I think that passage where Bahá'u'lláh talks about 'The question of the boys' means that he dislike Pedofilie, with i'm totaly acording. But Bahá'u'lláh never specific say that it is about Homosexuals. This concept was added by Abdul'Bahá who pretend to expose a purity status, but Unitarian Bahais (those who stay by the other son of Bahaullah) don't think so... I personly think (and i'm Bahai), we could not discriminate any human being cause that would refuse the principal concept, which is the unity and equality, and from my point of view no one could chose it's natural tendence. After all Homosexuals are just Human Beings too and they don't harm anybody, it's just our prejudice what make us act so.
Interesting. One can find articles dealing with this subject. There is also a Unitarian-Bahai Association that is active today. Further Dave Husband has written about the subject. @@johndoee3850
Mavaddat, thank you for this. I left the Faith because of their views on homosexuality. I am hetero, but I didn't want to be part of anything that I couldn't bring my friends along. You said it a lot better. lol Thank you.
I completely agree with your methodology. I think that religion should be open to change from within. Bahá'ís, however, are supposed to reject this model of change. For them, change of religion can only come from God. Regarding "needs" being fulfilled, I do crave for a distinctive community, which I lack now; but I think religion is not the answer. Religion is divisive, tribal, and exclusivist.
Could you please let me know where in the "Authoritative Writings" of the Baha'i Faith that it uses the word "disability" in referance to homosexuality. You clearly stated this in your video, but I couldn't figue out if you were siting a source here or not. I just would like to know your source, if in fact there is one for this. Thanks a ton! Guywittamic
There's more if you will give me time to find it. This is in regard to obedience and submission to the word of the Guardian. "It is incumbent upon the members of the House of Justice...to show their obedience, submissiveness and subordination unto the Guardian of the Cause of God, to turn unto him and be lowly before him." (Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 11)
@Mavaddat Javid: What sources did you consult to investigate this? How can I investigate it more so that I'm neither accepting your opinion or the Baha'is or anyone else's blindly? How much time did you spend drilling, rote-memming those facts into your head?
Do you mean what books or texts did I consult? Or with what people did I consult? I had extensive conversations with Bahá’ís who were my friends or just academics. I've also written a summary of the Bahá’í Faith's authoritative views on same sex relationships here: mavaddat.livejournal.com/21160.html
+mike4ty4 It is morally wrong to condemn same sex relationships. It is scientifically wrong to suggest that being gay is "against nature". Here is one discussion I had with some Bahá'í youth on Livejournal: ljbahai.livejournal.com/396106.html
Mavaddat Javid I'm looking at that thread. Lots of interesting points and viewpoints raised by both you and others on there. I am curious about the following bit you mentioned in one post, though: "It is true that reproduction in sexual animals (there are some who can reproduce without sex!) cannot occur without sex; however, it seems to me that the statement "sex is to create children" (ironically enough!) smacks something of a female-oppresive fundamentalist religious doctrines like those that have so largely dominated the past three millennia." What I'm curious about, and what I do not understand, is how the statement "sex is to create children" is specifically oppressive to females, and not oppressive to males, despite the fact that both males and females participate in the sexual act (although with gay relations, of course, both may not be present for the same sexual act, but "producing children" is only possible via straight relations), and both derive pleasure from it. How is that the case? Note that I am not saying I agree or disagree with the statement -- I am just curious about the claim of oppressive nature, specific to females. You mentioned a book reference, and I suppose I could see if it's at the college library and examine it (I'll go over there tomorrow when it's open again, probably), but I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the matter.
mike4ty4 That was quite a while ago, but I think I meant that the "sex is for reproduction" was a line of thinking that was often coupled with misogynist thinking (such as the idea that a woman's pleasure is not necessary, since she is merely a receptacle for a man's seed). I am not sure what book you'd like me to recommend on these subjects. Do you want a Bahá'í perspective or a secular perspective or a Bahá'í-critical perspective? Do you want something about same sex relationships specifically or just religion and sexuality? Or something on morality and the Bahá'í Faith?
@tebyanian252 Exactly right. I too believed that Baha'is are free to independently investigate the truth, which is what I did. I thought my questioning would be welcomed by my peers as a worthwhile internal scrutiny so that our common faith could be made stronger. What I found, though, was that independent investigation is only something Baha'is demand of and allow for NON-BELIEVERS. Once you become a Baha'i, you are expected to accept and obey WITHOUT QUESTION. I cannot abide by that blindness.
Thanks for the support, John! Of course, the idea that anyone's sexual preferences (whether hetero- or homosexual) were chosen by them is utterly ludicrous. It's like saying you can choose whether to like apples or whether to find roses appealing. The only possible place where choice comes into play is in doing or abstaining from the sex-act. And what could be IMMORAL about the bedroom antics of two consenting adults?
Many religions embrace same-sex relationships. Presbyterian and Anglican churches, Reform Judaism, American Anglican Church, Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian Universalism, the United Church of Christ, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all of the ancient Greek religions do not condemn being gay. But even if all religions condemned being gay, it would only mean that we must reject all religions as untrustworthy and man-made, since no all-good God could condemn any consensual sex between adults.
I respect your perspective, I can say as a Bahai I have seen no discrimination in my Bahai Community or other communities in the area. While we do not proceed over Homosexual Weddings, they are not prohibited if they are to happen. Bahai's have a strong profound love for the traditional family. I think overtime, homosexuality has become more accepted in Bahai Faith much like in Judaism. Being a good person and performing good deeds and tolerance is more central than anything.
+Matti Irie There is literally not a single accredited medical institution in North America that regards being gay as cognitively or psychologically aberrant in anyway. What you wrote is a reflection of the current Bahai Faith dogma, but the Bahá'í belief has no correspondence to reality. Your ignorant claim that "Homosexuality is a behavioral and mental disorder" stands in contradiction to the professional judgment of every accredited medical and psychological institution in North America (including the American Medical Association (AMA), American Psychiatric Nurses Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics. They all agree there's no medical, psychological, or social reason to judge same sex relationships immoral or unhealthy.
Thank you. On this issue alone, the Baha'i Faith is in disagreement with scientific fact. So much for the claim that the Faith is in consonance with science.
Institutions of the Counsellors, page 15. Also a letter from the Universal House of Justice, dated November 12, 1965, to a National Spiritual Assembly. And also in a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, dated February 20, 1977, to an individual believer. Most of these can be found in the compilation "NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities" if you are so inclined to look it up. I can direct you to online source if purchasing them is beyond your current means
I recently did some research about this with a friend of mine as I am very pro "Gay" where the problem seems to come in is that specifically sodomy is forbidding, for ALL people. Wouldn't that be the act that you are referring to? Also, since prejudice of all kinds is forbidden, any discrimination would be out the window :) Gosh, I wish that I had the writings that put me at ease about this issue, I will look for it and post it!
@mavaddat Then pardon me. A sense of condessention (pardon spelling) and occasionally calling people idiots seem to fill the definition of personal insult for many people. That asside, considering anything "moral" or "immoral" requires a deffinition of the terms, and/or a shared recognized source of authority that defines such acts. Pardon me if I've asked before, but for you what would such a source or definition be? Some form of relitavism?
@aaronlee75 There's no scriptural corroboration of your interpretation of "contemplate." The fact that we often realize in retrospect that there were good rules for us to follow in the past, which we could not have understood then is not a reason to follow rules *now* that we don't understand. Religious people often have a very difficult time understanding this: We aren't warranted in following unexplained rules *now* just because we can see in retrospect it would've been good to do so.
very true - I have friends, gay and straight, who have had auxiliary board members come to their houses and/or call them and lecture them on "inappropriate behavior" such as acknowledging being bisexual in public or living together before marriage.
Your sincerity merits attention. I will attempt to reply to your questions in 8 parts: 1- Is the Baha'i faith intolerant ? I would clearly say no, although many Baha'is who are not well informed of their faith are intolerant. God's message is perfect, human behaviour is in dire need of improvement. God sends us His message to improve us. The Baha'i faith says that the puropse of our short life in this world is to serve humaity. Looks difficult, but becomes a passion whan it is done with love.
@colloredbrothers I agree. When did I confuse the whether homosexuality was natural with whether considering it to be unnatural provides socially positive aspects? I don't see it...
To be fair the Baháʼu'lláh never actually says anything about homosexuality itself, with the exception of his comment on pederasty (involving adult men and boys). He also condemed the act of sodomy, which isn't a universal act amongst homosexuals (obviously). Ironically, despite being a "middle eastern" religious text, the Qur'an, which is the central and only absolutely authorative scripture within Islam, has no prohibition against homosexuality as such. Sex outside of a formal public relationship (aka marriage) is however heavily discouraged and potentially zina (aka adultery), which would be forbidden, and therefore it would be necessary that homosexuals are allowed to be wedded. Baháʼu'lláh seems to more explicitly forbid fornication, and while homosexuality as we currently understand it certainly was not recognized during the advent of Islam, its psychological identification was in existence during the lifetime of Baháʼu'lláh. I would therefore I would expect a more explicit commentary that demonstrates knowledge of the phenomena of sexual orientation. He could have demonstrated such inspired knowledge to Sigmund Freud, and been a trailblazer in the young science of psychoanalysis. It would appear more "prophetic" of him being that he lived so close to the modern era. On another note, coincidentally the Canaanites were said to have practiced homosexual intercourse (pederasty) in their worship.
Thanks bro for being understanding about this issue. I'm gay and I can't remember any day in which I wasn't. It has caused me so much trouble with my parent's faith Islam and a lot of social issues. I just want to say I appreciate that you, a straight person, know how we feel and elaborate nicely on this issue as if you experienced being gay. I hope that doesn't come off as offensive but you are a very good looking man. Good luck.
@smoosav9 Yes, this is a very common defence tactic among Bahá'ís: Don't worry! The Bahá'í Faith is like a sports club that you can choose to join or choose to ignore! We aren't demanding other people obey our laws! However, this is a misrepresentation of the actual religion. Bahá'u'lláh says that his laws "must be faithfully obeyed by all." He also says that "All must diligently observe them." So you are simply being deceitful by presenting your religion as though it were like a sports club.
Pt 1 (note) There are many meldings and cross overs between these basic schools of thought. They were listed to provide a basis for a discussion on what should be considered "moral" or "immoral" and as general refference. There are other schools, this was just a skeletal, general framework that may be added to if need be.
@mavaddat I agree. That makes perfect sense, from a non-Bahá'í point of view. But Bahá'ís believe that it is best for the spiritual health of all to limit marriage to a man and a woman. I understand you do not agree with this, and I respect that. Believe what you want to believe. I'm just saying that this whole topic depends on which point of view is taken. :) Peace.
@aaronlee75 You could dismiss it as "subjective," but the fact is that while you have to stretch the meaning of the word "contemplate" to match your values, there are dozens of quotations in the Bahai scripture encouraging Bahais to be close-minded, dogmatic, and blindly obey. See mavaddat {.} homestead {.} com/files/BahaiDogmatism{.}html
As would I. I doubt they would do something as such, but Abdul Baha has made it abundantly clear that the UHJ must be obeyed even if we disagree with them. Abdul Baha himself said (in regards to the house, if it were active in his lifetime) "...I would have been the first to obey its decree, even if it should be against me. It is true that the body does not possess inherent infallibility, but it is under the shadow of the protection of the Blessed Beauty. Its command is the Blessed Command."
dejahml, the only post you might read from me as meaning a study is "biased", refers to an article Notmy indicated : "The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children,"published in the July 2006 issue of Pediatrics. Sharon L. Quick,under "Replication of Quotation Errors" claims that quotation errors are extensive enough to invalidate the document. The study remains interesting to me
@mavaddat Well, you must agree that, in a general sense, there should be some restrictions on marriage. Would you say that only allowing certain age groups (e.g. only those who or at or above 18 years of age) to marry is discrimination based on age?
@clex19 Right! Except the difference between us is that I think "points of view" should be based on empathy, reason, and reflection whereas you seem to be comfortable choosing your "point of view" like you choose your socks or your underwear.
@mavaddat Continuing on that note: "Marriage is thus, according to the Bahá'í Teachings, primarily a social and moral act. It has a purpose which transcends the immediate personal needs and interests of the parties. Birth control, except in certain exceptional cases, is therefore not permissible.” (With regard to birth control an individual asked the beloved Guardian a similar question in 1935, and the Guardian’s secretary replied on his behalf on 14 October 1935)
@mavaddat to contemplate: to view or consider something, looking at all angles, to get a better understanding of. (This includes questioning, because you cannot look at all angles or POVs without doing so.) To discuss this fully would require much more space than is allowed in a short video blog. I have found my faith to be extremely thought provoking and encouraging of critical thinking. I'd love to discuss it in detail further. It's a bit short sighted to call 1 (or all?) religion false.
how old are the textbooks you are looking at? and I wonder if maybe the syndrome "hysteria" is disapearing altogether b/c it never existed in the the first place? maybe it was just a misdiagnoses of issues women were having that doctors didn't understand?
The messianic verses from the Bible cited by Baha'is as referring to Baha'u'llah, can not truly support their claim because, among other things, Baha'u'llah was of Iranian descent, where the Messiah was to be Jewish (Matthew 1; Genesis 12:1-3; II Samuel 7:12-13). Also, the New Testament repeatedly cites the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:1; 3:14; 8:17; Luke 1:31; Revelation 5:5).
@mavaddat I meant that our individual experiences are subjective...and that likewise we draw our own different interpretations from our own seperate lives and POVs. I don't think that I do stretch the meaning of the word contemplate...we are still to (continually) seek truth on our own. As far as laws that we don't yet understand...there are reasons to follow them, things such as unforseen circumstances for not following them. I can provide examples from the last 50 years in US culture.
I am sorry, dejahlm, I cannot find where I spoke about biased studies; could you kindly guide me back; I am obviously taking time to adapt to UA-cam discussions where postings are chronological and loose contexte.
The series started as video responses to other people's videos. Those videos are no longer online, unfortunately. The first video was a guy asking what the Bahá'í Faith had to say about homosexuality, to which I responded with this video. Then a Bahá'í named Keyvan video responded to me, and I video responded back. So yeah, that's the history of it. My point is that the Bahá'í writings (not Bahá'ís themselves) are hateful of gay people. Bahá'ís are friendly of course. I love Bahá'ís.
@smoosav9 I kindly request that you do not SPAM my UA-cam video with lengthy quotations from your religion or commercial products. This is a discussion, not an advertisement space.
Leucthtenberg, there are two definitions of "homosexuality" the one used in the writings refering to "way of life" refers to that strictly sexual activity definition, not a condition of desire.
I think you have many good answers to give to us gay Baha'is. I have been fighting this in my mind for about 50 years since i knew I was gay. You can only be accepted as a practising Baha'i, if you are celibate or can be changed and able to marry a person of the opposite sex, neither of these options is very realistic in our world of today with the knowledge we have of psychology! Whether it is "natural" or not, we know it is and must threrfore, unless we choose our sexuality, be from God too.
@mavaddat Please read the full letter. In the sentence right before the beginning of your quote, it is clearly stated that "the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children." Basically what your quote is saying is that a couple should not be forbidden to marry just because they are not able to procreate. This letter doesn't even mention homosexuals; the topic is "trial marriage."
@aaronlee75 Oh, also Bahá'í laws are meant to apply to all humanity, because they are said to be God's laws for everyone (not just those who accept them). This old trope that "Bahá'í laws are just for Bahá'ís" is a rhetorical move that the Universal House of Justice adopted (alone) to avoid the embarrassing situation of having to explain why God's laws are apparently so nonsensical. I've written about this on my Livejournal, which you can find linked from my UA-cam profile.
Yes, I saw it. I'm currently in the process of writing up a lengthy FAQ of responses I've gotten from Baha'is that will address all the points you raise and others raised by Baha'is.
@smoosav9 I didn't say the tactic was secret. I also didn't say that Bahá'ís think of their religion as made of human compositions. Obviously, just like Scientologists, Branch Davidians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and all religious people, Bahá'ís believe they are following the word of God or an infallible prophet. Why do you assume I am unfamiliar with the Bahá'í Faith?
I already provided the quote above. I'll provide here again: "Regarding… one of the believers who seems to be flagrantly homosexual - although to an extent we must be forbearing …of people’s moral conduct …this does not mean that we can put up indefinitely with conduct which is disgracing the Cause." You interpret the "moral conduct" to be Effendi's affirmation of the morality of being gay, whereas I interpret it as categorizing sexual orientation as being under moral scrutiny.
@RenovatedLocksmith Thanks for your support, Lock. However, fear of hell is not the only way religions manipulate people to believe evil things. "Love of God" is so often employed in the Bahá'í Faith as a way of identifying who ISN'T loving God properly. Just look at the way gays are condemned: The Bahá'í narrative isn't that they will "go to hell," but that they aren't obeying (and therefore loving) God.
I am familiar with the term "histrionic personality", and will do more research on the connection. What I've found so far mostly talks about misdiagnoses of MS in the past, but there may be more, so I will continue to look further.
So what sort of discovery could possibly make you doubt your belief in Bahá'u'lláh's absolute authority? Is there anything? Or is it just impossible that you have the wrong beliefs?
It's true that the Bahá'í Faith encourages non-Bahá'ís to independently investigate, but it never encourages Bahá'ís to question or investigate alternatives to the Bahá'í doctrines. On the contrary, Bahá'u'lláh explicitly says in various ways "To none is given the right to question their words" about "the prophets of God." I have many more quotations in which every one of the Bahá'í authorities explicitly says Bahá'ís cannot question the Bahá'í Faith.
@meshkat19 People used to believe that if parents had a choice, they'd choose to make their African children White-skinned. I don't particularly care how people choose to shape their children's genes. I also don't really care what prejudiced people think that other people will choose. It doesn't actually change the fact that homosexuality isn't a disorder, doesn't harm society, and isn't immoral. This isn't even an argument: It is speculation based on a conjecture about what parents might do.
How are the studies you've seen biased? This is an interesting point, so I think it shoud be looked at more deeply. If you want to discount a scientific study, I think it is important to be specific about your criteria for doing so.
An addition...We did in fact seem to have this same discussion some 9 months ago under the blog "Re: The Argument from Facts of Normativity".... My question there remains the same, though at the time you did not wish to "educate" me. It was regarding a basis for morality, or specifically "I am asking you to provide, and defend, a way of spreading/maintaining an alternate moral system." etc. Still, an agreed base is helpful
@smoosav9 "Arguments in the Baha'i Faith are forbidden (another rule)" We haven't even disagreed about anything! All you've said is that Bahá'ís are not allowed to think about whether their religion might be wrong, and I agree. Where is the argument??
@smoosav9 I never asked you to keep commenting. One thing you learn when you study English is that a person is free to respond even if the other person says they don't want to respond anymore. See? You don't want to respond doesn't mean I have to stop responding. Best of luck in your education.
@mavaddat Again, it all boils down to perspective and what beliefs one accepts. I don’t feel comfortable at all with arbitrary discrimination, and that’s not what I BELIEVE Bahá’í marriage laws are. I believe that the restriction on Bahá’í marriage is spiritually beneficial, just like other restrictions outside the Bahá’í Faith. For example, I hope you agree that limiting the legal driving age is a good idea. But is this limitation discrimination based on age?
The question is not whether it's discriminatory, but whether it's *unfairly* discriminatory. It is outrageous that anyone would be asked to refrain from consensual sexual relations for any reason other than that they are hurting someone. Yes, "there are worse things you can do," but that's besides the point. Injustice does not suddenly become alright just because there's something worse. Besides, a religion that claims to be from God should not have any unjustly discriminatory laws.
@smoosav9 I never claimed that Bahá'ís believe they are a sect. My point was that I know that Bahá'ís believe they are following the word of God - just like those other religions. Makes sense? I guess English isn't your first language, because you seem to have trouble following what I am writing. Also, none of the religions I listed claim to be "sects" of any other religion, either. You can look that up in the Encyclopaedia Britannica too!
@mavaddat we were talking about the baha'i claims of homosexuality to be unnatural we didn't talk about wether socialy they provide possitive aspects. two diffrent things.
djahlm, what charcot described as "hysteria" was a behaviour that expressed an internal tension in a manner or language which was understood by society at that time. Our social language has changed, (but persists in some developping countries) and those tensions are being understood differently, broken down under new names such as a "histrionic personnality".
Surrender your conscience and you become a tool for others, usually for evil. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
@smoosav9 Actually, Bahá'ís are as willing to get second-opinions or file malpractice lawsuits against once-considered "competent" doctors or physicians as non-Bahá'ís. So you would agree that you are either lying or mistaken about Bahá'ís never questioning the credentials of doctors they have deemed credible, right? Also, don't you agree that Bahá'ís are only unquestioningly (i.e., blindly) obedient of their religious scripture, not any human authorities?
@MrJapilz Except "chastity" is a red herring, isn't it? Since we're talking about whether openly romantic gay relationships (marriages) are allowed in the Bahá'í Faith, pretending that this is an issue of chastity is just disingenuous and dishonest.
Of course, that isn't what the Bahá'í Writings say. The Universal House of Justice wrote on 5 June 1993, "Regarding the question of whether or not same-sex marriages would ever be permitted by the Universal House of Justice, the enclosed extracts indicate clearly that it would not." This is a clear and unequivocal rejection of the possibility of accepting any family unit that is formed by a same-sex couple, no matter how chaste and desiring of marriage they may be.
'Abdu'l-Baha says, "If religious beliefs are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions ; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition." And, "The greatest cause of disheartening in the world of humanity is ignorance based upon blind imitation." And, "If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act."
There are gardeners who use poisonous pesticides like DDT. There are carpenters who cut down much needed old growth forests instead of using sustainably farmed wood. Should we assume that just because of their chosen profession they are using the best practices available? Should we just take their word for it, or should we do our own research and decide for ourselves?
I do not overlook it. The fact of the matter is that the Will and Testament clearly stipulates that the guardian must, within his own lifetime, appoint a successor from the Aghsan which must be voted on and approved by nine chosen from among the Hands of the Cause by their peers. After the death of Shoghi Effendi the hands of the Cause concluded unanimously that he had not left an heir, thus the line of Guardians was broken. So while a succession is envisioned, it was not facilitated.
No one asks you to walk away, but to clarify your own priorities. If you feel close to a faith you adopt its way of life and if you wish to change a way of life, accept yourself as you are. what use is it to profess a way of life and live another? One who says that he does not consider being gay as useful way of life but cant help it is different from the person who says he does not agree with the principles and laws of a faith. Does that make sense to you?
The question is really,does the Bah'ai faith, or any other follow the laws of the land in which they live? I am not a Baha-i but if the law says that two people of the same gender CAN "Marry" or in the case of the UK have a civil ceremony, then it has to be accepted. It is against the civil law in this country to discriminate against anyone at all on the grounds of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
@aaronlee75 Yes, that is precisely my point. The Bahá'í Faith claims to provide laws that benefit all who would follow them, yet there is no reason to believe that prohibiting gay people from marrying is in any way the least bit beneficial. On the contrary, there are a whole host of reasons to believe that it is positively harmful and hateful. But Bahá'ís want it both ways. They want to be able to say that these laws are beneficial, but that we may not ask why or how upon "becoming Bahá'í."
@aaronlee75 Yes, being raised a Bahá'í means I was made to accept philosophically (and psychologically) damaging assumptions. But more importantly, the Bahá'í Faith is just wrong. Baháú'lláh was not a messenger of God. We have excellent reasons to believe that he wasn't. Moreover, the reasons he gives are often literally nonsensical. It's not just about me getting leaving the faith. It's about helping others (who are interested) see they're involved in something that's actually deeply mistaken.
Yes, you're right "hatred" and "condemn" don't have the exact same root. Although that is what I wrote, that wasn't my point. So I made a mistake. A "mistake" can happen when you mean one thing, but say or write another thing.
@aaronlee75 It is interesting how religious people have such a hard time differentiating between "personal attacks" and criticism of mode of argument. "Personal attacks" are random insults or diversions about a person meant to distract from the discussion. You will find I never do that. Criticizing a person's mode of argument, however, involves recognizing chronic logical failures in the way a person is arguing due to their personality. This is what I do. Insults are not the same as ad hominem.
Earlier you said "flagrantly homosexual" meant "flout[ing] Baha'i laws of chastity," which I assumed meant being promiscuous. I can see now you meant having a sexual relationship outside of marriage. Sorry. However, the only reason why gay Bahá'ís would have sex outside marriage is that Bahá'í Faith forbids gay marriage. Do you get that? It's like telling women they cannot speak if they're not wearing pants, and then condemning them when they speak even though you forbade them wearing pants.
Something I dont understand: since the UHJ can freely reconsider it's own laws, or those of a previous UHJ, and since the only action of a living Guardian would have been to ask the UHJ to reconsider it's own laws, as we can all do, what difference would it make to homoseaxuals if there were a new Guardian?
Do you believe that the person who now claims to be the third Guardian has inspiration to offfer to the UHJ? If so, has he sent suggestions to the UHJ and what are these suggestions? Is this person favorable to homosexual marriages? Has he made any declarations on homosexuality and homosexual marriages?
Oh, the reason the comments have to be approved is that there was one obsessive compulsive Bahá'í (a few weeks back) who was relentlessly spamming this page. I made it this way to discourage him, but I have approved any message that isn't spam (e.g., pasting random Bahá'í writings or comments that are brazenly proselytizing).
@mavaddat IMHO, having Bahá'í marriage confined to a woman and a man is a condition placed upon marriage itself, not upon a particular group of Bahá'ís. In fact, this restriction indiscriminately applies to all Bahá'ís, regardless of sex or sexual orientation. But you can look at this any way you want; to each his own. :)
@brotherwise In fairness to "TheBahai" and other liberal and post-modernist Baha'is, I think their point isn't to be "hypocritical," but rather, to reinterpret the scripture in light of what we know to be consistent with "more fundamental" Baha'i teachings. Search "Mavaddat Eric Hadley-Ives" in Google for an argument between me and a liberal Baha'i about whether the Baha'i Faith allows such independent redefinition of its tenets.
@aaronlee75 I repeat: You'll not find a single line of scripture telling Bahá'ís to question the validity of the Bahá'í teachings. Not a single verse that intimates critical thinking. On the contrary, Bahá'ís are always told to not consider ideas contrary to the Bahá'í teachings. "Contemplation" implies Bahá'ís searching for ways to accept or apply the Bahá'í law, not critically examine it. Your assumption that "this is the way religion works" merely shows you've bought into dogmatism.
@ABahaiPointGroup No one is saying the Bahá'í Writings are ambiguous. The point is that the Bahá'í Writings are clearly bigoted. The Bahá'í marriage laws are invidiously discriminatory. The Bahá'í Faith has to change its own laws to be a moral religion. Saying, "if you don't like it, then leave the religion," is like pretending we should accept bigotry as long as the groups that practice it all agree to be bigoted. That's just dumb.
The Spirit of truth in John 16:12-13 also can't be referring to Baha'u'llah. John 14-16 clearly identifies the Spirit of Truth as being the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17, 26). Jesus said that His promise of the Holy Spirit would be fulfilled "in a few days" (Acts 1:5), not in the 1800s when Baha'u'llah was born. That fulfillment came on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.
@aaronlee75 Haha OK, fair question. I understand your question as, Why criticize the Bahá'í Faith - surely one of the most progressive and (if nothing else) smallest religions in the world?! There's not just one reason. First, I was a Bahá'í and it's important for me (for my own self-understanding, and for others to better understand me) to vocalize why I am no longer a Bahá'í. Also, I do believe that the Bahá'í Faith is hurting people where it doesn't need to. I should make a video about this.
Is there any possible discovery or truth that might make you doubt your belief in Bahá'u'lláh's absolute authority? If not, then does that mean you cannot possibly be wrong about your religious belief? Also, what do you believe when the best available science (which is based on evidence and reason) disagrees with what your religion tells you to believe? You seem to accept your religion. But this means you're rejecting the best available science. So how are they complimentary?
I'm not sure if you realize this, but I don't really care about Baha'u'llah, nor do I speak or write Arabic. Baha'u'llah claimed to be able to read and write Arabic. I am just copying and pasting the Arabic translation of the words. I'm just trying to help you out.
I think that passage where Bahá'u'lláh talks about 'The question of the boys' means that he dislike Pedofilie, with i'm totaly acording. But Bahá'u'lláh never specific say that it is about Homosexuals. This concept was added by Abdul'Bahá who pretend to expose a purity status, but Unitarian Bahais (those who stay by the other son of Bahaullah) don't think so...
I personly think (and i'm Bahai), we could not discriminate any human being cause that would refuse the principal concept, which is the unity and equality, and from my point of view no one could chose it's natural tendence. After all Homosexuals are just Human Beings too and they don't harm anybody, it's just our prejudice what make us act so.
Unitarian Baha'is? Is this a subsect? They follow a son of the baha'u'llah?
No such thing as Unitarian Bahai!!
Interesting. One can find articles dealing with this subject. There is also a Unitarian-Bahai Association that is active today. Further Dave Husband has written about the subject. @@johndoee3850
Mavaddat, thank you for this. I left the Faith because of their views on homosexuality. I am hetero, but I didn't want to be part of anything that I couldn't bring my friends along.
You said it a lot better. lol Thank you.
I agree it was such a shame to find out because I thought it was such a tolerant faith.
This is really upsetting to me I really was attached and interested in this faith. This is really sad
bahai-library.com/pdf/e/ekbal_women_homosexuality_aqdas.pdf?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3uxTKGmaLzzMgmr3wmGrMGytXlvGE1kdR2h6cJc0Ze2K1olKNkwVznJf4_aem_Ab0BfoTcz1EI0FzhRGHrHTMYw5zerytHHb-mVkoXmhgStqfJxgRHAzEsO16IDV6Yj7VqQ-lmsOqgmAX4xZ9qjaIU
It is all true. They misrepresent themselves.
I’ve been there exactly one year ago. It hurt me a lot at the time when I learned the truth.
I completely agree with your methodology. I think that religion should be open to change from within. Bahá'ís, however, are supposed to reject this model of change. For them, change of religion can only come from God. Regarding "needs" being fulfilled, I do crave for a distinctive community, which I lack now; but I think religion is not the answer. Religion is divisive, tribal, and exclusivist.
Could you please let me know where in the "Authoritative Writings" of the Baha'i Faith that it uses the word "disability" in referance to homosexuality. You clearly stated this in your video, but I couldn't figue out if you were siting a source here or not. I just would like to know your source, if in fact there is one for this.
Thanks a ton!
Guywittamic
There's more if you will give me time to find it. This is in regard to obedience and submission to the word of the Guardian.
"It is incumbent upon the members of the House of Justice...to show their obedience, submissiveness and subordination unto the Guardian of the Cause of God, to turn unto him and be lowly before him."
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 11)
@Mavaddat Javid: What sources did you consult to investigate this? How can I investigate it more so that I'm neither accepting your opinion or the Baha'is or anyone else's blindly? How much time did you spend drilling, rote-memming those facts into your head?
Do you mean what books or texts did I consult? Or with what people did I consult? I had extensive conversations with Bahá’ís who were my friends or just academics. I've also written a summary of the Bahá’í Faith's authoritative views on same sex relationships here: mavaddat.livejournal.com/21160.html
Mavaddat Javid
So what were some of the things these other Baha'is said? Are you saying they did not buy the lines on gays, or what?
+mike4ty4 It is morally wrong to condemn same sex relationships. It is scientifically wrong to suggest that being gay is "against nature".
Here is one discussion I had with some Bahá'í youth on Livejournal: ljbahai.livejournal.com/396106.html
Mavaddat Javid I'm looking at that thread. Lots of interesting points and viewpoints raised by both you and others on there.
I am curious about the following bit you mentioned in one post, though:
"It is true that reproduction in sexual animals (there are some who can reproduce without sex!) cannot occur without sex; however, it seems to me that the statement "sex is to create children" (ironically enough!) smacks something of a female-oppresive fundamentalist religious doctrines like those that have so largely dominated the past three millennia."
What I'm curious about, and what I do not understand, is how the statement "sex is to create children" is specifically oppressive to females, and not oppressive to males, despite the fact that both males and females participate in the sexual act (although with gay relations, of course, both may not be present for the same sexual act, but "producing children" is only possible via straight relations), and both derive pleasure from it. How is that the case? Note that I am not saying I agree or disagree with the statement -- I am just curious about the claim of oppressive nature, specific to females.
You mentioned a book reference, and I suppose I could see if it's at the college library and examine it (I'll go over there tomorrow when it's open again, probably), but I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the matter.
mike4ty4 That was quite a while ago, but I think I meant that the "sex is for reproduction" was a line of thinking that was often coupled with misogynist thinking (such as the idea that a woman's pleasure is not necessary, since she is merely a receptacle for a man's seed).
I am not sure what book you'd like me to recommend on these subjects. Do you want a Bahá'í perspective or a secular perspective or a Bahá'í-critical perspective? Do you want something about same sex relationships specifically or just religion and sexuality? Or something on morality and the Bahá'í Faith?
Can you quote one thing I said that was wrong?
You can be gay and be whatever religion you want but, you got to find the right church, mosque, temple, synagogue, etc.
@tebyanian252 Exactly right. I too believed that Baha'is are free to independently investigate the truth, which is what I did. I thought my questioning would be welcomed by my peers as a worthwhile internal scrutiny so that our common faith could be made stronger.
What I found, though, was that independent investigation is only something Baha'is demand of and allow for NON-BELIEVERS. Once you become a Baha'i, you are expected to accept and obey WITHOUT QUESTION. I cannot abide by that blindness.
Thanks for the support, John! Of course, the idea that anyone's sexual preferences (whether hetero- or homosexual) were chosen by them is utterly ludicrous. It's like saying you can choose whether to like apples or whether to find roses appealing. The only possible place where choice comes into play is in doing or abstaining from the sex-act. And what could be IMMORAL about the bedroom antics of two consenting adults?
Many religions embrace same-sex relationships. Presbyterian and Anglican churches, Reform Judaism, American Anglican Church, Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian Universalism, the United Church of Christ, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all of the ancient Greek religions do not condemn being gay.
But even if all religions condemned being gay, it would only mean that we must reject all religions as untrustworthy and man-made, since no all-good God could condemn any consensual sex between adults.
I respect your perspective, I can say as a Bahai I have seen no discrimination in my Bahai Community or other communities in the area. While we do not proceed over Homosexual Weddings, they are not prohibited if they are to happen. Bahai's have a strong profound love for the traditional family. I think overtime, homosexuality has become more accepted in Bahai Faith much like in Judaism. Being a good person and performing good deeds and tolerance is more central than anything.
+Matti Irie There is literally not a single accredited medical institution in North America that regards being gay as cognitively or psychologically aberrant in anyway. What you wrote is a reflection of the current Bahai Faith dogma, but the Bahá'í belief has no correspondence to reality. Your ignorant claim that "Homosexuality is a behavioral and mental disorder" stands in contradiction to the professional judgment of every accredited medical and psychological institution in North America (including the American Medical Association (AMA), American Psychiatric Nurses Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics. They all agree there's no medical, psychological, or social reason to judge same sex relationships immoral or unhealthy.
why did you remove his comment
Mattie Maxxim The comment is still up. It is visible below from two weeks ago.
Thank you. On this issue alone, the Baha'i Faith is in disagreement with scientific fact. So much for the claim that the Faith is in consonance with science.
Institutions of the Counsellors, page 15.
Also a letter from the Universal House of Justice, dated November 12, 1965, to a National Spiritual Assembly.
And also in a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, dated February 20, 1977, to an individual believer.
Most of these can be found in the compilation "NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities" if you are so inclined to look it up. I can direct you to online source if purchasing them is beyond your current means
I recently did some research about this with a friend of mine as I am very pro "Gay" where the problem seems to come in is that specifically sodomy is forbidding, for ALL people. Wouldn't that be the act that you are referring to? Also, since prejudice of all kinds is forbidden, any discrimination would be out the window :) Gosh, I wish that I had the writings that put me at ease about this issue, I will look for it and post it!
@mavaddat Then pardon me. A sense of condessention (pardon spelling) and occasionally calling people idiots seem to fill the definition of personal insult for many people.
That asside, considering anything "moral" or "immoral" requires a deffinition of the terms, and/or a shared recognized source of authority that defines such acts. Pardon me if I've asked before, but for you what would such a source or definition be? Some form of relitavism?
@aaronlee75 There's no scriptural corroboration of your interpretation of "contemplate."
The fact that we often realize in retrospect that there were good rules for us to follow in the past, which we could not have understood then is not a reason to follow rules *now* that we don't understand.
Religious people often have a very difficult time understanding this:
We aren't warranted in following unexplained rules *now* just because we can see in retrospect it would've been good to do so.
very true - I have friends, gay and straight, who have had auxiliary board members come to their houses and/or call them and lecture them on "inappropriate behavior" such as acknowledging being bisexual in public or living together before marriage.
Your sincerity merits attention. I will attempt to reply to your questions in 8 parts:
1- Is the Baha'i faith intolerant ? I would clearly say no, although many Baha'is who are not well informed of their faith are intolerant. God's message is perfect, human behaviour is in dire need of improvement. God sends us His message to improve us. The Baha'i faith says that the puropse of our short life in this world is to serve humaity. Looks difficult, but becomes a passion whan it is done with love.
@colloredbrothers I agree. When did I confuse the whether homosexuality was natural with whether considering it to be unnatural provides socially positive aspects? I don't see it...
Peter, do you have a reference saying that the UHJ can only rule on things not expressly ruled on by the Guardian, the Master, and the Blessed Beauty.
To be fair the Baháʼu'lláh never actually says anything about homosexuality itself, with the exception of his comment on pederasty (involving adult men and boys). He also condemed the act of sodomy, which isn't a universal act amongst homosexuals (obviously). Ironically, despite being a "middle eastern" religious text, the Qur'an, which is the central and only absolutely authorative scripture within Islam, has no prohibition against homosexuality as such. Sex outside of a formal public relationship (aka marriage) is however heavily discouraged and potentially zina (aka adultery), which would be forbidden, and therefore it would be necessary that homosexuals are allowed to be wedded. Baháʼu'lláh seems to more explicitly forbid fornication, and while homosexuality as we currently understand it certainly was not recognized during the advent of Islam, its psychological identification was in existence during the lifetime of Baháʼu'lláh. I would therefore I would expect a more explicit commentary that demonstrates knowledge of the phenomena of sexual orientation. He could have demonstrated such inspired knowledge to Sigmund Freud, and been a trailblazer in the young science of psychoanalysis. It would appear more "prophetic" of him being that he lived so close to the modern era. On another note, coincidentally the Canaanites were said to have practiced homosexual intercourse (pederasty) in their worship.
Sure thing. Which claim would you like me to back up?
Thanks bro for being understanding about this issue. I'm gay and I can't remember any day in which I wasn't. It has caused me so much trouble with my parent's faith Islam and a lot of social issues. I just want to say I appreciate that you, a straight person, know how we feel and elaborate nicely on this issue as if you experienced being gay. I hope that doesn't come off as offensive but you are a very good looking man. Good luck.
Hi, I hope that you find a solution to live your life and to be accent by you parents !
@smoosav9 Yes, this is a very common defence tactic among Bahá'ís: Don't worry! The Bahá'í Faith is like a sports club that you can choose to join or choose to ignore! We aren't demanding other people obey our laws!
However, this is a misrepresentation of the actual religion. Bahá'u'lláh says that his laws "must be faithfully obeyed by all." He also says that "All must diligently observe them."
So you are simply being deceitful by presenting your religion as though it were like a sports club.
Pt 1 (note) There are many meldings and cross overs between these basic schools of thought. They were listed to provide a basis for a discussion on what should be considered "moral" or "immoral" and as general refference. There are other schools, this was just a skeletal, general framework that may be added to if need be.
@mavaddat I agree. That makes perfect sense, from a non-Bahá'í point of view. But Bahá'ís believe that it is best for the spiritual health of all to limit marriage to a man and a woman. I understand you do not agree with this, and I respect that. Believe what you want to believe. I'm just saying that this whole topic depends on which point of view is taken. :)
Peace.
@aaronlee75 You could dismiss it as "subjective," but the fact is that while you have to stretch the meaning of the word "contemplate" to match your values, there are dozens of quotations in the Bahai scripture encouraging Bahais to be close-minded, dogmatic, and blindly obey.
See mavaddat {.} homestead {.} com/files/BahaiDogmatism{.}html
As would I. I doubt they would do something as such, but Abdul Baha has made it abundantly clear that the UHJ must be obeyed even if we disagree with them. Abdul Baha himself said (in regards to the house, if it were active in his lifetime) "...I would have been the first to obey its decree, even if it should be against me. It is true that the body does not possess inherent infallibility, but it is under the shadow of the protection of the Blessed Beauty. Its command is the Blessed Command."
It can be very subjective, yes. This is why I was wanting to discuss pros and cons of various morality systems. See prior postings for more info.
> Institutions of the Counsellors, page 15.
Who are you responding to, Peter? What is the point of your citations?
dejahml, the only post you might read from me as meaning a study is "biased", refers to an article Notmy indicated :
"The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children,"published in the July 2006 issue of Pediatrics.
Sharon L. Quick,under "Replication of Quotation Errors" claims that quotation errors are extensive enough to invalidate the document.
The study remains interesting to me
@mavaddat Well, you must agree that, in a general sense, there should be some restrictions on marriage. Would you say that only allowing certain age groups (e.g. only those who or at or above 18 years of age) to marry is discrimination based on age?
@clex19 Right! Except the difference between us is that I think "points of view" should be based on empathy, reason, and reflection whereas you seem to be comfortable choosing your "point of view" like you choose your socks or your underwear.
@mavaddat Continuing on that note: "Marriage is thus, according to the Bahá'í Teachings, primarily a social and moral act. It has a purpose which transcends the immediate personal needs and interests of the parties. Birth control, except in certain exceptional cases, is therefore not permissible.”
(With regard to birth control an individual asked the beloved Guardian a similar question in 1935, and the Guardian’s secretary replied on his behalf on 14 October 1935)
@mavaddat to contemplate: to view or consider something, looking at all angles, to get a better understanding of. (This includes questioning, because you cannot look at all angles or POVs without doing so.)
To discuss this fully would require much more space than is allowed in a short video blog.
I have found my faith to be extremely thought provoking and encouraging of critical thinking. I'd love to discuss it in detail further.
It's a bit short sighted to call 1 (or all?) religion false.
how old are the textbooks you are looking at? and I wonder if maybe the syndrome "hysteria" is disapearing altogether b/c it never existed in the the first place? maybe it was just a misdiagnoses of issues women were having that doctors didn't understand?
Out of curiosity, how many atheist friends do you have? How many times have you heard their criticisms of religion?
for some reason my posts are not displayed; perhaps we can continue on Mavaddat's live journal?
The messianic verses from the Bible cited by Baha'is as referring to Baha'u'llah, can not truly support their claim because, among other things, Baha'u'llah was of Iranian descent, where the Messiah was to be Jewish (Matthew 1; Genesis 12:1-3; II Samuel 7:12-13). Also, the New Testament repeatedly cites the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:1; 3:14; 8:17; Luke 1:31; Revelation 5:5).
@mavaddat I meant that our individual experiences are subjective...and that likewise we draw our own different interpretations from our own seperate lives and POVs.
I don't think that I do stretch the meaning of the word contemplate...we are still to (continually) seek truth on our own.
As far as laws that we don't yet understand...there are reasons to follow them, things such as unforseen circumstances for not following them. I can provide examples from the last 50 years in US culture.
I am sorry, dejahlm, I cannot find where I spoke about biased studies; could you kindly guide me back; I am obviously taking time to adapt to UA-cam discussions where postings are chronological and loose contexte.
The series started as video responses to other people's videos. Those videos are no longer online, unfortunately.
The first video was a guy asking what the Bahá'í Faith had to say about homosexuality, to which I responded with this video. Then a Bahá'í named Keyvan video responded to me, and I video responded back.
So yeah, that's the history of it.
My point is that the Bahá'í writings (not Bahá'ís themselves) are hateful of gay people. Bahá'ís are friendly of course. I love Bahá'ís.
@smoosav9 I kindly request that you do not SPAM my UA-cam video with lengthy quotations from your religion or commercial products. This is a discussion, not an advertisement space.
Leucthtenberg, there are two definitions of "homosexuality"
the one used in the writings refering to "way of life" refers to that strictly sexual activity definition, not a condition of desire.
I think you have many good answers to give to us gay Baha'is. I have been fighting this in my mind for about 50 years since i knew I was gay. You can only be accepted as a practising Baha'i, if you are celibate or can be changed and able to marry a person of the opposite sex, neither of these options is very realistic in our world of today with the knowledge we have of psychology! Whether it is "natural" or not, we know it is and must threrfore, unless we choose our sexuality, be from God too.
@mavaddat Please read the full letter. In the sentence right before the beginning of your quote, it is clearly stated that "the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children." Basically what your quote is saying is that a couple should not be forbidden to marry just because they are not able to procreate. This letter doesn't even mention homosexuals; the topic is "trial marriage."
@aaronlee75 Oh, also Bahá'í laws are meant to apply to all humanity, because they are said to be God's laws for everyone (not just those who accept them).
This old trope that "Bahá'í laws are just for Bahá'ís" is a rhetorical move that the Universal House of Justice adopted (alone) to avoid the embarrassing situation of having to explain why God's laws are apparently so nonsensical.
I've written about this on my Livejournal, which you can find linked from my UA-cam profile.
Yes, I saw it. I'm currently in the process of writing up a lengthy FAQ of responses I've gotten from Baha'is that will address all the points you raise and others raised by Baha'is.
Is it just to think that the rules you don't like should apply but the ones that you like should apply to everyone?
So giving reasons is idle talk, but giving unsupported conclusions (which is what you did) is not idle talk?
Isn't that exactly backwards?
@smoosav9 I didn't say the tactic was secret. I also didn't say that Bahá'ís think of their religion as made of human compositions. Obviously, just like Scientologists, Branch Davidians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and all religious people, Bahá'ís believe they are following the word of God or an infallible prophet. Why do you assume I am unfamiliar with the Bahá'í Faith?
I already provided the quote above. I'll provide here again:
"Regarding… one of the believers who seems to be flagrantly homosexual - although to an extent we must be forbearing …of people’s moral conduct …this does not mean that we can put up indefinitely with conduct which is disgracing the Cause."
You interpret the "moral conduct" to be Effendi's affirmation of the morality of being gay, whereas I interpret it as categorizing sexual orientation as being under moral scrutiny.
@RenovatedLocksmith Thanks for your support, Lock.
However, fear of hell is not the only way religions manipulate people to believe evil things. "Love of God" is so often employed in the Bahá'í Faith as a way of identifying who ISN'T loving God properly. Just look at the way gays are condemned: The Bahá'í narrative isn't that they will "go to hell," but that they aren't obeying (and therefore loving) God.
I am familiar with the term "histrionic personality", and will do more research on the connection. What I've found so far mostly talks about misdiagnoses of MS in the past, but there may be more, so I will continue to look further.
So what sort of discovery could possibly make you doubt your belief in Bahá'u'lláh's absolute authority? Is there anything? Or is it just impossible that you have the wrong beliefs?
It's true that the Bahá'í Faith encourages non-Bahá'ís to independently investigate, but it never encourages Bahá'ís to question or investigate alternatives to the Bahá'í doctrines.
On the contrary, Bahá'u'lláh explicitly says in various ways "To none is given the right to question their words" about "the prophets of God."
I have many more quotations in which every one of the Bahá'í authorities explicitly says Bahá'ís cannot question the Bahá'í Faith.
@meshkat19 People used to believe that if parents had a choice, they'd choose to make their African children White-skinned.
I don't particularly care how people choose to shape their children's genes. I also don't really care what prejudiced people think that other people will choose.
It doesn't actually change the fact that homosexuality isn't a disorder, doesn't harm society, and isn't immoral.
This isn't even an argument: It is speculation based on a conjecture about what parents might do.
How are the studies you've seen biased? This is an interesting point, so I think it shoud be looked at more deeply. If you want to discount a scientific study, I think it is important to be specific about your criteria for doing so.
An addition...We did in fact seem to have this same discussion some 9 months ago under the blog "Re: The Argument from Facts of Normativity".... My question there remains the same, though at the time you did not wish to "educate" me. It was regarding a basis for morality, or specifically "I am asking you to provide, and defend, a way of spreading/maintaining an alternate moral system." etc. Still, an agreed base is helpful
@smoosav9 "Arguments in the Baha'i Faith are forbidden (another rule)"
We haven't even disagreed about anything! All you've said is that Bahá'ís are not allowed to think about whether their religion might be wrong, and I agree. Where is the argument??
violence and discrimination is inacceptable
@smoosav9 I never asked you to keep commenting. One thing you learn when you study English is that a person is free to respond even if the other person says they don't want to respond anymore. See? You don't want to respond doesn't mean I have to stop responding. Best of luck in your education.
@mavaddat Again, it all boils down to perspective and what beliefs one accepts. I don’t feel comfortable at all with arbitrary discrimination, and that’s not what I BELIEVE Bahá’í marriage laws are. I believe that the restriction on Bahá’í marriage is spiritually beneficial, just like other restrictions outside the Bahá’í Faith. For example, I hope you agree that limiting the legal driving age is a good idea. But is this limitation discrimination based on age?
The question is not whether it's discriminatory, but whether it's *unfairly* discriminatory.
It is outrageous that anyone would be asked to refrain from consensual sexual relations for any reason other than that they are hurting someone.
Yes, "there are worse things you can do," but that's besides the point. Injustice does not suddenly become alright just because there's something worse. Besides, a religion that claims to be from God should not have any unjustly discriminatory laws.
@smoosav9 I never claimed that Bahá'ís believe they are a sect. My point was that I know that Bahá'ís believe they are following the word of God - just like those other religions. Makes sense?
I guess English isn't your first language, because you seem to have trouble following what I am writing.
Also, none of the religions I listed claim to be "sects" of any other religion, either. You can look that up in the Encyclopaedia Britannica too!
@mavaddat
we were talking about the baha'i claims of homosexuality to be unnatural we didn't talk about wether socialy they provide possitive aspects. two diffrent things.
My response was to someone who asked where it says that the Institutions were told not to pry into the private lives of people.
djahlm, what charcot described as "hysteria" was a behaviour that expressed an internal tension in a manner or language which was understood by society at that time. Our social language has changed, (but persists in some developping countries) and those tensions are being understood differently, broken down under new names such as a "histrionic personnality".
@tashaclaire1 I am quoting directly from the Bahá'í scriptures. I didn't add the word "wrong." Try reading your own religion's scriptures?
Surrender your conscience and you become a tool for others, usually for evil. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
@smoosav9 Actually, Bahá'ís are as willing to get second-opinions or file malpractice lawsuits against once-considered "competent" doctors or physicians as non-Bahá'ís.
So you would agree that you are either lying or mistaken about Bahá'ís never questioning the credentials of doctors they have deemed credible, right?
Also, don't you agree that Bahá'ís are only unquestioningly (i.e., blindly) obedient of their religious scripture, not any human authorities?
@MrJapilz Except "chastity" is a red herring, isn't it? Since we're talking about whether openly romantic gay relationships (marriages) are allowed in the Bahá'í Faith, pretending that this is an issue of chastity is just disingenuous and dishonest.
Of course, that isn't what the Bahá'í Writings say.
The Universal House of Justice wrote on 5 June 1993, "Regarding the question of whether or not same-sex marriages would ever be permitted by the Universal House of Justice, the enclosed extracts indicate clearly that it would not."
This is a clear and unequivocal rejection of the possibility of accepting any family unit that is formed by a same-sex couple, no matter how chaste and desiring of marriage they may be.
I think you meant "censoring." Yes, I didn't approve one comment you left that was proselytizing the Bahá'í Faith.
'Abdu'l-Baha says, "If religious beliefs are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions ; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition."
And, "The greatest cause of disheartening in the world of humanity is ignorance based upon blind imitation."
And, "If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act."
There are gardeners who use poisonous pesticides like DDT. There are carpenters who cut down much needed old growth forests instead of using sustainably farmed wood. Should we assume that just because of their chosen profession they are using the best practices available? Should we just take their word for it, or should we do our own research and decide for ourselves?
I do not overlook it. The fact of the matter is that the Will and Testament clearly stipulates that the guardian must, within his own lifetime, appoint a successor from the Aghsan which must be voted on and approved by nine chosen from among the Hands of the Cause by their peers. After the death of Shoghi Effendi the hands of the Cause concluded unanimously that he had not left an heir, thus the line of Guardians was broken. So while a succession is envisioned, it was not facilitated.
No one asks you to walk away, but to clarify your own priorities. If you feel close to a faith you adopt its way of life and if you wish to change a way of life, accept yourself as you are. what use is it to profess a way of life and live another? One who says that he does not consider being gay as useful way of life but cant help it is different from the person who says he does not agree with the principles and laws of a faith. Does that make sense to you?
The question is really,does the Bah'ai faith, or any other follow the laws of the land in which they live?
I am not a Baha-i but if the law says that two people of the same gender CAN "Marry" or in the case of the UK have a civil ceremony, then it has to be accepted. It is against the civil law in this country to discriminate against anyone at all on the grounds of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
Notmy, what is an arbitrary distinction please?
@aaronlee75 Yes, that is precisely my point. The Bahá'í Faith claims to provide laws that benefit all who would follow them, yet there is no reason to believe that prohibiting gay people from marrying is in any way the least bit beneficial. On the contrary, there are a whole host of reasons to believe that it is positively harmful and hateful.
But Bahá'ís want it both ways. They want to be able to say that these laws are beneficial, but that we may not ask why or how upon "becoming Bahá'í."
@aaronlee75 Yes, being raised a Bahá'í means I was made to accept philosophically (and psychologically) damaging assumptions.
But more importantly, the Bahá'í Faith is just wrong. Baháú'lláh was not a messenger of God. We have excellent reasons to believe that he wasn't. Moreover, the reasons he gives are often literally nonsensical. It's not just about me getting leaving the faith. It's about helping others (who are interested) see they're involved in something that's actually deeply mistaken.
Yes, you're right "hatred" and "condemn" don't have the exact same root. Although that is what I wrote, that wasn't my point. So I made a mistake. A "mistake" can happen when you mean one thing, but say or write another thing.
@aaronlee75 It is interesting how religious people have such a hard time differentiating between "personal attacks" and criticism of mode of argument.
"Personal attacks" are random insults or diversions about a person meant to distract from the discussion.
You will find I never do that.
Criticizing a person's mode of argument, however, involves recognizing chronic logical failures in the way a person is arguing due to their personality. This is what I do.
Insults are not the same as ad hominem.
@DivineFellowship Please do not post random SPAM on my video comment page. Thank you!
Earlier you said "flagrantly homosexual" meant "flout[ing] Baha'i laws of chastity," which I assumed meant being promiscuous. I can see now you meant having a sexual relationship outside of marriage. Sorry.
However, the only reason why gay Bahá'ís would have sex outside marriage is that Bahá'í Faith forbids gay marriage. Do you get that?
It's like telling women they cannot speak if they're not wearing pants, and then condemning them when they speak even though you forbade them wearing pants.
Something I dont understand: since the UHJ can freely reconsider it's own laws, or those of a previous UHJ, and since the only action of a living Guardian would have been to ask the UHJ to reconsider it's own laws, as we can all do, what difference would it make to homoseaxuals if there were a new Guardian?
Do you believe that the person who now claims to be the third Guardian has inspiration to offfer to the UHJ? If so, has he sent suggestions to the UHJ and what are these suggestions? Is this person favorable to homosexual marriages? Has he made any declarations on homosexuality and homosexual marriages?
Oh, the reason the comments have to be approved is that there was one obsessive compulsive Bahá'í (a few weeks back) who was relentlessly spamming this page. I made it this way to discourage him, but I have approved any message that isn't spam (e.g., pasting random Bahá'í writings or comments that are brazenly proselytizing).
@2JZGTTTE Sorry, what do you mean?
@mavaddat IMHO, having Bahá'í marriage confined to a woman and a man is a condition placed upon marriage itself, not upon a particular group of Bahá'ís. In fact, this restriction indiscriminately applies to all Bahá'ís, regardless of sex or sexual orientation. But you can look at this any way you want; to each his own. :)
@brotherwise
In fairness to "TheBahai" and other liberal and post-modernist Baha'is, I think their point isn't to be "hypocritical," but rather, to reinterpret the scripture in light of what we know to be consistent with "more fundamental" Baha'i teachings.
Search "Mavaddat Eric Hadley-Ives" in Google for an argument between me and a liberal Baha'i about whether the Baha'i Faith allows such independent redefinition of its tenets.
@aaronlee75 I repeat: You'll not find a single line of scripture telling Bahá'ís to question the validity of the Bahá'í teachings. Not a single verse that intimates critical thinking.
On the contrary, Bahá'ís are always told to not consider ideas contrary to the Bahá'í teachings.
"Contemplation" implies Bahá'ís searching for ways to accept or apply the Bahá'í law, not critically examine it.
Your assumption that "this is the way religion works" merely shows you've bought into dogmatism.
@ABahaiPointGroup No one is saying the Bahá'í Writings are ambiguous.
The point is that the Bahá'í Writings are clearly bigoted. The Bahá'í marriage laws are invidiously discriminatory.
The Bahá'í Faith has to change its own laws to be a moral religion.
Saying, "if you don't like it, then leave the religion," is like pretending we should accept bigotry as long as the groups that practice it all agree to be bigoted. That's just dumb.
The Spirit of truth in John 16:12-13 also can't be referring to Baha'u'llah. John 14-16 clearly identifies the Spirit of Truth as being the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17, 26). Jesus said that His promise of the Holy Spirit would be fulfilled "in a few days" (Acts 1:5), not in the 1800s when Baha'u'llah was born. That fulfillment came on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.
@aaronlee75 Haha OK, fair question. I understand your question as, Why criticize the Bahá'í Faith - surely one of the most progressive and (if nothing else) smallest religions in the world?!
There's not just one reason. First, I was a Bahá'í and it's important for me (for my own self-understanding, and for others to better understand me) to vocalize why I am no longer a Bahá'í. Also, I do believe that the Bahá'í Faith is hurting people where it doesn't need to. I should make a video about this.
Is there any possible discovery or truth that might make you doubt your belief in Bahá'u'lláh's absolute authority? If not, then does that mean you cannot possibly be wrong about your religious belief?
Also, what do you believe when the best available science (which is based on evidence and reason) disagrees with what your religion tells you to believe?
You seem to accept your religion. But this means you're rejecting the best available science.
So how are they complimentary?
I'm not sure if you realize this, but I don't really care about Baha'u'llah, nor do I speak or write Arabic. Baha'u'llah claimed to be able to read and write Arabic. I am just copying and pasting the Arabic translation of the words. I'm just trying to help you out.