Which brings me full circle to what I said in post #311 of this thread.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do some Atheists say Christianity is harmful?
- Thread starter Melchizedek99
- Start date
But when the Universal House of Justice located in Haifa has promised to make a Baha'i state why do you disbelieve (other than because its an inconvenient truth) that they will endeavour to fulfill their promise?
This is just daft in my view. In a Baha'i majority who do you think will do the calling for a Baha'i state - the non-Baha'i minority?! - pull the other leg in my view.
Well I believe it's over reach, there is health risks associated with sugar consumption but he didn't ban that (or did he). And besides you already acknowledged that public bans won't stop what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms so we will still have to live with the consequences of those health risks.
So are barren couples forbidden marriage in the Baha'i faith? And didn't you say some pages back in this thread there is no stipulation to produce humans in the Baha'i faith?
That too I consider baseless assumption.
God says nothing of the sort. It is only your idol Baha'u'llah who says that in my view.
Neither does what a bunch of ignorant people who claimed to speak for God in my view.
The whole reason you chose Baha'u'llah, the Bible and your interpretation of the Baha'i covenant seems to be based on your hatred of homosexuality in my view.
No, but it shows that the Church was concerned about what was going on and tried to stop abuse of native people.
According to the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "homosexual acts" are "grave sins against chastity" and "expressions of the vice of lust."[13] Homosexual acts are included among the grave sins against chastity in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.[5]
According to the Catechism, "homosexual acts" are "acts of grave depravity" that are "intrinsically disordered." It continues, "They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."[14][15] Regarding homosexuality as an orientation, the Catechism describes it as "objectively disordered."[14]
The Catholic Church teaches that, as a person does not choose to be either homosexual or heterosexual, being gay is not inherently sinful.[16][17] According to the Catholic theology of sexuality, all sexual acts must be open to procreation by nature and express the symbolism of male-female complementarity.[18][19] Sexual acts between two members of the same sex cannot meet these standards.[20] Homosexuality thus constitutes a tendency towards this sin.[20][18][21] The church teaches that gay people are called to practice chastity.[14]
(Catholic Church and homosexuality - Wikipedia)
That is the "official position" of a church of a billion people.
I'm not sure if you're just posting information at this point, or if you are trying to make a point because you think our views are somehow not aligned.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not disbelieve that.
I do not know who will call upon them since that quote does not say.
'The Bahá’ís will be called upon to assume the reins of government when they will come to constitute the majority of the population in a given country, and even then their participation in political affairs is bound to be limited in scope unless they obtain a similar majority in some other countries as well. (19 November 1939) Source: https://www.bahai.org/library/autho...ages/19950427_001/19950427_001.xhtml?59532be8
There are health risks associated with lots of activities and most of them were not banned, only alcohol and recreational drugs and certain sexual activities. The reason these were banned is because they are injurious to individuals and to society.
Again, what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is nobody's business. Is there a reason why homosexuals would need to express their affections in public? I don't even like it when heterosexual couples do that, I find it offensive. I think sex should be a private thing, even kissing. I guess I am just a little old-fashioned.
No, they are not forbidden to marry or to have sex without the intention of producing offspring, but that is not relevant to the point. The Baha'i laws are not focused on individual situations which are not the norm, they are for society as a whole.
You can consider it however you want to.
God does not say anything directly to anyone except the Messengers, who then reveal it to humanity.
You can hold any view you want to as can I.
That is just so stupid. I chose it because I believe it is scripture that was revealed by God.
I love gay people. My next door neighbors are a house of five gay men and they are the nicest people one would ever want to meet.
Their sexual activities are no concern of mine. All that matters is what kind of people they are. That is also what matters to God.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Yes?The original message from Jesus, the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts that were written by people that supposedly witnessed this message, or the multiple translations of them?
It wasn't a yes or no question. It was multiple choice.
Untrue,
First hitler pol pot and stalin were not atheist,
Second, please find a list of religious wars/conflicts/mass killings through history accounting for up to 800 million deaths. Where people have killed to impose their religion or religious belief on others
| US Western Expansion (Justified by "Manifest Destiny"):20,000,000 | |
| AIDS deaths in Africa largely due to opposition to condoms: 30,000,000 | |
| Al Qaeda, 1993- | |
| Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49 | |
| Algeria, 1992- | |
| Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE | |
| Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948- | |
| Armenian Genocide: 1,500,000 | |
| Atlantic Slave Trade (Justified by Christianity): 14,000,000 | |
| Aztec Human Sacrifice: 80,000 | |
| Muslim/Bab’i conflict, 1848-54 | |
| Bosnia, 1992-95 | |
| Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901 | |
| Christian Romans, 30-313 CE | |
| Congolese Genocide (King Leopold II): 13,000,000 | |
| Croatia, 1991-92 | |
| Crusades, 1095-1291 - 6,000,000 | |
| Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609 | |
| Eighty Years' War: 1,000,000 | |
| English Civil War, 1642-46 | |
| First Sudanese Civil War: 1,000,000 | |
| French Wars of Religion: 4,000,000 | |
| Great Peasants' Revolt: 250,000 | |
| Holocaust, 1938-45 | |
| Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598 | |
| India, 1992-2002 | |
| India: Suttee & Thugs | |
| Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947 | |
| Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979- | |
| Iraq War: 500,000 | |
| Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92 | |
| Islamic Terrorism Since 2000: 150,000 | |
| Jewish Diaspora (Not Including the Holocaust): 1,000,000 | |
| Jews, 1348 | |
| Jonestown, 1978 | |
| Lebanon 1860 / 1975-92 250,000 | |
| Molucca Is., 1999- | |
| Mongolia, 1937-39 | |
| Muslim Conquests of India: 80,000,000 | |
| Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s- 1,000,000 | |
| Northern Ireland, 1974-98 | |
| Russian pogroms 1905-06 / 1917-22 | |
| Rwandan Genocide: 800,000 | |
| Second Sudanese Civil War: 2,000,000 | |
| Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE | |
| Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38 | |
| Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91 | |
| Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834 - 5,000 | |
| St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572 | |
| Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64 | |
| The Holocaust (Jewish and Homosexual Deaths): 6,500,000 | |
| Thirty Years War, 1618-48 - 11,500,000 | |
| Tudor England | |
| Vietnam, 1800s | |
| Witch Hunts, 1400-1800 | |
| Xhosa, 1857 |
Atheist have killed but not in the name of atheism.
Last edited:
Sorry, but I rather think it shows that 2 individuals (NOT "the Church") were concerned, because the abuse continued unabated.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That's a good point.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
I’m probably the wrong person for this. Relatives would come out of the woodwork and even as a kid, I thought they were taking advantage of my grandparents.
Whatever.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Oh, no, I condemn the religion due to what it's sacred text teaches. Jesus is as good as it gets, and overall hes not really that good. Getting along with others is great, but its not really loving and accepting of who people are in the end, the toxic sexual message is worse as thats how he introducesof thoughtcrime, he denies life and promotes being a couch hoping mooch, tells people to hate their family, promotes total and blind obediance, and just listening to people who aren't like us we begin to learn that what is considered his best, the Golden Rule, has a lot of short comings when we fully flesh it out.
Others before and after have exceeded him, especially with all the nasty, intolerant, misogynist, cruel, wicked and violent laws, punishments and commandments attached to him and the god he says he's the son of. Why put it on the pedestal we do and not criticize the core of religion for what it is? It's not moral, it's not kind, and often the worst examples of Christians have the Biblically correct stance (such as those claiming their god given right to slaves and to domestic abuse/rape).
And of course such tends to revolve around a literalist interpretation, but it's what's there, including warnings about trusting others over god.
At least with someone like John Lennon you have to do some digging to find the message of his art wasn't necessarily a reflection of his personal character.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
YAY! I'm evil and demonic! Although I'm not a Satanist but a Luciferian. But wooooo!
Am I evil?
Yes, I am.
Am I evil?
I am! I am!
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Both?
ppp
Well-Known Member
I am not going to go back and look for context, but I hope that was said ironically or tongue in cheek. Because taken literally, that is some ridiculous BS.
There were three choices...
- Jesus
- The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts that were written by people that supposedly witnessed this message
- The multiple translations of them (the aforementioned texts)