One God

[loverofhumanity]

'The way nature intended...' - hmm. How do you define 'what nature intended'? Did nature intend that people wear spectacles to correct certain kinds of eye problem? Or develop the concept of wearing clothes? Or medicine? etc.

Good question. Which definition of anything do we follow? Our wishes? Our desires? Our fancies? So it's right and good because we say it's right and good? Let's have cannabis it's a right so we open cannabis stores. Child sex abuse. Many see nothing wrong with it,Who defines the limits and boundaries between what is good and bad, human or not? You? Me? The press? The government? Which party?

Just where do we draw the line but more importantly WHO draws the line and why should we accept their line as what is true, right or best for us!

So we just keep presenting society with endless demands for more and more freedoms to do as we wish and please and then claim victimization when we can't get our own way? Who says we are right or these things are good?

So who's definition are we talking about when we say we want same sex marriage as a human right?

Nature has us procreating over time through the joining of a male to a female not a male to male or female to female. That's the way we are. And humanity is having no problem procreating so the glasses case doesn't stand because it is to assist a failing eye process but procreation is not failing.

For me as a Baha'i , Baha'u'llah appeared to humanity to define these things and our limits so we would know what is best for us. Only God could possibly know exactly what is best.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But you hang the importance/necessity of marriage being between a man and a woman on this notion of only heterosexual marriage (rather then homosexual marriage) being able to/having the potential to (I assume 'naturally') lead to procreation and perpetuation of the human species.

What I am trying (perhaps not very well!) to argue is that if this is not only not always necessarily true of heterosexual marriage, but moreover that there are other ways (beyond a marriage between a man and a woman) of perpetuating the human species, your argument (so far) for claiming that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is undermined. Of course, you can always fall back on 'But this is what Baha'u'llah tells us, these are our laws, they are what they are', etc. And that is fair enough. But it does mean we can't go much further with this conversation (because, obviously, I don't pay any special attention to what Baha'u'llah says, not least because I have yet to be persuaded that he was a Manifestation of God).

Thanks for being decent. I think you're decent.

Yes of course you don't accept Baha'u'llah's laws as you don't see Him as a Manifestation of God and that's fine.

We agree with IVF as long as it's between the same couple as in my previous post.

But who's to say the source of your views is correct?just because society says something or many want same sex marriage it doesn't make it right or good for us or humanity.

Heterosexual marriages do break down sometimes I agree. But so do same sex marriages.

So what's your source that you use to determine the rightness or wrongness of same sex marriage or that it is good? Society in general?

 

[SomeRandom]

Good question. Which definition of anything do we follow? Our wishes? Our desires? Our fancies? So it's right and good because we say it's right and good? Let's have cannabis it's a right so we open cannabis stores. Child sex abuse. Many see nothing wrong with it,Who defines the limits and boundaries between what is good and bad, human or not? You? Me? The press? The government? Which party?

Just where do we draw the line but more importantly WHO draws the line and why should we accept their line as what is true, right or best for us!

So we just keep presenting society with endless demands for more and more freedoms to do as we wish and please and then claim victimization when we can't get our own way? Who says we are right or these things are good?jhas

So who's definition are we talking about when we say we want same sex marriage as a human right?

Nature has us procreating over time through the joining of a male to a female not a male to male or female to female. That's the way we are. And humanity is having no problem procreating so the glasses case doesn't stand because it is to assist a failing eye process but procreation is not failing.

For me as a Baha'i , Baha'u'llah appeared to humanity to define these things and our limits so we would know what is best for us. Only God could possibly know exactly what is best.

If I may interject?
To be fair, child sex abuse has scientific backing demonstrating harm. So it really doesn't matter what people's opinions about it are. It's pretty clear why such a thing is frowned upon in modern Western society, although it is actually a relatively recent mindset. The legal marriageable age was raised back in the early 20th century and we figured out that human development has a period called adolescence only about 70 or so years ago.
The age of acceptable marriageability as defined by many religions in the past were more dictated by the onset of puberty, but that still meant that children, as we define them today, would be getting married. So let's not pretend that religion was against child marriage, it was common worldwide a couple of centuries ago.

Basically science had to come along and say to us, you know just because the menstrual cycle starts, doesn't mean a girl is necessarily emotionally ready for sex or marriage, even if you give them 3 years on top of that (some Jewish and Vedic prescriptions of the past.) Human development is a bit more complicated than that. So society slowly started to respond by not only raising the legal consensual age, but deciding that hey, maybe someone should be legally an adult before they can agree to get married to someone!
So I'd argue that science, longer lifespans (and by default longer childhoods) and a more nuanced understanding of human development were far more involved in society's eventual disgust at child sexual abuse than any so called religious morals were.
Hell child marriage is still an issue for many of us with one foot in an "Eastern" community. To varying degrees of alarming prospects.

Not sure if the Baha'i faith has specific scriptural definitions of what it considers acceptable marriageable ages, though. So I apologize if I'm being unfair to the Baha'is.

Cannabis is. Well Cannabis Oil seems to be one of those "let's see if it can do something good for ailments" things at the moment. So it could work it's way into medical treatment. But it's relatively harmless compared to most recreational drugs. Unless you have an addictive personality, or a predisposition towards schizophrenia apparently.

Same sex marriage is a benefit to society, provides more stability with people, more weddings so more money put into the economy. I really can't see any detriments overall to society. It's a legal state marriage between consenting human adults and that's it really. It doesn't set precedents, it doesn't change anything in the laws (like child marriage or even polygamy would have to do.) I mean when I can just waltz right into a courtroom with any random yahoo over the age of 18 and get married on the spot, it doesn't really say a lot of about any sanctity of marriage under the law now does it? So why deny a gay couple who've been together for 50 years, just because they're both men or both women? Doesn't seem like it would be anyone's business but those two people.
Procreation isn't a prerequisite of legal marriage, no one gets their marriage license taken away because they decide to never have kids and the government isn't going to take away anyone's marriage license just because a gay couple gets married. SSM is really sort of benign and doesn't do anything. If the so called golden rule applies to the religious (Christians specifically in this case) then I can only assume they want me to protest their marriages and make them illegal.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The law does not inform morality - gods help us if that's where we've arrived. In reality it's the other way around. If you're going to argue that same-sex marriage is immoral because it differs from what the law says is marriage then:

1. Presumably you'll be okay with it once the law is changed;
2. You're presumably okay with Bahais and other religious minorities being persecuted and criminalised for things like 'blasphemy' if such is the law in your country or in another?

If you're not okay with this then your argument from legal strictures has no foundation.

Okay I just had another look at your post and you're not talking about secular laws, are you? If not, I'll respond to you in the morning since I'm sleepy.

No we're speaking about Bahá'í laws. My apologies.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If I may interject?
To be fair, child sex abuse has scientific backing demonstrating harm. So it really doesn't matter what people's opinions about it are. It's pretty clear why such a thing is frowned upon in modern Western society, although it is actually a relatively recent mindset. The legal marriageable age was raised back in the early 20th century and we figured out that human development has a period called adolescence only about 70 or so years ago.
The age of acceptable marriageability as defined by many religions in the past were more dictated by the onset of puberty, but that still meant that children, as we define them today, would be getting married. So let's not pretend that religion was against child marriage, it was common worldwide a couple of centuries ago.

Basically science had to come along and say to us, you know just because the menstrual cycle starts, doesn't mean a girl is necessarily emotionally ready for sex or marriage, even if you give them 3 years on top of that (some Jewish and Vedic prescriptions of the past.) Human development is a bit more complicated than that. So society slowly started to respond by not only raising the legal consensual age, but deciding that hey, maybe someone should be legally an adult before they can agree to get married to someone!
So I'd argue that science, longer lifespans (and by default longer childhoods) and a more nuanced understanding of human development were far more involved in society's eventual disgust at child sexual abuse than any so called religious morals were.
Hell child marriage is still an issue for many of us with one foot in an "Eastern" community. To varying degrees of alarming prospects.

Not sure if the Baha'i faith has specific scriptural definitions of what it considers acceptable marriageable ages, though. So I apologize if I'm being unfair to the Baha'is.

Cannabis is. Well Cannabis Oil seems to be one of those "let's see if it can do something good for ailments" things at the moment. So it could work it's way into medical treatment. But it's relatively harmless compared to most recreational drugs. Unless you have an addictive personality, or a predisposition towards schizophrenia apparently.

Same sex marriage is a benefit to society, provides more stability with people, more weddings so more money put into the economy. I really can't see any detriments overall to society. It's a legal state marriage between consenting human adults and that's it really. It doesn't set precedents, it doesn't change anything in the laws (like child marriage or even polygamy would have to do.) I mean when I can just waltz right into a courtroom with any random yahoo over the age of 18 and get married on the spot, it doesn't really say a lot of about any sanctity of marriage under the law now does it? So why deny a gay couple who've been together for 50 years, just because they're both men or both women? Doesn't seem like it would be anyone's business but those two people.
Procreation isn't a prerequisite of legal marriage, no one gets their marriage license taken away because they decide to never have kids and the government isn't going to take away anyone's marriage license just because a gay couple gets married. SSM is really sort of benign and doesn't do anything. If the so called golden rule applies to the religious (Christians specifically in this case) then I can only assume they want me to protest their marriages and make them illegal.

Ok thanks for being fair.

The legal age for marriage under Bahá'í law is 15.

Marriage is defined in the Baha'i Writings as between a man and a women so that's all we allow.


This is a letter to Baha'is from the Universal House of Justice, our governing Body win regard to homosexuality and same sex marriage.

"...With respect to your question concerning the position Bahá'ís are to take regarding homosexuality and civil rights, we have been asked to convey the following.

"The purpose of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh is the realization of the organic unity of the entire human race, and Bahá'ís are enjoined to eliminate from their lives all forms of prejudice and to manifest respect towards all. Therefore, to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith. Furthermore, a Bahá'í is exhorted to be "an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression", and it would be entirely appropriate for a believer to come to the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated.

"At the same time, you are no doubt aware of the relevant teachings of the Faith that govern the personal conduct of Bahá'ís. The Bahá'í Writings state that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that sexual relations are restricted to a couple who are married to each other. Other passages from the Writings state that the practice of homosexuality is not permitted. The teachings of Bahá'u'lláh on personal morality are binding on Bahá'ís, who strive, as best they can, to live up to the high standards He has established.

"In attempting to reconcile what may appear to be conflicting obligations, it is important to understand that the Bahá'í community does not seek to impose its values on others, nor does it pass judgment on others on the basis of its own moral standards. It does not see itself as one among competing social groups and organizations, each vying to establish its particular social agenda. In working for social justice, Bahá'ís must inevitably distinguish between those dimensions of public issues that are in keeping with the Bahá'í Teachings, which they can actively support, and those that are not, which they would neither promote nor necessarily oppose. In connection with issues of concern to homosexuals, the former would be freedom from discrimination and the latter the opportunity for civil marriage. Such distinctions are unavoidable when addressing any social issue. For example, Bahá'ís actively work for the establishment of world peace but, in the process, do not engage in partisan political activities directed against particular governments."

We felt it important that the friends have access to this guidance from the House of Justice, and trust that you will find it helpful.

 

[Jose D Alvarez]

@Godobeyer is thankful that he was taught better.
I don't think any of you were taught well. But you all sound the same to me.

Why would I think you know more about The Creator than @FearGod or @Terese or @paarsurrey or @Tumah or @Quintessence ?
Tom

The

 

[SomeRandom]

Ok thanks for being fair.

The legal age for marriage under Bahá'í law is 15.

Marriage is defined in the Baha'i Writings as between a man and a women so that's all we allow.


This is a letter to Baha'is from the Universal House of Justice, our governing Body win regard to homosexuality and same sex marriage.

"...With respect to your question concerning the position Bahá'ís are to take regarding homosexuality and civil rights, we have been asked to convey the following.

"The purpose of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh is the realization of the organic unity of the entire human race, and Bahá'ís are enjoined to eliminate from their lives all forms of prejudice and to manifest respect towards all. Therefore, to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith. Furthermore, a Bahá'í is exhorted to be "an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression", and it would be entirely appropriate for a believer to come to the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated.

"At the same time, you are no doubt aware of the relevant teachings of the Faith that govern the personal conduct of Bahá'ís. The Bahá'í Writings state that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that sexual relations are restricted to a couple who are married to each other. Other passages from the Writings state that the practice of homosexuality is not permitted. The teachings of Bahá'u'lláh on personal morality are binding on Bahá'ís, who strive, as best they can, to live up to the high standards He has established.

"In attempting to reconcile what may appear to be conflicting obligations, it is important to understand that the Bahá'í community does not seek to impose its values on others, nor does it pass judgment on others on the basis of its own moral standards. It does not see itself as one among competing social groups and organizations, each vying to establish its particular social agenda. In working for social justice, Bahá'ís must inevitably distinguish between those dimensions of public issues that are in keeping with the Bahá'í Teachings, which they can actively support, and those that are not, which they would neither promote nor necessarily oppose. In connection with issues of concern to homosexuals, the former would be freedom from discrimination and the latter the opportunity for civil marriage. Such distinctions are unavoidable when addressing any social issue. For example, Bahá'ís actively work for the establishment of world peace but, in the process, do not engage in partisan political activities directed against particular governments."

We felt it important that the friends have access to this guidance from the House of Justice, and trust that you will find it helpful.

Wow, that's pretty interesting.
Personally I see 15 is a bit too young for marriage. I mean I didn't even know who I was as a person at 15. I didn't even understand most of the media I consumed at that age, never mind what marriage meant (which is taken very seriously in my family. Like gravely seriously.) But in fairness I won't begrudge any Baha'i for not supporting SSM.

 

[Electriceclectic]

For starters, all the major religions speak of only one reality. Moses, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, Zoroaster, the Bab and Baha'u'llah all spoke of only one God

Scientifically life emanates from a single cell, molecule, atom or point not two. Oneness is reflected in both the religious and scientific world not duplicity. All life revolves around a single point not two.

Whoa there ! Buddha spoke of concept of no God , you chose bad example with that one . You must be Bahai ?

Also unity and singularity are only in the ideal world , not in nature, not in phenomena and not in all religions !

Life is two one halves coming together to make a new one that straight away divides into two ... and more. I have aboyt 40 more examples if you would like to read them.

' Things ' manifest via ' the one' , then split into pairs and so on ..... maybe base 10 (kabalah or tetraktys ) , 8 ( I Ching ) , 12 or 7 ...... but the 'many things' proliferation , the reason they can come into existence in the first place is via duality .

0 = -1 + 1

Tao produced the One. The One produced the two. The two produced the three. And the three produced the ten thousand things.

The ten thousand things carry the yin and embrace the yang, and through the blending of the material force they achieve harmony.

TTC Ch 42.

 

[Electriceclectic]

Human invented religion commonly gets things wrong, due to being the inventions of primitive humans with ignorant beliefs.
It makes no difference how many people are wrong or why. Nearly everyone used to believe that Creation was a lumpy plane of rock surrounded by water and overtopped with a blue dome. It isn't now and it wasn't then. But people generally believed it because their religion said so.

No, that isn't true either. Scientifically accurate people don't know where life came from or how it happened.
Not yet.
Tom

That was refreshing to read ! Are you scientist ? If so, more refreshing

I think the unity concept is 'spiritually' required for monotheistic expressions of divinity ? Yet they are always struggling with certain theological implications and have to invent Satans and Ahrimans and ...... and the unity sorta collapses .

But most of those ' Middle - eastern ' religions seem to have been influenced by the ones before them, so we go back to Zoroastrianism, the original dualism ( There was a period with Zurvanism when they tried to re-establish a unity, but it just ended up another trinity .

Theology is tricky bis ..... better if people dont ask tricky questions about religious theories , and just believe 'em

 

[Electriceclectic]

Buddha had nothing to say about gods, as far as we know. Jesus, Muhammad, and the Bab were all writing within one continuous tradition. Your interpretation of Hinduism would be disputed by many Hindus. As for Moses, there is no reason to believe he ever existed.

On the other hand, Chinese, Japanese, most Indians, and many Africans say there are many gods, so there's the counter evidence.

Basically, you have defined "major religion" as "monotheistic religion". Even if you exclude Hindus, Paganism would still be the third largest religion after Christianity and Islam. Not that this is really relevant: we don't establish the truth by taking a vote.

Its a standard Bahai practice .... come on guys , cant we all just drop the details and be one big happy family, one religion, one all encompassing set of scriptures , that is all scripture . one people under one God


.... sorta appealing ...... no ?

 

[Electriceclectic]

Come again? Not sure what you are saying.

he is talking about the concept of progressive revelation ... a sorta religious perennial philosophy concept .

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The

Oh man, I hate when that happens. You try to select a different option but hit post instead. So annoying.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Its a standard Bahai practice .... come on guys , cant we all just drop the details and be one big happy family, one religion, one all encompassing set of scriptures , that is all scripture . one people under one God


.... sorta appealing ...... no ?

Not really, no.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Whoa there ! Buddha spoke of concept of no God , you chose bad example with that one . You must be Bahai ?

Also unity and singularity are only in the ideal world , not in nature, not in phenomena and not in all religions !

Life is two one halves coming together to make a new one that straight away divides into two ... and more. I have aboyt 40 more examples if you would like to read them.

' Things ' manifest via ' the one' , then split into pairs and so on ..... maybe base 10 (kabalah or tetraktys ) , 8 ( I Ching ) , 12 or 7 ...... but the 'many things' proliferation , the reason they can come into existence in the first place is via duality .

0 = -1 + 1

Tao produced the One. The One produced the two. The two produced the three. And the three produced the ten thousand things.

The ten thousand things carry the yin and embrace the yang, and through the blending of the material force they achieve harmony.

TTC Ch 42.

Hello.

Yes I'm a Baha'i.

This is how we understand it and it complies with the disappearance of the doctrine and the arising of a substitute doctrine which the Buddha said would happen. The Five Disappearances and in all the branches of Buddhism they teach that a future Buddha would come and we believe that to be Baha'u'llah.


"The founder of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His doctrines gradually disappeared" Abdul-Baha

Buddha confirms that gradually in the world of decay, His Dhamma would also decay slowly and be replaced by another Dhamma not in accordance with what He originally taught.

Here is the source...

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn16.13

That's why we believe that Baha'u'llah, Maitreya, has brought back the original Dhamma which did originally teach the oneness of God but today has been replaced with something entirely different.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Good question. Which definition of anything do we follow? Our wishes? Our desires? Our fancies? So it's right and good because we say it's right and good?

All very good questions . But I am just focusing on the question of how we define 'what nature intended' (not the question of whether engaging in homosexual sexual relations is in accordance with 'what nature intended', or these much broader questions). How did Baha'u'llah define 'what natured intended'?

Nature has us procreating over time through the joining of a male to a female not a male to male or female to female. That's the way we are. And humanity is having no problem procreating so the glasses case doesn't stand because it is to assist a failing eye process but procreation is not failing.

Okay, so the glasses example fails the additional criterion you introduce here. What about wearing clothes? Or music? Or the aeroplane?

Let's have cannabis it's a right so we open cannabis stores.

I'm always a bit nervous about the language of 'rights' to be honest. But I certainly believe people should have the freedom to open up a cannabis store without fear of retribution/punishment.

Child sex abuse.

How do you define 'child sex abuse'?

Who defines the limits and boundaries between what is good and bad, human or not? You? Me? The press? The government? Which party?

All good questions. I'm an individualist anarchist/libertarian, so that should give you some indication of the way I lean on these kinds of questions.

Just where do we draw the line but more importantly WHO draws the line and why should we accept their line as what is true, right or best for us!

Oh, I quite agree! Challenge everyone and everything, I say!

So who's definition are we talking about when we say we want same sex marriage as a human right?

See my above responses on rights, freedom and who decides.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Thanks for being decent. I think you're decent.

Oh, I can be indecent I assure you! But thank you.

But who's to say the source of your views is correct?just because society says something or many want same sex marriage it doesn't make it right or good for us or humanity.

Oh, I could be wrong, I accept that. And re society's stance on things, I quite agree - I don't go by what society thinks, although there happens to be some commonality between a good number of my views and those of 'Western' society today.

So what's your source that you use to determine the rightness or wrongness of same sex marriage or that it is good? Society in general?

My source? Not society, as I have already said. God (i.e. my understanding of what is right/wrong in God's Eyes, which doesn't come from any particular holy book).

Heterosexual marriages do break down sometimes I agree. But so do same sex marriages.

Sure. I never argued otherwise.

 

[loverofhumanity]

All very good questions . But I am just focusing on the question of how we define 'what nature intended' (not the question of whether engaging in homosexual sexual relations is in accordance with 'what nature intended', or these much broader questions). How did Baha'u'llah define 'what natured intended'?



Okay, so the glasses example fails the additional criterion you introduce here. What about wearing clothes? Or music? Or the aeroplane?



I'm always a bit nervous about the language of 'rights' to be honest. But I certainly believe people should have the freedom to open up a cannabis store without fear of retribution/punishment.



How do you define 'child sex abuse'?



All good questions. I'm an individualist anarchist/libertarian, so that should give you some indication of the way I lean on these kinds of questions.



Oh, I quite agree! Challenge everyone and everything, I say!



See my above responses on rights, freedom and who decides.

Maybe this quote from Baha'u'llah regarding nature can be a starting point.

“Nature in its essence is the embodiment of My Name, the Maker, the Creator. Its manifestations are diversified by varying causes, and in this diversity there are signs for men of discernment. Nature is God's Will and is its expression in and through the contingent world. It is a dispensation of Providence ordained by the Ordainer, the All-Wise.” (Bahá'u'lláh )

So, according to Baha'u'llah, what nature intended was to manifest the Will of God.

For example, God wished that humanity regenerate through the joining of a man and a woman, so biologically nature has been designed for that to occur 'naturally'.

Nature provides us with cotton for clothing , sustenance from fruits, seeds and vegetables and such because it is the Will of God humanity continues to exist so it is all 'engraved in nature' what will carry out God's wish for our continued existence.

Now as far as planes and going against gravity etc.

Now because it is the will of God for humanity to mix and mingle then It is a part of nature that we are able to reason and invent and discover scientific truth which enables us to come together.

As for child sexual abuse. It is what it is. Are there any words that can adequately define its ugliness?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

For example, God wished that humanity regenerate through the joining of a man and a woman, so biologically nature has been designed for that to occur 'naturally'.

Does God say this exactly? Let's assume She does. Even if She wished that humanity regenerate through the joining of a man and a woman, that doesn't necessarily mean that a woman and a woman, or a man and a woman, cannot get married, or that is somehow against what nature intended. It could be that nature also intended that a woman and a woman or a man and a man might have sexual relations or get married to fulfil some other purpose. Let's face it, insofar as there is evidence of homosexuality amongst other animal species, there's nothing unnatural about homosexuality.

Now because it is the will of God for humanity to mix and mingle then It is a part of nature that we are able to reason and invent and discover scientific truth which enables us to come together.

Indeed, this would seem to be just as much an argument in favour of homosexuality as in favour of people using aeroplanes.

As for child sexual abuse. It is what it is. Are there any words that can adequately define its ugliness?

Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. What I was trying to get at was, at what age does a child/young person need to be at for something to constitute child sexual abuse even if they consent/assent to the sexual encounter?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Does God say this exactly? Let's assume She does. Even if She wished that humanity regenerate through the joining of a man and a woman, that doesn't necessarily mean that a woman and a woman, or a man and a woman, cannot get married, or that is somehow against what nature intended. It could be that nature also intended that a woman and a woman or a man and a man might have sexual relations or get married to fulfil some other purpose. Let's face it, insofar as there is evidence of homosexuality amongst other animal species, there's nothing unnatural about homosexuality.



Indeed, this would seem to be just as much an argument in favour of homosexuality as in favour of people using aeroplanes.



Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. What I was trying to get at was, at what age does a child/young person need to be at for something to constitute child sexual abuse even if they consent/assent to the sexual encounter?

Thanks for your comments. I'm trying to learn your views. If you feel I'm not getting your point keep pressing it 'the penny will drop sooner or later' ha! Ha!!

All I can answer with in my humble opinion is that God sends a Manifestation from time to time to clear up these misunderstandings and misinterpretations as well as guide us on how to move our civilization forward if we so desire.

Baha'u'llah and through His Faith have clearly made a call on this issue so we believe we know how God views it but God leaves it up to us in the end to choose freely.

So God, through Baha'u'llah may not approve of same sex marriage but doesn't interfere with those who want it. He just offers us guidance and we are completely free to go our own way.

So I would say the same to you. Our Faith doesn't approve of it but that doesn't make any person who believes or practices it any less a person.

As we consider Him to be a Manifestation of God then we accept that His verdict on these matters are true.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Thanks for your comments. I'm trying to learn your views. If you feel I'm not getting your point keep pressing it 'the penny will drop sooner or later' ha! Ha!!

All I can answer with in my humble opinion is that God sends a Manifestation from time to time to clear up these misunderstandings and misinterpretations as well as guide us on how to move our civilization forward if we so desire.

Baha'u'llah and through His Faith have clearly made a call on this issue so we believe we know how God views it but God leaves it up to us in the end to choose freely.

So God, through Baha'u'llah may not approve of same sex marriage but doesn't interfere with those who want it. He just offers us guidance and we are completely free to go our own way.

So I would say the same to you. Our Faith doesn't approve of it but that doesn't make any person who believes or practices it any less a person.

As we consider Him to be a Manifestation of God then we accept that His verdict on these matters are true.

You are of course entitled to your opinions!