Trailblazer
Veteran Member
My opinion on what?The issue is the evidence stands firmly against your opinion.
What evidence?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
My opinion on what?The issue is the evidence stands firmly against your opinion.
Your views on sex and homosexuality, and by evidence I mean the many research papers, text books and academic articles written about the topics.My opinion on what?
What evidence?
Odd that. I got to know my partner before we ever ventured into the physical part of our relationship, which didn't begin until we knew that we really did care about one another.boyfriend? I never had a boyfriend, most homosexuals just want sex anyway.
Well, setting aside the issue that MEN want sex, regardless of whether they are straight or gay, the issue of how many gay men are in relationships is actually complicated:boyfriend? I never had a boyfriend, most homosexuals just want sex anyway.
You should see my family tree! (And it should be obvious that it is the "work" of heterosexual types.) I have 2 parents, but I have 16 half-brothers/sisters. who are the offspring not just of my parents, but another 6 individuals who made the beast with two backs with one or the other of my parents. The generation following that is even more complicated! I've been working on the tree for 5 years, and it's crazy hard!Well, setting aside the issue that MEN want sex, regardless of whether they are straight or gay, the issue of how many gay men are in relationships is actually complicated:
"Of the 4215 men who participated in the study, almost 70 percent reported having a regular partner, but this included 26 percent with two or more regular partners. Despite the majority having at least one regular partner, only half of them described themselves as being ‘in a relationship’ with any of those partners. A quarter indicated that they had a monogamous arrangement."
Study reveals complexity of gay men’s relationships | Kirby Institute
www.kirby.unsw.edu.au
I was not able to find a similar website about straight guys to compare, but certainly, many straight men do not have girlfriends, much less are married.
*sigh*I do not write the definitions.
To which I said, "Suit yourself"I could argue that homosexual practices are harmful to health but I won't waste my time.
You stopped your sentence a little short there in my view. The health risks of what? Homosexuality or promiscuous anal sex? There is a venn diagram representing the two, however they are not wholly identical and this is crucial to the discussion of whether homosexuality should be banned or not.You are welcome to your opinion but you don't have a leg to stand on regarding the health risks.
I already explained who - the Universal House of Justice based in Haifa whose Baha'i group you are nominally a member of.Who is trying to justify a complete ban on homosexuality?
There is a bit to unpack here.Nobody can ban any sexual activity, be it heterosexual or homosexual.
What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms cannot be monitored, nor should it be.
So click on your link and read it and then tell me which group of nine people authored that page of the Aqdas given that it quotes a letter written by Shoghi Effendi decades after Baha'u'llah's death.The Baha'i laws have nothing to do with the Baha'i Faith (loyal to shoghi effendi and the Haifa based Universal House of Justice)
“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223
This has nothing to do with the Covenant. If the other Baha'i groups go against the Aqdas, they are going against Baha'u'llah.
Quote Baha'u'llah (as opposed to those who came after him) saying that please.Baha'u'llah only permitted sex between a man and a woman who are married to each other, and that means that homosexuals cannot have sex and still adhere to Baha'i law.
Perhaps, but if an institution or the central figures both employed hate speech and counseled against it, then it is little wonder if people follow in their footsteps.You can show me examples of that but if they employ hate speech against homosexuals they would be going against what the UHJ instructed us to do.
As I said, the Baha'i Faith is not trying to ban homosexuality, not to mention that that would be impossible.You stopped your sentence a little short there in my view. The health risks of what? Homosexuality or promiscuous anal sex? There is a venn diagram representing the two, however they are not wholly identical and this is crucial to the discussion of whether homosexuality should be banned or not.
I have never been so glad as I am today to be a member of the Baha'i Faith, and as @TransmutingSoul said, there is only one Baha'i Faith.I already explained who - the Universal House of Justice based in Haifa whose Baha'i group you are nominally a member of.
The restriction on any public homosexual acts or public admission of homosexuality or homosexual marriage only applies to members of the Baha'i Faith. Nobody has to join unless they want to.There is a bit to unpack here.
First I can see that my use of the words, "complete ban on homosexuality" could be understood to mean restricting it by monitoring people in the privacy of their own bedrooms, so I apologise for the ambiguity and clarify that I meant a ban on any public homosexual acts or public admission of homosexuality or homosexual marriage even in an ideal monogomous sense.
It is not irrelevant that anal sex carries many health risks. The human body was created by God for penile–vaginal sex and the possibility of creating offspring, sex between a man and woman, since the primary purpose of sex is procreation. People take what God created and use it for that which it was not created for, just for the sake of pleasure.Second of all the fact that what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms cannot be monitored is precisely why it is impractical to ban anal sex - which is what your health argument addresses as opposed to homosexuality. Perhaps this explains why your idol Baha'u'lah never banned anal sex. Hence the irrelevance of your health statistics on anal sex in my opinion.
No, you quote it. You do not know what Baha'u'llah said unless you can read Arabic, not that it matters, because we do know what the Bible says and that law is not going to abrogated by a bunch of new age Baha'is.So click on your link and read it and then tell me which group of nine people authored that page of the Aqdas given that it quotes a letter written by Shoghi Effendi decades after Baha'u'llah's death.
Quote Baha'u'llah (as opposed to those who came after him) saying that please.
I do not hate anyone but I do hate what I consider to be immoral behavior. As Jesus said, love the sinner but hate the sin.Perhaps, but if an institution or the central figures both employed hate speech and counseled against it, then it is little wonder if people follow in their footsteps.
And as you say, what you "consider to be immoral behavior." Other people have other views. How do you decide which are correct? How do you decide which you will allow in your religion, and which you won't? Personal preference?I do not hate anyone but I do hate what I consider to be immoral behavior. As Jesus said, love the sinner but hate the sin.
So very like all private clubs. Totally antithetical to what "religion" should really be about.The restriction on any public homosexual acts or public admission of homosexuality or homosexual marriage only applies to members of the Baha'i Faith. Nobody has to join unless they want to.
Every physical contact between humans carries health risks. The more invasive, the greater the risk. So do you think humans should discontinue all of those -- things like open mouth kissing, cunnilingus, fellatio, vaginal penetration, they all carry risk of transmisson of disease, tissue damage and so on. Do you advocate stopping all of those?It is not irrelevant that anal sex carries many health risks.
Religion only offers the illusion of meaning.But lets assume for one second atheism is true. Life has no meaning.
I do not decide what is correct for anyone except myself.And as you say, what you "consider to be immoral behavior." Other people have other views. How do you decide which are correct?
I try to follow all the teachings and laws of my religion to the best of my ability.How do you decide which you will allow in your religion, and which you won't? Personal preference?
That is not what the Baha'i Faith is about. It is not about whether people should have sex or not and how or with whom they should have it.So very like all private clubs. Totally antithetical to what "religion" should really be about.
I do not advocate stopping any of those. I only decide what I will do. I am not that worried about health risks because if I ever had sex again it would only be with a man I am married to. However, since I am not interested in sex I will probably never get married again.Every physical contact between humans carries health risks. The more invasive, the greater the risk. So do you think humans should discontinue all of those -- things like open mouth kissing, cunnilingus, fellatio, vaginal penetration, they all carry risk of transmisson of disease, tissue damage and so on. Do you advocate stopping all of those?
No, it’s not. It’s specifically about wolves in sheep’s clothing who claim to be following and serving Christ, but who are actually putting on a show while fleecing and harming Christians. Former Christians are not going to be trying to justify themselves to Jesus, are they?This is a common but ridiculous slander of ex-Christians.
Oh please. People just change their minds sometimes. A person can fully and authentically love Jesus, and then later in their life, decide that it's not true.No, it’s not. It’s specifically about wolves in sheep’s clothing who claim to be following and serving Christ, but who are actually putting on a show while fleecing and harming Christians. Former Christians are not going to be trying to justify themselves to Jesus, are they?
Certainly. a person who fully adheres to the Christian religion can change their mind. But Jesus said that one must be born again or born from above to enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:-3-7) Someone who has had a spiritual new birth in Christ and received eternal life, cannot be unborn, anymore than someone who is physically alive can be unborn. I think it’s impossible.Oh please. People just change their minds sometimes. A person can fully and authentically love Jesus, and then later in their life, decide that it's not true.
The problem with that belief is that it is denied by reality. Authentic Christians do sometimes leave Christianity. My suggestion to you is that you amend your theology so that it aligns with the evidence. There are plenty of Christians who believe that a Christian can lose their salvation, for example.Certainly. a person who fully adheres to the Christian religion can change their mind. But Jesus said that one must be born again or born from above to enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:-3-7) Someone who has had a spiritual new birth in Christ and received eternal life, cannot be unborn, anymore than someone who physically alive can be unborn. I think it’s impossible.
Yes, there are some Christians who believe salvation can be lost. But I think that is contrary to the scriptures.The problem with that belief is that it is denied by reality. Authentic Christians do sometimes leave Christianity. My suggestion to you is that you amend your theology so that it aligns with the evidence. There are plenty of Christians who believe that a Christian can lose their salvation, for example.
Think again. You need to have your beliefs gel with reality. If you want to say, "Well my sacred text says that the moon is made of cheese" you can do that, of course, but no one will respect you because of course the evidence says otherwise.Yes, there are some Christians who believe salvation can be lost. But I think that is contrary to the scriptures.
Ephesians 1:13-14
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
The problem with that belief is that it is denied by reality. Authentic Christians do sometimes leave Christianity. My suggestion to you is that you amend your theology so that it aligns with the evidence. There are plenty of Christians who believe that a Christian can lose their salvation, for example.
Think again. You need to have your beliefs gel with reality. If you want to say, "Well my sacred text says that the moon is made of cheese" you can do that, of course, but no one will respect you because of course the evidence says otherwise.
We are not talking about a text that says the moon is made of cheese, which you’re correct, we know that it in fact is not. We are talking about the Bible and what it says about salvation and new life in Christ.Think again. You need to have your beliefs gel with reality. If you want to say, "Well my sacred text says that the moon is made of cheese" you can do that, of course, but no one will respect you because of course the evidence says otherwise.
Look, there are plenty of Christians who believe in the exact same bible as you, and they manage to understand that someone can be a Christian and then leave. So, I really am not sympathetic to your argument.We are talking about a text that says the moon is made of cheese, which you’re correct, we know that it in fact is not. We are talking about the Bible and what it says about salvation and new life in Christ.