Openly gay and Catholic

[danieldemol]

God is not responsible for the products, only for setting the initial process in motion. What happened after that was an unguided process and its only guide was environmental suitability.

If God is not responsible for the products of evolution you contradict yourself to say God was the creator of humans.

Evolution and adaptation (ie nature) are responsible for the "creation" (to use your loaded term) of man and not God.

Therefore post #171 is irrelevant as God demonstrably did not create man.

In my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please show me where I bashed any gays.
I do not even feel badly towards gays so why would I bash them?
My next door neighbors are five gay men who live in a big beautiful house and they are the nicest people you would ever meet. Peoples' sexual activities are their own business and it is private. It is no reflection on their character and character is the only thing that matters to me.

I already did once when you asked me yesterday. You can't keep asking to have the same bad posts shown to you again and again. This time it is your turn to do your own homework.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I never said anything about the LGBT+ community, not once, not ever.
But keep going and maybe you will get some takers, if they believe you rather than reading what I actually posted.

You've been wholeheartedly agreeing with what has been said about the LGBT+ from your buddy dnb. You've stated that it's "not harmless" and asserting that it's wrong. Yes, you have been saying quite a bit about us, even some without typing explicitly.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your own posts refute that claim.

None of my posts refute my claim that I don't have any beliefs about gay people.

Worse yet you do not seem to realize how the Baha'i stance on gay people shows that there are problems with the Baha'i beliefs too. They are far from perfect.

The Baha'i Faith does not take a stance on gay people, we only have laws that prohibit homosexual sex, but these laws only apply to Baha'is. We also have laws that prohibit any sex outside of marriage, but these laws only apply to Baha'is. Nobody has to be a Baha'i unless they choose to be a Baha'i.

The paragraph below is taken from a letter from the UHJ and thus it represents the official Baha'i position on how Baha'is are supposed to regard and treat homosexuals.

"While Bahá’ís hold specific beliefs about human identity, sexuality, personal morality, and individual and social transformation, they also believe that individuals must be free to investigate truth and should not be coerced. They are, therefore, enjoined to be tolerant of those whose views differ from their own, not to judge others according to their own standards, and not to attempt to impose these standards on society. To regard a person who has a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain is entirely against the spirit of the Faith. And where occasion demands, it would be appropriate to speak out or act against unjust or oppressive measures directed towards homosexuals."
Letter on responding to attitude changes on homosexuality

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of my posts refute my claim that I don't have any beliefs about gay people.

The Baha'i Faith does not take a stance on gay people, we only have laws that prohibit homosexual sex, but these laws only apply to Baha'is. We also have laws that prohibit any sex outside of marriage, but these laws only apply to Baha'is. Nobody has to be a Baha'i unless they choose to be a Baha'i.

The paragraph below is taken from a letter from the UHJ and thus it represents the official Baha'i position on how Baha'is are supposed to regard and treat homosexuals.

"While Bahá’ís hold specific beliefs about human identity, sexuality, personal morality, and individual and social transformation, they also believe that individuals must be free to investigate truth and should not be coerced. They are, therefore, enjoined to be tolerant of those whose views differ from their own, not to judge others according to their own standards, and not to attempt to impose these standards on society. To regard a person who has a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain is entirely against the spirit of the Faith. And where occasion demands, it would be appropriate to speak out or act against unjust or oppressive measures directed towards homosexuals."
Letter on responding to attitude changes on homosexuality

They do, but you will just deny it again.

So what is next?

But I do like your quote. It actually counters what some other Baha'is have said on other threads.

 

[Trailblazer]

I already did once when you asked me yesterday. You can't keep asking to have the same bad posts shown to you again and again. This time it is your turn to do your own homework.

And I showed you how those posts did not show what you claimed they show.
No need to do any homework. I know what I said and what I believe about homosexuality and homosexuals, which are not one and the same. I am sorry you cannot separate the two but I can.

 

[Trailblazer]

They do, but you will just deny it again.

What argue about what I said before and what you think I meant....
It's sure a good thing you were never married.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I know what I said and what I believe about homosexuality and homosexuals

So then, care to clarify you agreeing with dnb's nonsense in your Post #129? How about #103 where you post the definition of "perverted" but then wash your hands with a flaccid "Oh oh, but I'm not judging..."? How about #112 where you fail to realize that your pious judgement of "actions" is shortsighted, ignorant, and wrong?

 

[Trailblazer]

If God is not responsible for the products of evolution you contradict yourself to say God was the creator of humans.

Evolution and adaptation (ie nature) are responsible for the "creation" (to use your loaded term) of man and not God.

Therefore post #171 is irrelevant as God demonstrably did not create man.

In my opinion.

No, I am discussing my support of moral laws that you consider immoral.
Who sets the standards for morality, God or man?
Logically speaking, if God created man then God would know what is moral behavior for man.
#171 Trailblazer, Yesterday at 11:22 PM

Fair enough, but even if God did not create man, God would know what is best for man because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I showed you how those posts did not show what you claimed they show.
No need to do any homework. I know what I said and what I believe about homosexuality and homosexuals, which are not one and the same. I am sorry you cannot separate the two but I can.

Denial is not "showing".

 

[F1fan]

We didn't.

Joining Bahai and accepting their rules which includes bigotry, IS the harm against gays. Your alliance with a bigoted religion is part of what pervetuates hatred.

And I suggest you get a dictionary.

An odd suggestion given we have the internet.

A Baha'i Law that precludes certain behaviors (and only applies to Baha'is) is not bigotry.

It is WHEN the rule is bigotry. And you don't care. Your religion is a failure in morals.

Are we also bigoted against murderers because there is a Baha'i Law that precludes murder?

Murderers are morally wrong. To judge them is justice. Gays are just who they are yet you belong to a religion that condemns them. You surrender your moral sense by joining Bahai.

Are we bigoted against thieves because there is a Baha'i Law that precludes stealing?

Again, theives are criminals. So not relevant.

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.

This applies to your condemnation of gays for who they are.

 

[F1fan]

That's because I don't have any beliefs about gay people, not any more than I have beliefs about straight people or fat people or thin people or short people or tall people. People are just people.

This is false. You have admitted that you have adopted Bahai which is prejudiced against gays, and you don't condemn that rule/law of Bahai. That means you tacitly agree with what the rule/law is. You defending Bahai makes you an agent for that dogma, and thus responsible for the harm this bogotry causes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Trailblazer abusing frubals is against the rules here. It would be a good idea to stop doing so.

 

[danieldemol]

No, I am discussing my support of moral laws that you consider immoral.
Who sets the standards for morality, God or man?
Logically speaking, if God created man then God would know what is moral behavior for man.
#171 Trailblazer, Yesterday at 11:22 PM

Fair enough, but even if God did not create man, God would know what is best for man because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise.

If God is All-knowing God would see the futility of declaring things of no demonstrable harm to be harmful.

After all if we are just going to declare the bigotries of men to be God's will it becomes purely arbitrary and based on our own biases which we accept as Gods will.

For example their are religious leaders who declare it the will of God that practice of the Baha'i faith is spiritually harmful. Who are you to question the All-knowing?! If one is truly honest with themselves I believe they will see that we have no objective way of distinguishing which alleged spiritual harms are reflective of the will of God and which ones are not.

Therefore it is far more logical to not declare anything harmful on behalf of God that does no demonstrable harm.

If God wants to declare things of no demonstrable harm as spiritually harmful God is more than capable of speaking without the middlemen that can't be distinguished from the delusional using reason.

In my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

you don't condemn that rule/law of Bahai. That means you tacitly agree with what the rule/law is.

I do agree with it because it came from God and an all-knowing God knows more than I know.
To condemn the Law of God is to condemn God.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God is All-knowing God would see the futility of declaring things of no demonstrable harm to be harmful.

And you know more that an all-knowing God regarding what is harmful?
Only in your biased personal opinion is it harmless.
There is demonstrable harm but I am not going to discuss it on here.

 

[danieldemol]

And you know more that an all-knowing God regarding what is harmful?

The same could be asked of you and/or Baha'u'llah for disagreeing with other delusional middlemen.

Only in your biased personal opinion is it harmless.
There is demonstrable harm but I am not going to discuss it on here.

Yeah yeah, I have a bridge to sell you but I won't prove it here, you just have to take my word for it.

In my opinion.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

There is demonstrable harm but I am not going to discuss it on here.

Oh no, by all means, please do elaborate on this "harm".

 

[F1fan]

I do agree with it because it came from God and an all-knowing God knows more than I know.
To condemn the Law of God is to condemn God.

This is the "I was just following orders" excuse. What happened to your Messenger? Usually you cite your Messenger, but now that's it's getting messy you go right for the top. But the Messenger is where the texts come from. You only believe that it's from God, remember? You could be mistaken, and following a fraud who is a bigot.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh no, by all means, please do elaborate on this "harm".

I'd love to, but I don't want to get in a debate with you, and I know that is where it would lead.