Homosexuality and religious.

[Vinayaka]

What is true friendship? Most likely the golden rule would be a dood guide.

Having a respect for our diversity does not mean that we accept people will continue to be persecuted because of race, nor suffer extreme poverty.

I have come to see that respect for diversity is born out of the knowledge that we are one human race and every human deserves a fair deal in life. Diversity includes the potential of our collective humanity, not the promptings of our animal selves, where the power of a few can dominate.

In the end their is no respect if people suffer need when others have way much more than they need, that is nit how friends treat each other.

Otherwise it is business as usual, we can be friends, in fact, I do not see we are not, but how can others have that unity in their diversity, who is going to help them?

Regards Tony

In my view, telling other folks of other religions that they're religion is old and outdated, excluding gays from your faith, distorting your own statistics, and much more simply isn't respect, but disrespect. But if you want to see it differently, that's up to you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In my view, telling other folks of other religions that they're religion is old and outdated, excluding gays from your faith, distorting your own statistics, and much more simply isn't respect, but disrespect. But if you want to see it differently, that's up to you.

I wish you all the best.

I can only offer that God's Messages are indeed a sword. Every Holy Book attests to both the regenerative and destructive power of that Word.

It all unfolds as per our relative perceptions.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

I wish you all the best.

I can only offer that God's Messages are indeed a sword. Every Holy Book attests to both the regenerative and destructive power of that Word.

It all unfolds as per our relative perceptions.

Regards Tony

And I wish you all the best. I also wish gays all the best. Even those pesky atheists, the blind, the deaf, the diseased, the ones full of Baloney, and the chaff.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My reply was more of a concern for the approach people take, they are looking to find fault, where there is none to be found, this harms their own selves, it will never harm a Faith given by God.

Disagree. People are looking to understand the world, its religions, and the Baha'i faith. I am also interested in how it affects its adherents. Where there is fault, it is appropriate to so note, and the standard used to make that judgment is humanist values. I don't expect you to find the faults in your religion or agree with my assessment. Nothing harms faith. It is impervious to outside influence as is well evidenced in this thread, and this endeavor harms nobody who practices it in good faith in the search for truth.

You keep making comments like that which you cannot support. You just keep telling others how bad it is for those who don't respect your god or the rules ascribed to it, but you seem to be living in a bubble, oblivious to the evidence to the contrary all around you if you say that. We're fine. Are you? What advantages do you imagine you obtain following those rules? What harm have you avoided that humanist haven't? None. It's just another idea somebody planted into your head that you imbibed uncritically and now dutifully repeat. Convince me that I'm wrong with something substantial if I am or tacitly concede that you can't, and this is all hot air.

I am concerned for the people that take this approach, in the disguise they are justly looking for truth, which is as plain as the noon day sun, that they are not, it fools no one.

So arrogant. What would you know about truth? Truth to you is anything you read in your book. And nobody is trying to fool you except your own, although you've managed to fool yourself.

That is paramount to offering that an individuals moral judgement is as good as it gets, which will, in the long run, bring anarchy, it has no controls.

The evidence of humanism and the lives of humanists contradict you. Their morals surpass those of the Baha'i, who accept homophobic doctrine just because somebody convinced them it came for a god. The humanist needs no control but his own conscience.

"…True liberty consisteth in man’s submission unto My commandments, little as ye know it. Were men to observe that which We have sent down unto them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a certainty, attain unto perfect liberty. Happy is the man that hath apprehended the Purpose of God in whatever He hath revealed from the Heaven of His Will that pervadeth all created things. Say: The liberty that profiteth you is to be found nowhere except in complete servitude unto God, the Eternal Truth. Whoso hath tasted of its sweetness will refuse to barter it for all the dominion of earth and heaven." – Baha’u’llah, The Most Holy Book, pp. 63-64.

More of this? Why would a humanist care what Baha'u'llah thinks about anything? The first phrase is nonsense. You don't seem free to me. And I didn't feel free as a Christian. I became freer when I cast off the chains of faith and began thinking for myself, replacing faith with empiricism and critical thought, and replacing stale and largely irrelevant or destructive moral values for those that reason applied to empathy generate. That's when I stopped being a homophobe, for example. There was no reason to devalue homosexuals or disapprove of homosexuality any longer, so I stopped. It was unkind and irrational. I was freed of that when I rejected gods and religions.

PS - don't trust anybody who claims to have eternal truth or capitalizes it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well-meaning and at least minimally informed people will find an upright path without religions and prophets and messengers and anybody else claiming to speak for gods.

There is nothing upright about the path that most people without a religion or prophet have taken have taken with regard to the 'anything goes' attitude towards sexual behavior.

That is my personal opinion. You are free to have a different personal opinion, but that is all it is, a personal opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is nothing upright about the path that most people without a religion or prophet have taken have taken with regard to the 'anything goes' attitude towards sexual behavior.

That is my personal opinion. You are free to have a different personal opinion, but that is all it is, a personal opinion.

Well, your opinion is just that. I have a religion and my views are different than yours.

 

[Trailblazer]

So arrogant. What would you know about truth? Truth to you is anything you read in your book. And nobody is trying to fool you except your own, although you've managed to fool yourself.

With all due respect, you are the pot calling the kettle black, because truth to you is no more than your personal opinion, which you present as if it is the gospel truth. If that is not arrogant I don't know what is.

What would you know about truth and how do you know it is the truth? Can you prove that your personal opinion is actually the truth? I do not claim to be able to prove that my religious beliefs are the truth, I only say I believe they are true. You are free to have your personal opinions but why not allow others to have their religious beliefs?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, your opinion is just that. I have a religion and my views are different than yours.

That is correct, my opinion is only a personal opinion. All religions are like that since no religion can be proven to be true as a fact.

 

[Trailblazer]

The evidence of humanism and the lives of humanists contradict you. Their morals surpass those of the Baha'i, who accept homophobic doctrine just because somebody convinced them it came for a god. The humanist needs no control but his own conscience.

That is nothing more than your personal opinion. I can just as easily say that in my personal opinion the morals of Baha'is surpass those of humanists, but I won't say that because I am not in a contest with you, trying to prove I am superior to you.

You believe in the doctrines of humanism and I believe in the doctrines of Baha'i Faith. What's the difference? You think you have proven you are 'right' about homosexuality using critical thinking but you have not proven anything, except that you have a bias towards homosexuals. I could just as easily present an argument that supports the Baha'i Laws regarding homosexuality.

 

[dybmh]

I see it differently, as you know. What's needed is respect for diversity. Without that, can there ever be any true friendship?

good fences make good neighbors

 

[dybmh]

how can others have that unity in their diversity, who is going to help them?

Friendship first, then unity in diversity... maybe?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is nothing upright about the path that most people without a religion or prophet have taken have taken with regard to the 'anything goes' attitude towards sexual behavior.

What you are calling an 'anything goes attitude' is the rejection of Abrahamic sexual prohibitions.

No, everything doesn't go, just the irrational and arbitrary dictates of these religions. And yes, that behavior is upright by humanist standards, which only require that people to be kind and thoughtful - not compliant with arbitrary dicta. Kind (empathetic) and thoughtful (rational) include all sexual possibilities between consenting adults. Rape doesn't go. Irresponsible sex like concealing that one has HIV doesn't go. Lying about contraception doesn't go. Betrayal doesn't go. What the religious call fornication is irrelevant.

truth to you is no more than your personal opinion

That is incorrect. That would be true if I were a faith-based thinker, but I am not. When I say that something is true, I mean that it is demonstrably correct.

What would you know about truth and how do you know it is the truth?

I know quite a bit about what truth is, and I have explained my epistemology before. It's not what Tony called truth. I've also explained how critical thought reveals truth through sound conclusion derived from evidence, and how it can be verified. You weren't interested, or at least you didn't comment or attempt to rebut. Nothing has changed there for me. My answer is the same.

You think you have proven you are 'right' about homosexuality using critical thinking but you have not proven anything, except that you have a bias towards homosexuals.

That's what you think I've proved? That I have a bias against homosexuals? But you see yourself as unbiased there, correct? I have demonstrated that there is nothing immoral about homosexuality by humanist standards, which derive from reason applied to empathy and tolerance, and that humanists aren't interested in moral judgments made any other way.

 

[CG Didymus]

Whoever is speaking for a god is setting a homophobic standard for the religion. Nobody needs to tell anybody to be prejudiced against gays explicitly. Telling you that they offend a good god does that.

This is why so many believers will commit acts against others and believe they are doing God's will.

Then there are those that want to be true believers and follow "God's" law, but they have homosexual tendencies and don't know what to do.

 

[CG Didymus]

Friendship first, then unity in diversity... maybe?

Can there be unity when one side, the Baha'is, can't compromise on their beliefs?

 

[CG Didymus]

distorting your own statistics

You know that is a serious problem. If the top-level Baha'is, those in control, are being that deceptive, then how can anything Baha'is say be trusted?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So arrogant. What would you know about truth? Truth to you is anything you read in your book. And nobody is trying to fool you except your own, although you've managed to fool yourself.

It is not arrogance, it is true concern.

Consider, when one makes comments such as this "Why would a humanist care what Baha'u'llah thinks about anything?". It means that one was not interested in the first place, justice was not being pursued.

Anyway, I am out of this topic now. All the best in life and in your humanistic pursuits, maybe you will bump into Baha'i who are also helping.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Friendship first, then unity in diversity... maybe?

Yes, that may be the best approach, that was the approach that Abdul'baha used.

Yet even that example had enemies and critics, so maybe the desire to find a Unity in our diversity, is the first requirement?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

good fences make good neighbors

Interesting saying must look it up.

My thought is that no fences would show we are good neighbours

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

You know that is a serious problem. If the top-level Baha'is, those in control, are being that deceptive, then how can anything Baha'is say be trusted?

But the challenge is why? Just what do they get out of distorting the statistics, when most people can see right through it? Do they really think that people will join up because of slogans about 'fastest growing religion' without looking deeper? It seems that it just adds another warning sign to a growing list of warning signs. Are they that desperate to be seen as a big player on the world religion scene? I find it odd that it seems to be that they think the world is dumb or something, and the more they try, the harder they fail. This thread and forums like this is a great mini-example of that. Rather than attracting more Baha'i, it turns more and more people off. A conundrum.

 

[Vinayaka]

Interesting saying must look it up.

My thought is that no fences would show we are good neighbours

Regards Tony

That was my first thought as well, Tony.