Homosexuality and religious.

[loverofhumanity]

There are theists who believe in some sort of God and don't accept your texts as legitimate, so citing my non-belief is irrelevant.

The text is bigoted and has errors that are revealed by science since they were written. That is why they are not accepted as infallible. And as I have noted the texts aren't saying anything humanists and atheists don;t know via their own wits. What is curious to me is why any human beings need to follow a guru at all. Are these people incapable of taking care of their own moral thoughts? Are they lost and confused and need a leader to follow?


Yet they ignore the bigoted issue. Even you don't address, rather you go off with general deflections about me. You must be aware of the troubling flaw bigotry is in the 21st century.

And none of you can explain how you "know" God exists. This is just a bogus claim that suggests you are overcompensating for your lack of humility and no credible responses to criticisms.


You've found a bigoted God, and that IS your problem, along with Bahai as a whole in the 21st century. Atheists are free to be moral and accept all people of all types.

Then go your own way. The Baha’i teachings do not endorse homosexuality or other things. But we do not force our beliefs on anyone.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It seems to me more like you have found the Baha'i Faith and believe what it tells you about God. I don't see how you could say that Trinitarian Christians have found God when the God they say they believe in is something Baha'is believe is a false belief. And it is usually that Trinitarian God that Atheists believe doesn't exist. And Baha'is would agree with that, right? However, that Christian God and the Baha'i God is completely unprovable. So, why expect all people to be gullible enough to believe in that God?

I follow and believe what I have found to be true. Other people must find their own way. To me God is as real as the sun in the sky. So I can only speak about what I have found to be true.

 

[loverofhumanity]

There's been so many threads started by Baha'is that could be described as complete wastes of time. The actual plan for a new world civilization I would hope has something useful for all of us to know about and debate about.

I went out of my way to research that Revelation verse for you out of respect and courtesy. I don’t see your questions as a waste of time but try to learn from you. Anyway if that’s what you think then I’m sorry we don’t live up to your expectations.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes, I tried to read it. It's difficult to see the actual "plan" here. I did, of course, notice that all fanatical religions would need to cease. This reminds me of the requirement to {paraphrasing} "abandon all blind adherence to ancestral religious practices." That to me is not a good thing, as it prohibits practicing Judaism in its traditional ancient manner. I mentioned this previously in this thread.

Edit to add: here's the exact quote: "each person must set aside superstitious beliefs, traditions and blind imitation of ancestral forms of religion" - The Baha'i Peace Plan

That’s the authors words and that is not the Baha’i Peace Plan. This is. And it was presented to the United Nations as well as all the leaders of the world individually.

The Promise of World Peace—The Universal House of Justice

Introduction

In 1985, the Universal House of Justice addressed a message to the peoples of the world inviting them to consider that a new social order can be fostered by all peoples’ seeing themselves as members of one universal family. This message was presented to world leaders and countless others during the United Nations International Year of Peace.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Here is a peace plan offered in 1985.

The Promise of World Peace—The Universal House of Justice

Regards Tony

That’s the authors words and that is not the Baha’i Peace Plan. This is. And it was presented to the United Nations as well as all the leaders of the world individually.

The Promise of World Peace—The Universal House of Justice

Introduction

In 1985, the Universal House of Justice addressed a message to the peoples of the world inviting them to consider that a new social order can be fostered by all peoples’ seeing themselves as members of one universal family. This message was presented to world leaders and countless others during the United Nations International Year of Peace.

A double dose.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Of course, it's not only Hinduism, but Baha'is have nothing in common with Evangelical Christianity either. Which is why I don't believe in the Baha'i thing about "progressive" revelation. But Christianity has probably been the worst, since it absolutely believes it is the only way and is the infallible truth. It has nothing in common with Hinduism and comes in trying to replace and get rid of Hinduism. But, to me, the Baha'is are essentially doing the same thing. But instead of saying it is wrong, evil and a false religion. They'll say it's true, or it was true, but now it's not and "true spiritual" people will replace their old Hindu beliefs with the upgrade religion, the Baha'i Faith.

And the proof is in the action, not the words. The action of proselytizing says it all. If they believed their own words, there would be no proselytizing. Fortunately, conversion retention rates are horrible in India.

 

[Vinayaka]

Accept when it comes to homosexuality?

Or copper becoming gold, or life on every planet?

 

[Vinayaka]

Then go your own way. The Baha’i teachings do not endorse homosexuality or other things. But we do not force our beliefs on anyone.

Except for gay Baha'is who lose administrative rights.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Except for gay Baha'is who lose administrative rights.

When people become Baha’is they agree with the laws of Baha’u’llah. To become a Baha’i then openly oppose any law can result in losing administrative rights.

 

[Vinayaka]

When people become Baha’is they agree with the laws of Baha’u’llah. To become a Baha’i then openly oppose any law can result in losing administrative rights.

Yes, we know.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, this is the age of both science and Religion, how they both are the wings of one bird!

There is much written on this required balance.

Regards Tony

We know science is useful, but how is religion necessary at all? In the USA religious affiliation is declining. We see evangelical Christians aligned with irrational movements like anti-vaxx and election denial, all of the far right. These are a threat to America.

 

[F1fan]

The balance is found in Law, even if humanity is not ready to see that CG.

It's not a balance, it's bigotry, and you Bahai accept it. Look at how you try to minimize this prejudice by calling it balance. It isn't balance, it is a serious threat to gay people who pose no threat to anyone. You offer no justification except that you believe the texts. You assume the God exists, you assume the Messenger is authentic, and you offer no rational thought as to how you came to these conclusions. Bigotry isn't rational, and your defense of bigotry isn't rational either. The fact you try to massage bigotry down to "balance" illustrate you understand it is wrong, but you don;t care. You care about the dogma you have accepted, and if gays suffer, too bad. That is not how moral thinkers act.

 

[F1fan]

When people become Baha’is they agree with the laws of Baha’u’llah.

Right, it is your choice to accept bigotry. You have the choice and you decide it is fine to prejudice against gays. Why? Moral people consider such bigotry as a deal breaker. Yet you decide to join? Do you not feel shame for being part of an organization that targets and condemns a class of people?

To become a Baha’i then openly oppose any law can result in losing administrative rights.

Which might account for why Bahai isn't a big religion in the modern age. Decent people will accept gays before they accept Bahai. As it is Bahai will only appeal to those who are bogots, and how will that help accomplish the aims of uniity? It's absurd.

If Bahai condemned racists like you condemn gays then you would have an argument. But Bahai are targeting a class of people who pose no threat to anyone.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, this is the age of both science and Religion, how they both are the wings of one bird!

There is much written on this required balance.

Regards Tony

A peace plan which demands the adjustment of all religions to conform to one of them is definitely: "If everyone agrees with me, no one would ever fight again."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Promise of World Peace—The Universal House of Justice

Is this the blueprint? It's sketchier than the UN link above. There is no help for mankind there. And it seems like its author is unaware of humanism's track record. He's advocating for more religion as part of his "blueprint." He's arguing as if he has answers, but where are they? People like him have been admonishing people to be this way or that, but that has had little effect on them, as this paper has and will have. It's about how wicked man is and how much he needs guidance from a holy book, but no specifics.

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.

Only people willing to believe by faith claim to have found a deity. They do not know a deity exists. They claim that they do. They use a different standard for belief, or rather, have no standard for belief. And yes, it is a waste of time to make any insufficiently justified to a critical thinker if your purpose is to convince. You'll need to speak to him in his language, which is that of valid reason applied to evidence leading to sound conclusions that are demonstrably correct.

The problem is that you probably have an untrue belief. If it were correct, you would be able to show that it is. Critical thinking identifies and rejects such ideas. That's its chief value. That's how it keeps incorrect ideas out of one's mental map of reality and how it works. We don't want to add roads to it that don't correspond to roads in the world. We don't want a god in it if there is not one anywhere but on the maps of believers. Yes, there is a god on your map. And you navigate life as if it were real, because it comforts you to believe that it is. But that's how faith works. Ideas are admitted onto the map not because they correspond to anything in the terrain being mapped, but because they comfort, and that feeling of comfort is called God.

I don't begrudge you that, but if one matures outside of religion, he can find equanimity without faith-based beliefs, which is preferable. Your comfort comes with conditions, including that you accept that homosexuals are defective in the eyes of a god. That's been a tough pill for you to swallow. It's an idea you would not likely hold without religious indoctrination, and is no doubt a source of cognitive dissonance for you as others point out the destructive nature of that belief, which you are forced to ignore, but which causes discomfort. Why? Because you are in conflict with your own moral intuition. And this is how religions make good people believe and do bad things.

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.

That's great, but it's nobody else's problem that you require a god belief to be happy. That sounds like your problem. Look at how much time and energy you've devoted to maintaining that mental state. Imagine being just as happy without all of that religious activity.

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.

It's your job to make that seem like it might be worth the effort. Nothing I've read from your religion (or any other) makes me want to explore it further. Simply claiming that there is a treasure trove of wisdom and divine infallibility in those words without being able to produce anything that meets that standard doesn't work. People make trailers for movies to give potential viewers a taste of what the movie has to offer. It's assumed that these are highlight - the best of the movie. If the preview doesn't appeal, people won't go. It is absurd of the producers to say that they need t see the movie any way to judge it. Likewise with a book blurb, or a cheese sample at a big box store, or a commercial showing a beautiful sports car. That's all they get to try to entice people. And these Baha'u'llah quotes are all the Baha'i get to promote their wares and create the interest needed to justify investing more energy there.

The Baha’i International Community is the largest NGO at the UN and has been advising it since it’s inception.

And what helpful advice has the UN taken from it? None?

The concept of the UN was formulated by Baha’u’llah a century before the establishment of such bodies.

You said the Baha'i had a blueprint for world peace. Did the UN copy it? Did any ideas from it wind up in the UN charter? I don't mean ideas in common arrived at independently, but ideas original to Baha'u'llah? Rhetorical question.

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.

I happen to have copy of the UN's outline of its efforts in sustainable development. Did any of this come from the Baha'i? Did Baha'u'llah or the Baha'i faith contribute any of these planks? I'm assuming that the answer is no until evidence to the contrary is adduced, and that the Baha'i are usurping credit for something they contributed nothing of value to. Once again, if I am incorrect and you care to persuade me that I am, you'll need more than lofty claims.

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.

What you are calling an open and unbiased mind is what I call relaxing one's standards for belief to allow faith-based ideas onto the mental map. Critical thought is characterized by open-mindedness. It's a requirement of the process - a discompassionate evaluate of evidence. Faith is closed-minded. You're not reading anything here with an open mind. There is no argument however compelling or however well evidenced that can pierce a faith-based confirmation bias.

You might be aware that 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." What you have there is one open mind and one closed mind. You got it backwards.

I heard about Baha’i but opposed it because I couldn’t accept that God existed. After years I began to read what Baha’u’llah said about God and I realised I was mistaken and this time really believed.

And what do you suppose changed - that you got compelling evidence for a god, or that your psychological state changed and you developed a need for a god belief? It's a rhetorical question needing no answer from you, although feel free to answer if like.

On infallibility there are many Baha’i writings but this particular one of Baha’u’llah I think stands out. I understand you do not accept the concept.

Why should he or anybody else? Another rhetorical question.

The seven days of creation according to Abdul-Baha are referring to Divine Days. That’s is, the Day in which a Manifestation of God appears.

And why should anybody accept that? The evidence is that the Genesis creation myth means six literal days of labor and one of rest. What evidence is that? The reference to sunrises and sunsets make this an astronomical event and fixes a day at 24 hours. Also, man is commanded to take a literal day of rest each week just like the god allegedly did.

 

[Vinayaka]

A peace plan which demands the adjustment of all religions to conform to one of them is definitely: "If everyone agrees with me, no one would ever fight again."

To be fair, the Baha'i don't demand, they just think that everyone on this planet, when they actually come to their senses, will see the truth of their faith, and there will be mass conversions. That was already predicted in their prophecies and in Baha'ispeak, it was 'entry by troops'. Entry by troops never happened, pioneering has slowed dramatically because of burnout, and maybe it's ineffectiveness, and there has been little growth in numbers in the last 20 years, and more likely an overall decline.

 

[dybmh]

That’s the authors words and that is not the Baha’i Peace Plan. This is. And it was presented to the United Nations as well as all the leaders of the world individually.

The Promise of World Peace—The Universal House of Justice

Introduction

In 1985, the Universal House of Justice addressed a message to the peoples of the world inviting them to consider that a new social order can be fostered by all peoples’ seeing themselves as members of one universal family. This message was presented to world leaders and countless others during the United Nations International Year of Peace.

OK, I'm reading it

 

[dybmh]

is only through adherence to the laws of God for each age that humanity can progress and advance.

... 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?

Then there's this from the UHJ:

The tentative steps towards world order, especially since World War II, give hopeful signs. The increasing tendency of groups of nations to formalize relationships which enable them to co-operate in matters of mutual interest suggests that eventually all nations could overcome this paralysis. The Association of South East Asian Nations, the Caribbean Community and Common Market, the Central American Common Market, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, the European Communities, the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of American States, the South Pacific Forum—all the joint endeavours represented by such organizations prepare the path to world order.

Section II, Paragraph 3 - The Promise of World Peace—The Universal House of Justice​

This should confirm to a Baha'i that humanity is progressing. And yet the majority of humanity does not adhere to God's laws. How can adherence be the only way to progress? There must be other ways.

 

[F1fan]

To be fair, the Baha'i don't demand, they just think that everyone on this planet, when they actually come to their senses, will see the truth of their faith, and there will be mass conversions.

Yeah, but if people come to their senses independently of religion then what do they need religion for?

If anything the texts are written by some guy who came to his senses, too. As I have said the texts, and this peace declaration, doesn't say anything that this atheist didn't figure out for himself. No God needed, no religion needed, just a clear mind and a strong moral sense.

That was already predicted in their prophecies and in Baha'ispeak, it was 'entry by troops'. Entry by troops never happened, pioneering has slowed dramatically because of burnout, and maybe it's ineffectiveness, and there has been little growth in numbers in the last 20 years, and more likely an overall decline.

As has been exposed in this discussion global attitudes towards marginalized people have been progressing towards tolerance and acceptance, and the bigotry that is codified in Bahai is a serious liability for it as a religion in the modern era. The text of their peace plan actually cites racism as a problem, yet it has a strong condemnation of gays. While homophobia is not racism it is an unacceptable prejudice against a class of people.

 

[dybmh]

That’s the authors words and that is not the Baha’i Peace Plan. This is. And it was presented to the United Nations as well as all the leaders of the world individually.

The Promise of World Peace—The Universal House of Justice

OK, this is where my bovine excrement detector starts going off...

The emancipation of women, the achievement of full equality between the sexes, is one of the most important, though less acknowledged prerequisites of peace. The denial of such equality perpetrates an injustice against one half of the world’s population and promotes in men harmful attitudes and habits that are carried from the family to the workplace, to political life, and ultimately to international relations. There are no grounds, moral, practical, or biological, upon which such denial can be justified. Only as women are welcomed into full partnership in all fields of human endeavour will the moral and psychological climate be created in which international peace can emerge.

Section II Paragraph 9 - The Promise of World Peace—The Universal House of Justice
​

This was written in 1985, long before women were allowed on the UHJ.

Edit: I've been informed that the UHJ still does not allow women to serve. The information I had regarding a change in the policy was incorrect. Sorry.