Homosexuality and religious.

[Vinayaka]

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

Nope. But it's no great loss, the tolerant seem to be doing well without the intolerant. Better to move on to bigger and better things than spend time convincing the unconvincable.

 

[dybmh]

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

Sure, but the unity would be supeficial. Anything rigid is at risk to snap under pressure.

 

[dybmh]

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

If it were me, just my opinion here, I would be going to the critics and the enemies first. Make friends. Start there. If you can win the hardest battles first, everything else will be easy.

 

[dybmh]

Interesting saying must look it up.

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

Regards Tony

'Fences' is a metaphor for respecting your neighbor's boundries. It's not just about the property lines.

 

[F1fan]

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.

No, the ot and the kettle would be two different theists who each claim truth, yet neither can show it is, or even plausivle. All critical thinkers do is avoid assumptions that have no basis is fact or reason, as theists do about a supernatural, usually one version of God or another. The Bahai God contradicts the God of the Abrahic religions, so what explains this? So many fallible mortals who think stories about a God they heard about from others is real and has the Truth, but others must be wrong in their belief in their God and their Truths.

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

Reason, if used correctly, is vastly more reliable in discerning what it rue about how things are in the universe. Rational minds can show their work and explain why their conclusions are valid and likley true. Theists never can.

Can you prove that your personal opinion is actually the truth?

Opinions are one type of conclusion, but there are also reasoned conclusions that are better than opinions. There are types of reasoning that are demonstrably true. These conclusions are true because the facts demonstrate the validity of the thinking. Science is a similar method. There are also observations. For example critical thinkers observe that theists can never demonstrate that any Gods exist. They have no evidence, nor do they have any valid arguments. Typically theists fall back on faith and personal experience, which is extremely poor.

I do not claim to be able to prove that my religious beliefs are the truth, I only say I believe they are true.

And you can't show us why a rational person would agree with you. You have other reasons to believe than evidence and critical thought.

You are free to have your personal opinions but why not allow others to have their religious beliefs?

We know we are free. In some theocracies there is no such freedom, and that is what happens when theists are allowed to rule nations with no test in reality. Look at Iran, that nation is having another revolution because many citizens are fed up with their extremist religious rule. Where's the leadership's God? It seems to be absent and unable to hel fight the revolution. This is in much the same way as the Bahai God is absent.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If it were me, just my opinion here, I would be going to the critics and the enemies first. Make friends. Start there. If you can win the hardest battles first, everything else will be easy.

Living as an example amongst ones enemies has proven in the past to be the best path, showing friendship no matter what.

Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

It is not arrogance, it is true concern.

Your concern should be as a human being who has natural empathy. This way you can use conscience and express morality. But you are an agent for Bahai, and essentially an obedient robot. Religious robots that lack morals is what concerns me, and has been a threat to innocent through history. Just look to 9-11 as an example of what theists who follow religious beliefs without any critical thought as a check on reality.

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.

Baha'u'llah ruined his credibility when he expressed his bigotry against gays. And has been revealed, there are many factual problems with what he wrote. Why would intelligent thinkers be impressed by that? If you get things morally and factually wrong, you lose credibility.

 

[Vinayaka]

Living as an example amongst ones enemies has proven in the past to be the best path, showing friendship no matter what.

Regards Tony

Just who are these enemies you refer to?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Just who are these enemies you refer to?

I was thinking of the Messengers and what they faced.

Lots of stories in the past, but more recently I was contemplating how both Baha'u'llah and Abdul'Baha treated every one with kindness.

Was not seeing anyone as an enemy personally.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

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

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

 

[F1fan]

I see that as a typical unjust hate filled response, used by non critical, shallow thinkers.

This is your accusation against people who see gays as deserving of respect, love and tolerance while you are a person who acceted bigotry against gays because your religion commands it. You have a choice to pick a better religion, or no religion. But your standard is low enough to benefit your personal belief at the cost to gays, and you feel no remorse or guilt.

But that's me.

It is you, a person whose morals are well below that of critical thinkers. For some reason you have allowed yourself to be trapped in a religious dogma that you think you are powerless to leave.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is your accusation against people who see gays as deserving of respect, love and tolerance while you are a person who acceted bigotry against gays because your religion commands it.

No, for the hundredth time, the Baha'i Faith does not command bigotry against gays.
All we have are Baha'i Laws that pertain to homosexual behavior and pertain only to card-carrying Baha'is.

What you and your ilk have is bigotry, bigotry against a particular group called the Baha'is.
Again demonstrating that you are the pot calling the kettle black.

Bigotry: obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
bigotry means - Google Search

 

[Trailblazer]

good fences make good neighbors

Chain link or wood?

 

[F1fan]

No, for the hundredth time, the Baha'i Faith does not command bigotry against gays.

Really?

All we have are Baha'i Laws that pertain to homosexual behavior and pertain only to card-carrying Baha'is.

Wups, you blew it. There's the bigotry. See bigotry is a prejudice against another group for some arbitrary reason. And your religion has that.

What you and your ilk have is bigotry, bigotry against a particular group called the Baha'is.
Again demonstrating that you are the pot calling the kettle black.

False. We are critical of immoral beliefs, especially those that a person adopts through a religion.

Bigotry: obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
bigotry means - Google Search

Thanks for helping our case.

 

[dybmh]

Chain link or wood?

That's a serious debate, right there.

 

[Trailblazer]

We are critical of immoral beliefs, especially those that a person adopts through a religion.

Thanks for helping our case.

We are critical of immoral beliefs, especially those that a person adopts through lack of religion.

Thanks for helping our case.

 

[Vinayaka]

I was thinking of the Messengers and what they faced.

Lots of stories in the past, but more recently I was contemplating how both Baha'u'llah and Abdul'Baha treated every one with kindness.

Was not seeing anyone as an enemy personally.

Regards Tony

Then just who are the enemies? It's you that used the word.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

You didn't answer the question. Did you consider it rhetorical? It wasn't. You keep bringing citations to unbelievers. I'm wondering why. No, I'm not interested, and will remain uninterested if you can't give me a reason to be. With all due respect, I don't trust your judgment of what is wise or what constitutes justice, and wouldn't read anything based on nothing more specific from you than that it is truth and wisdom from the most high pen. That's not an endorsement.

Also, your religion has disqualified itself with humanists as an arbiter of justice. That's the price it pays for its homophobic doctrine. Rational ethics declares that idea immoral, because it is irrational (faith-based and lacking empirical support) and destructive. You don't need to ever address that - none of you have, none have tried to argue that it is not that - but the faith is sullied by it the way the Catholics were by the priest scandal. They also do the best to mitigate the damage, but nobody is forgiving them but themselves, just like the Baha'i.

Surely you have something to offer original to your faith that is evidence of its worth as a source of wisdom and moral guidance if you say that it is that. How about an original (not found in earlier writings) moral principle that has borne fruit and is worthy of a humanist to adopt. If you have no such thing to offer, what do you suggest I conclude, given that I am pretty sure that if you did, you would be proud to present it?

I ask the Christians the same regarding Jesus, and get crickets. It's a very revealing question. There is no moral idea from Jesus that is original and worth retaining. Like what? Finding somebody sexually attractive is adultery? That there are times when plucking out an eye or cutting off a hand is proper? Are either of those original to Jesus? Either way, they're bad ideas, and disqualify the Gospels as a source of moral instruction. How about your faith? Can Baha'u'llah outperform Jesus in this department?

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

What do you want compromised? Humanists are already maximally tolerant of everything but intolerance, and that's not open for negotiation. Did you want them to compromise their moral intuitions and accept or partially accept Baha'i homophobic doctrine? Why would they? That doctrine is immoral by the standards of rational ethics.

Somebody asked recently about compromising with the anti-abortionists. They may be able to impose their values on humanists, but why should humanists ever accept that or move closer to that ideologically? Humanists advocate choice, which is a form of freedom and tolerance. The anti-abortionists advocate forced birth, which is the opposite, and a dangerous state of affairs for women.

We don't compromise on ethics, and neither do you. Or maybe you'd like to modify Baha'i doctrine and accept a compromise position on homosexuality, like it's OK if confined to a monogamous marriage. That sounds like a midway point between the two positions. What do you say to a compromise?

We are critical of immoral beliefs, especially those that a person adopts through lack of religion.

As you can see, humanist are also critical of immoral beliefs, although they apparently have a different idea of how that is decided than the faithful. I am aware of no moral precept of any religion in conflict with any humanist precept that deserves to be called moral. Religions are not a good source of moral imperatives, so I have to conclude the opposite of the last part of your comment. Nothing from moralistic religions, thank you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Or maybe you'd like to modify Baha'i doctrine and accept a compromise position on homosexuality, like it's OK if confined to a monogamous marriage. That sounds like a midway point between the two positions. What do you say to a compromise?
Nothing from moralistic religions, thank you.

Ya Allah, what are you saying! Modify what Allah communicated through our 19th Century uneducated Iranian friend? He was a 'manifestation of the glory of God'.
Believing in anything, with evidence or without, is a person's right. No compulsion in religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

What do you want compromised?

I don't want you to compromise anything. My point is that there cannot be unity since there can be no compromise on either side. Baha'is are not going to compromise their Laws and humanists are not going to compromise their personal opinions.

Humanists are already maximally tolerant of everything but intolerance, and that's not open for negotiation.

Baha'is are maximally tolerant of everything as long as it does not go against Baha'i Laws, and that's not up for negotiation. However, the Baha'i Laws only apply to those who have chosen to be Baha'is, so what's the big deal? Why not go up against some other religion such as the JWs? They have essentially the same attitude towards homosexuality as the Baha'is.

"Although the Bible condemns homosexual acts, it does not encourage prejudice, hate crimes, or any other kind of mistreatment of homosexuals....

Jehovah’s Witnesses choose to live by the moral code set forth in the Bible. They do not approve of the actions that the Bible prohibits. But they neither mock nor mistreat people whose practices differ from their own. ...

The Bible thus makes a distinction between inclinations and practices. (Romans 7:16-25) A person who has homosexual leanings can control what he allows his mind to dwell on, just as he would control any other wrong desire, including leanings toward anger, adultery, and greed.—1 Corinthians 9:27; 2 Peter 2:14, 15.

While Jehovah’s Witnesses uphold the moral code set forth in the Bible, they do not force their views on others. Nor do they try to reverse laws that protect the human rights of those whose lifestyle differs from theirs." Awake! 2016 No 4
Jehovah's Witness Watchtower doctrine regarding homosexuality - jw.org.

Did you want them to compromise their moral intuitions and accept or partially accept Baha'i homophobic doctrine? Why would they? That doctrine is immoral by the standards of rational ethics.

Did you want Baha'is to compromise the Baha'i Laws, which came from God, in favor of the thoroughly rotten morals of the majority of people in modern-day society?

We don't compromise on ethics, and neither do you. Or maybe you'd like to modify Baha'i doctrine and accept a compromise position on homosexuality, like it's OK if confined to a monogamous marriage. That sounds like a midway point between the two positions. What do you say to a compromise?

Baha'i Laws cannot be modified, and as such marriage can only be between a man and a woman. However, the UHJ can legislate on how the Laws are applied, and the UHJ has ruled that homosexuals can marry as man and wife if one of them has a sex change.

As you can see, humanist are also critical of immoral beliefs, although they apparently have a different idea of how that is decided than the faithful.

As you can see, Baha'is have a different idea of how morality is decided than the humanists. We believe that God determines what is moral and reveals it through His Messengers.