Homosexuality and religious.

[mikkel_the_dane]

Calling religious dogma a "law" is dangerous and immoral. It suggests some dogma has an authority over society as a whole, and it doesn't. It's also worthless in debate because it carries no significance.

Theists often refer to their dogma as law, including the Old Testament, as if it means something to everyone. It is a way for theists to presume an authority they don't have. It strikes me as desperate.

It also implies that believers in Bahai don't have any option to reject immoral beliefs and "law" if it goes against their own moral sense. If the prophet says gays are to be condemned then it is a toxic theology.

That is not unique to religion. You can also find in different ideologies based on philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I explained atheists are just criticizing religious belief. That is a response, it's criticism. It isn't a dogma that is being claimed to be an absolute truth. Now you might respond by saying that denying one person's claims of absote truth is itself a claim of truth, but that isn't accurate. Being critical of claims of truth that are not backed by evidence is simply pointing out observations.


Destroy your belief? That sounds overly dramatic and victimized. You volunteer to join a forum where religious ideas are scrutinized. That's your choice, unlike gays being gay.

Atheists are not going to be sympathetic to claims about a god, and as we see in this thread, the condemnation of gays. Do you follow me here, it is Bahai who are prejudiced against gays for religious reasons, and atheists are the tolerant side and condemn the bahai for their ironic prejudice.

Theists often cite their dogmas that are immoral and intolerant in open debate, and then get upset when these claims are subjected to criticism.

And as a skeptic any claim about truth that doesn't hold up.

 

[ppp]

We all have our personal opinions.

And as you pointed out earlier opinions are not exclusive of facts.

 

[Vinayaka]

You mean, I just can't get those Baha'is out of my head....



Well, 22 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

I'm gay and I've dealt with homophobic prejudice and ignorance all my life. Then I discovered this great religion when I was a university student. It was so good I didn't bother to ask anyone about what this religion taught about sexuality. Nor did I research what this religion taught about homosexuality before signing up.

People back in the 80s people didn't know how to read and study because the internet wasn't invented. I'm a university academic by the way.

Reading through the threads, it struck me as ironic that the folks truly impacted by this discussion weren't present. The folks I refer to are gay Baha'i, or gay folks looking into the faith. You had mentioned one person still active, but that seemed like confirmation bias to me, so I did my digging. Just today I found another one, which is an entire channel chronicling the struggles and challenges of gay Baha'i. You might be interested.

I've long been an advocate of LGBQT rights, and am encouraged that since 2006 the number of countries where there are laws discriminating against homosexuality has dropped from 92 to 70. That shows some progress, but obviously we still have a long ways to go. It will be interesting to me to follow the fellow in the video, to see if he gets any shifts in policy within your faith community.

Edited to add ... world map, document showing where it's sill illegal.
Nations with anti-LGBT laws: 49% Muslim, 44% Christian

 

[KWED]

So what? Opinions don't kill people.

But they can. That has already been explained to you.

If people feel guilty about their behavior they kill themselves and others blame religionists.

For someone who claims to be all about love, brotherhood, tolerance, etc, that's a pretty hateful attitude.
As usual, it seems that all the talk is just hot air and it's really about self-interest. You want to go to heaven. You don't really care about anyone else.

The opinions expressed that gay people are moral or not an aberration are just that, merely opinions, unsupported by any objective evidence, and relying solely on personal opinions.

But they are more than "just opinion". They are "the infallible word of god" according to you, and every other Bahai. You believe that those "opinions" are objective truth that you agree with. And you are implicitly telling any gay person that they are evil, immoral, shameful aberration, handicapped, etc.
How would you feel if someone told you that is what your personality is?

 

[KWED]

That describes you.

Remember our discussion about "meeting halfway" (no, you probably don't).
I said my position was that I accepted all three explanations as possible (Bahaullah was delusional, dishonest, or an actual messenger of an actual god). Evidence and rational argument would determine which seems more likely.
You rejected any compromise and refused to entertain even the possibility that you might be wrong.
You displayed 100% certainty and a refusal to entertain any other ideas.

If you present a reasonable and cogent argument for why homosexuality if not evil, shameful, unnatural, should be purged, etc - then I will consider it.

I have, and others have, and you rejected them "cuz god sez", and god is always right.

The only reason I need is because God says. I need no other reason.

Oh look! I could have saved myself the effort of explaining that you are "obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction"
And that you are "prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group"
What was the term for that description again?

 

[KWED]

So what? Humans are not like other species.

They are in some respects. The important one here is that they occur in nature, therefore whatever traits they display are "natural".

Humans were created in the image of God, other species were not.

So god looks like and behaves like us? So he is a bit gay.

So what? That does not make it moral.

It makes it natural. So Bahai teachings are wrong on that account.

God decides what is moral, not you.

Not for civilised society he doesn't.

It is natural, but that does not mean it is moral. Natural does not equate to moral.

But you have no idea why anything is moral, so your opinion on the issue is worthless.

To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man.

So homosexuals are like "beasts of the field" are they? Another bigoted claim that I can add to the list of Bahaism's homophobia.
Careful now, your mask is slipping again (not that everyone can't see past it anyway).

 

[leroy]

Yes. It depends on how one frames "our tribe." If our tribe is the tree of life, then nothing done in furtherance of that tribe, life, can be called immoral. Likewise, if the tribe is the family of man, although certain offenses against the beasts in furtherance of human interests might be deemed immoral, such as eating animals, or how they're raised and slaughtered. If the tribe is one's country, one can commit moral offenses against neighboring countries as Russia has done recently.

But let's not get too far astray here. If I recall correctly, your thesis was that morality could not arise naturalistically from amoral matter. I don't want to get lost in the bushes discussing what we each consider moral or immoral.

My thesis is that it is unlikely that consciousness would have evolved as a reliably guide to morality. Because Natural Selection is not even trying to evolve a reliable consciousness.

1 Things evolve based on their selective benefit

2 Something are wrong, independently if has a selective advantage or disadvantage

So off all the possible paths that evolution could take, and of all the ways on how consciousness could have evolved, it´s unlikely that Natrual Selection would select the one path that also happens to be morally ok.

Or to put it this way

1 Rape is wrong independently if it has a selective benefit or not. (for example if a woman doesn’t want to have sex with you, you are not justified in rapping her, even if that would prevent the extinction of our specie)

2 there is a possible path in which rape would have been positive for the survival and flourishing of our specie, in such case consciousness would have evolved such that “rape” would *feel* “morally correct”

To me 1 and 2 are uncontroversial true points. And would be true with numerous other examples (not just rape)

But if you accept 1 and 2 then it follows that consciousness could have evolved…such that morally bad things would feel “morally good”

The authors of the bible (unlike natural selection) where at least trying to write a reliable guide for morality so under that basis it follows that the bible is a better oral guide than a consciousness that was caused by natural selection

 

[KWED]

Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation.

Bahaullah really thought quite highly of himself, don't he?

 

[KWED]

There are aspects that Science have investigated, so at this stage there is science available on certain aspects, some benefits, some harmful.

What are the aspects of homosexuality that are "scientifically proven" to be harmful?

 

[KWED]

No, I cannot provide that.
Out of curiosity -- could you provide a statement of what might be "objectively right about homosexuality?"

That way, we could perhaps move beyond opinion and belief -- and find our way finally, to FACT.

If nothing can be found wrong with a behaviour, it is therefore acceptable.
Do you have any evidence for heterosexuality being "right"?

 

[KWED]

I said a man having sex with a man or a woman having sex with a woman.

@mikkel_the_dane said...
"Yeah, and that [conceiving a child] can be done with 2 homosexual people."

You wrongly assumed that sex between two homosexual people must be same sex.
I explained why it didn't have to be.

 

[Sheldon]

alling religious dogma a "law" is dangerous and immoral. It suggests some dogma has an authority over society as a whole, and it doesn't. It's also worthless in debate because it carries no significance.

I couldn't agree more, very well reasoned.

Theists often refer to their dogma as law, including the Old Testament, as if it means something to everyone. It is a way for theists to presume an authority they don't have. It strikes me as desperate.

Indeed, which suggest that people have long tried to lend gravitas to their own beliefs, prejudices and ignorance by subjectively insisting a deity has sanctioned it.

It also implies that believers in Bahai don't have any option to reject immoral beliefs and "law" if it goes against their own moral sense.

Which as you imply is not morality at all, as morality requires the ability to differentiate between right and wrong behaviours, so blindly following rules is not morality, even a "good" Nazis managed that much. Ample warning of the danger of blindly following dogma and doctrine.

If the prophet says gays are to be condemned then it is a toxic theology.

Indeed it is, yet they do it while glibly claiming they care for and respect gay people, I wonder how many gay people felt loved and respected when they read this:

Trailblazer said: ↑
present a reasonable and cogent argument for why homosexuality if not evil, shameful, unnatural, should be purged, etc - then I will consider it.

 

[KWED]

So what? Opinions don't kill people. If people feel guilty about their behavior they kill themselves and others blame religionists..

"So what if my bigotry leads to a gay person taking their own life?"
Can you even hear yourself?

I'm done with you. **mod edit**

 

[KWED]

Of course it "behoveth" us all,

I'm sure whoever incorporated all the flowery, pretend olde-worlde language thought it made it sound more like Godspeak - but in reality it just sounds like a ridiculous affectation.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
The suffering and risk to life caused by bigotry and religious homophobia isn't JUST an opinion, it is amply supported by objective evidence.

So what? Opinions don't kill people.

Of course they can, the Nazis held very strong opinions about Jews, that like the religious bigotry and homophobia expressed by the Bahai religion, were deeply pernicious lies.

If people feel guilty about their behavior they kill themselves and others blame religionists..

More of that love and respect we keep hearing about, maybe if religions and religious bigots stopped lying that gay people were "evil sexual aberrations that should be purged", a lot of them would feel a lot less guilty. Treated humanely and as equals, gay people would not feel guilty, why would they after all, outside of the warped fetid imaginings of religious bigotry and intolerance.

The opinions expressed that gay people are moral or not an aberration are just that, merely opinions, unsupported by any objective evidence, and relying solely on personal opinions.

No they aren't there is ample evidence that gay people contribute as much as straight people to the societies they live in, and this while being persecuted for who they are. Take Alan Turing as a brilliant example, we'd all likely have lived decades under a Nazis totalitarian regime were it nor for this brilliant man, who was then persecuted for being gay until he committed suicide as a result. or Oscar Wilde whose literary genius has benefitted countless people, and then persecuted just for being gay and ultimately contributed his untimely death. The lies that gay people are just an unwelcome deviations from the norm, or evil and should be purged, cannot be supported by any objective evidence, beyond the unevidenced subjective belief a deity says so, and unevidenced woo woo about spiritual harm.

The real sickening part is listening to that evil and harmful bigotry, and then listening to bigots whine they're being bullied when others object and challenge their hate speech. Next time there is a thread asking me what I object to in religions and their doctrine and dogma I'll be quoting some the hateful things theists have posted in this thread.

 

[KWED]

We already in our Baha'i teachings have that God loves active homoexuals. We have a different idea of religion, but that's okay.

So Bahaullah was wrong to condemn it.
But I thought he was supposed to be infallible?

 

[KWED]

We don't have a range of negative attiftudes towards homsexuality, nor irrational aversion or discrimation as I just said.

You might not, personally. But your faith certainly does, as evidenced by the content of Bahai texts.

One wonders why people follow ideologies that they don't agree with.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yet, some of your follow Bahias try to justify your moral codes using science and how people function in the everyday world. I.e. they try to justify their moral as how the world is to us all as per facts.

I think what’s really important is just to accept people the way they are and that the only one we really need to change is ourselves not others.

 

[KWED]

Why this perception on your part that we are not clear thinking and intolerant? I like plenty of atheists, but when they try to destroy out belief in God, that in my view is proselytization, trying to make us atheists like you.

Imagine you are in the pub and Tom starts going on about how the election was stolen. When Dick explains to them why their view is irrational, would you accuse Dick of proselytising?