, or the proper way to treat neighbors? Do you think that Baha'ism has ideas that would improve humanism were it to incorporate them? If so, which? How about the one to consider homosexuals defective? Humanism hasn't been able to come up with that piece of morality from the Abrahamic religions.



There you go again with the hyperbole. Baha'i has no blueprint for anything. Humanism, which informs secular agencies like NATO, the UN, and Amnesty International, outperforms Baha'ism in promoting peace, just as the secular governments outperform the churches regarding helping the needy.



The religions have failed. Only secular humanism has improved the human condition. The humanist vision of justice and compassion both outperform the Abrahamic religions, which is as deformed as its ideas of mercy and love. They can't get the Golden Rule right - doing it, not saying it. Not even close. I refer you back to your faith's homophobic doctrines. Why would a humanist take moral counsel from people who think like that?

Baha’u’llah did bring a blueprint for a new world civilisation. It’s a complete waste of time having a discussion on this until you decide to do proper research into what Baha’u’llah teaches. The Baha’i International Community is the largest NGO at the UN and has been advising it since it’s inception. The concept of the UN was formulated by Baha’u’llah a century before the establishment of such bodies.

United Nations Offices
Bahá’i Holy Places in Haifa and the Western Galilee
BIC Author Series Reimagines Global Governance, Looks Ahead to the UN at 100

Within the context of the UN, the BIC is recognized as an international NGO, with affiliates in over 180 countries and territories, which together represent a cross-section of humanity. The BIC engages with the UN, its member states, as well as with inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations. The Office registered with the UN as an NGO recognized by the Department of Public Information in 1948 and, in 1970, was granted Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Formal associations with other UN agencies followed: the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1974; the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in 1976; and the (former) UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM). Over the years, the BIC has worked closely with the Offices of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). In addition, today, the New York Office collaborates with UN Women on a regular basis.

BIC delegates from around the world have participated in major UN conferences and international gatherings—in particular, those related to gender equality, human rights, as well as social and sustainable development.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What is WHS?

Ha ha, I am a WHSA, work health and safety advisor.

Thus I try to advise of what Baha'u'llah offered in a healthy and safe manner.

No always possible unfortunately, as the human factor overrides.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Luckily there has been a picture of the future offered that does indicate that, I am 100% confident that is an accurate picture, albeit the details are yet to be painted, the outline is obvious.

Yet to see this, I would agree one must look at what is being painted.

Regards Tony

Yes, the Bahai's will rule the world. I'm not exactly as confident as you, my friend.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is clearly false. My faith, Hinduism, has very clear spiritual teachings that are very very different from that of the Baha'i. Reincarnation, moksha, brahman, vegetarianism, the nature of the soul, the path to God, samadhi, kundalini, the use of murthis on worship, the nature of sound, inner light, chakras, monism, and much much more isn't even found in Abrahamic religions. I don't know how you can make such preposterous claims with a straight face?

Again, Krishna is GOD, not some manifestation. Your incorrect information and presentation may not be countered by the Baha'i echo chamber, but it won't be supported by any non-Baha'i either.

Was there a Baha'i response to this post? I didn't see one. And it should not be ignored and skipped over. The Baha'i Faith is not a "progression" from this.

 

[dybmh]

Bahai's will rule the world

So, is that it? The ultimate peace plan? If everyone agrees with me, no one would ever fight again?

 

[Vinayaka]

Was there a Baha'i response to this post? I didn't see one. And it should not be ignored and skipped over. The Baha'i Faith is not a "progression" from this.

As you know, very often there is no response. That's one way of 'dealing' with it if you can't come up with a sensible counterpoint.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That's probably a comforting thought for you, but the evidence contradicts it. All progress has come from empiricism, not faith, and not from the pronouncements of men speaking for gods. From them we get ideas like homosexuals displeasing gods.

Following biblical scripture gave man the Middle Ages, with its pseudosciences and authoritarian regimes allegedly sanctioned by a deity (divine right of kings). People were subjects living under the thumb of kings and dying left and right of infectious disease and food poisoning, many children not making it to two years, and many of their mothers dying in childbirth. Is that what you meant by the height of wisdom and understanding of the divine physician? He lost a lot of patients needlessly.

Humanism and Enlightenment values replaced that with something much, much, much better. We received science, which has made life longer, more functional, more comfortable, easier, more safe, and more interesting, as with the Internet and RF. And it transformed subjects without rights into autonomous citizens.



Just rebutted. If you had counterexamples, you would post them. I know that you do not. Believing by faith that a system of thought is perfect and complete because it comes from a god is how one stagnates. It's why the Baha'i will never update their moral code regarding homosexuality. They can't without conceding that they are the source of it, not a god.



No. Faith is unrelated to education, which is teaching by showing. Faith is imparted via indoctrination, which skips the showing part and simply makes unsupported claims that it repeats until they are believed. That is NOT education.



If they can be rendered into non-religious forms, then what do they have to do with religion? What is religion's contribution to moral theory?

I think you have it backward about who is stealing from whom. How many times a month do we see Christians claiming that America was founded in Christian principles or that science was a Christian invention because there were Christian scientists? One RF poster has argued that humanism itself, a repudiation of faith as a path to truth, is a product of Christianity. Humanist morals have surpassed the Christian moral set and has been informing it and modifying it for the last few centuries, just as science has been doing for Christianity for an equal time.

Before humanism, Christianity was like Islam is today, which still has people being pushed off of towers, being burned alive, stonings, and having hands removed. Christianity's equivalent was crusades, inquisitions, and witch hangings. Why shouldn't it have been? They look about the same on paper, and the Christian Domininists are champing at the bit to return to the good old days barbarism.

Islam has only recently begun experiencing the benefit of humanistic advances. Iranians are revolting for freedom, a humanist value. Afghanis lost their major humanist influence when the West withdrew and relapsed into its older religious version of life. In America, the Christians defeated the humanists regarding abortion, and threaten to return American women to the world their religion envisions.

You've got it completely wrong. These religions are anchors to human progress, both intellectual and moral. Humanists don't steal their ethics. They improve them, with clergy kicking and screaming all the way. And then, when the new values are assimilated and seem mainstream, Christianity tries to take credit for that.

• "We hear a Pope saying slave trading is wrong, and see him sending an expedition to Africa to stop it. The texts remain; it is the practice that has changed. Why? Because the world has corrected the Bible. The Church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession--and take the credit of the correction. As she will presently do in this instance." - Mark Twain

• "It is no credit to the orthodox that they do not now believe all the absurdities that were believed 150 years ago. The gradual emasculation of the Christian doctrine has been effected in spite of the most vigorous resistance, and solely as the result of the onslaughts of freethinkers." - Bertrand Russell

How about the teaching that reason and empiricism are the only paths to truth about the world? What do you suppose any of the religions could teach humanists about loving one another, or the proper way to treat neighbors? Do you think that Baha'ism has ideas that would improve humanism were it to incorporate them? If so, which? How about the one to consider homosexuals defective? Humanism hasn't been able to come up with that piece of morality from the Abrahamic religions.



There you go again with the hyperbole. Baha'i has no blueprint for anything. Humanism, which informs secular agencies like NATO, the UN, and Amnesty International, outperforms Baha'ism in promoting peace, just as the secular governments outperform the churches regarding helping the needy.



The religions have failed. Only secular humanism has improved the human condition. The humanist vision of justice and compassion both outperform the Abrahamic religions, which is as deformed as its ideas of mercy and love. They can't get the Golden Rule right - doing it, not saying it. Not even close. I refer you back to your faith's homophobic doctrines. Why would a humanist take moral counsel from people who think like that?

Not reading or studying anything but just blindly judging is not what critical thinking is about. One should investigate with an open and unbiased mind.

This is one of the documents presented to the UN and all the worlds leaders regarding the establishment for a new framework for world peace. What are your offerings on this all important matter?

The Promise of World Peace—The Universal House of Justice

 

[loverofhumanity]

So, is that it? The ultimate peace plan? If everyone agrees with me, no one would ever fight again?

Nonsense.

The Promise of World Peace—The Universal House of Justice

 

[Vinayaka]

So, is that it? The ultimate peace plan? If everyone agrees with me, no one would ever fight again?

Yep, that's it. Only a matter of time, according to Baha'i apologetics. With a stable or most likely declining numbers and an unwillingness to change the stance on homophobia and the all male leadership, I simply can't see it happening personally. But hey who knows for sure?