Frankly, I find this statement to be inflammatory and ridiculous.
If I were to say :
"I think you must acknowledge that the *black* lifestyle is one fraught
with short-term, often polygamous relationships with very little
emotional attachment. It is purely gratuitous sex." then I would be a
racist jerk. Even though the black community does have a high rate of
illegitimacy and multiple sexual partners.
There are *reasons* for groups having statistical patterns of behavior.
Blacks and gays are both socially marginalized groups, stigmatized for
their innate condition, and both face social assaults on their family
groups.
Given that, your use of the term "gay lifestyle" to tar all lesbians and
gay men with the same brush is as absurd as my railing against the
"heterosexual lifestyle". You are blaming and accusing all gay people
of acting alike, which is a ludicrous accusation.
The gay people _I_ know are all in stable, monogamous relationships with
their loved ones.
|This I can confirm from numerous studies, the words of many gays
|themselves, and programs like 60 minutes, where a homosexual said he
|had unprotected sex with a man he had just met three hours before
|because he found him attractive.
So what if 60 minutes found a gay man with self-destructive behavior?
I've met plenty of straight men who hop into bed as quickly.
Anectdotal evidence is completely subject to who is collecting the
anectdotes.
|Baha'is condemn such behavior period. It is not conducive to human
|development. If we all went around satisfying our carnal desires or
|our id's then we'd have anarchy.
Somehow, I fail to see how gay people's love life is equivalent to
"anarchy".
|Now many will argue that while some do such things, others don't. I
|agree, but the point is that humanity in general must protect itself
|against its own downfall.
Some laws and teachings do "protect us from downfall". Others
contribute to it. Certainly laws against miscegenation (interracial
couples) were "intended to protect against social decay). But an
ostensibly worthwhile goal is no insurance of the ultimate
reasonableness of a law or religious teaching.
|All people do not speed on the highways, but we have laws restricting
|speed limits, both upper and lower limits I should state, to protect
|everyone. How is this issue any different?
We agree on the harmfulness of excessive speeding. There is no such
consensus on the "harmfulness" of banning gay relationships--besides,
the latter is much more obtrusive and violates fundamental human
freedoms rather than secondary, less important ones.
|How many men would not have died of AIDS (+ the women that they have
|infected) if the HIV virus had not spread so quickly amongst the
|homosexual community because of their sexual practices?
A lot less. Does that mean we should discard our rights and freedoms
and become a planet of sheep because it is safer? Sometimes with
freedom you get burned--but you get burned in far worse ways when you
give over your freedom to those who would claim it, particularly in the
name of absolute truth. Those purveyors of absolute truth who have
ended up with the reigns of power have always abused them in the long
run.
Far better to mess up your own life through bad choices than have it
ruined by someone else claiming the right to make all your moral choices
for you. IMO.
|Couldn't one argue that rather than discriminating against homosexuals
|Baha'u'llah only seeks to protect them, and everybody else for that
|matter?
Personally, I don't require a shepherd looking out for me. I am not a
sheep. I am a human being, and worthy of discovering my own
relationship with God through my god-given freedoms.
|Remember we also condemn polygamy, and in Africa where homosexuality is
|not the issue but polygamy is, AIDS is spreading even faster than in
|North America. So how do we protect these people? Should we just let
|them die?
AIDS in Africa is rampant for a large number of reasons, IMO.
First, the general level of health is far lower. Second, there are
secondary infections rampant which make the AIDS virus much more likely
to be spread in sexual contacts, due to open sores, etc. Third, the
decaying regional economies, warfare, and overpopulation are resulting
in high levels of migration to cities, and widespread prostitution and
destruction of traditional family structures. Polygamy as a marriage
type is not responsible, but rather a general dizzying level of sexual
promiscuity.
|Should we hope that only "some" will engage in such activity? Would
|you not want to minimize the numbers? How would you do so?
I would teach that casual, anonymous sex is dangerous. I would treat
the secondary infections. I would provide condoms for those who still
engage in risky sexual practices.
|: Please be more specific about the diseases lesbians contract from
|: their sexual activities.
|
|I've addressed this above, but fungal and yeast infections are common
|either vaginally or orally transmitted.
I don't consider fungal infections a major scourge of humanity, more of
a minor irritation.
|: Did Baha'u'llah prohibit oral sex? Anal sex?
|
|Anal sex is forbidden. This is what was essentially meant by
|"homosexuality" as my understanding goes.
Interesting idea. Personally I thought the prohibition applied to
sexual practices of any kind between members of the same sex, not anal
sex itself (which is practiced by many heterosexuals).
|My Persian parents knew about anal sex, but when I tried to explain
|lesbians it seemed totally inconceivable. Perhaps, it was just
|culturally a moot point because of its extreme rarity...
I doubt it is that rare--but probably far underground and rarely acted
upon. It's not as if Persian women are free to follow their own
desires...
|I don't know about oral sex. I don't think I've ever read anything
|that says yes or no, so I won't say anything about this...
My mother wrote the House of Justice about this--they said married sex
is fine and ok regardless of expression.
|Interesting point, but it doesn't really address the fact that these
|sorts of correlations point towards causal relationships.
They _can_. Or they _can not_. For instance, you will find that
heavier human beings have more bald heads than lighter ones. You might
think that baldness and weight were correlated. However, young people
(who generally have all their hair) and women (who are smaller than men,
and much less subject to baldness), are lighter than men are. So the
correlation has nothing to do with weight poer se.
|You see it is believed that many forms of cervical cancer are caused by
|exposure to a specific virus. If this is true, then sex with multiple
|partners beginning at an early age would increase your risk.
True.
|Thus, I would suggest that Baha'u'llah sought to protect humanity from
|these and perhaps other physical and spiritual conditions that derive
|from such forms of contact.
Physical health is threatened by millions of factors more important than
cervical cancer which are not the subject of divine laws. For instance,
heart disease is the biggest killer in this country, and consumption of
fatty foods is one of the greatest contributers. Why not ban fatty
foods and allow sexual promiscuity, since the former is a greater cause
of death than the latter?
|: >But even more important and interesting is the fact that even if a
|: >woman has never had sex before, but her partner has had multiple
|: >partners, then she is still at a higher statistically significant
|: >risk of having cervical cancer. If you want I can send you the
|: >research that shows this.
I can accept this. But I don't see an increased risk of disease as
worthy of divine behavior control.
|: So? Cigarette smoking is far riskier, yet is allowed (if
|: discouraged).
|
|Well, for me when the Entity I consider as the Supreme Manifestation
|for this day, "discourages" something, I take that as a pretty strong
|indication not to do something.
Yet he smoked on occasion himself.
|Perhaps, Baha'u'llah recognized that in time humanity would brings its
|own condemnation of smoking because science would advance far enough in
|our day, while we may not yet know enough about the physical,
|emotional, psychological implications of homosexuality to be able to
|make broad statements about it.
Or maybe you and he are erecting an intellectual justification for a
visceral dislike of homosexuality and an "of course it is wrong"
reaction to it.
Before _I_ would go ruining the lives of millions of people and driving
many of them to suicide, I would as soon live with a few more cases of
hemerrhoids and yeast infections.
|: Yes, it could also be a *humanly created* law. People living 3,000
|: years ago weren't complete idiots--they were right about some things.
|
|I don't believe I ever said they were "idiots" but if it had been a
|human law it would not have been needed to be revealed by Moses.
Moses was the tribal authority. People usually obeyed him (or were
killed). Personally, with the Old Testament God preaching extermination
of numerous tribes, down to the suckling babes, I don't think such a
deity would worry about a few extra deaths from cervical cancer.
|Remember, that religious laws often go very strongly against prevailing
|social beliefs and understandings. Otherwise, I wouldn't be trying to
|explain our position on homosexuality, would I?
No. In our culture, for at least hundreds of years, gay people have
been discriminated against. And they still are. It is only an
enlightened minority of people like myself who have shucked the
husk-like prejudices of our Judeo-Christian heritage and realized that
gay people are no threat to us.
Consider than fact that eminent gay people like Ralph Waldo Emerson,
Walt Whitman, and dozens of artists and authors who are revered today
had to conceal their homosexuality from the public of their day.
|: Or perhaps he was simply prejudiced against the idea of having sex
|: with a man, and thought anyone who wanted to do so was _obviously_
|: sick.
|
|Seeing that Baha'u'llah kept even His mortal enemies in His own house
|and commanded that His family cater to and obey them, do you really
|think this is a legitimate statement?
I am impressed by the way Baha'u'llah acted when he had personal
knowledge of a situation. It is far easier to be prejudiced against
those who you don't know and are merely an intellectual concept in your
mind. If Baha'u'llah knew my gay neighbors and friends I have no doubt
he would write very differently about homosexuality.
|Also, think that if Baha'u'llah was prejudiced then His whole message
|had to be false, not just parts of it because then it would reflect
|only a human understanding not a Divine one, for God is surely without
|prejudice.
I don't get this. Are you saying that either everything Baha'u'llah
taught is true, or else it is all false?
I don't agree with that at all.
|Now if this is true, then why would Baha'u'llah want to limit His
|followers?
I don't think he disapproved of homosexuality because he wanted to limit
his followers. In fact, I think he himself believed what he wrote--and
I think he was inspired by God--just not to the degree he believed
himself to be.
But even if he _were_ seeking leadership, it is always good to have a
minority to excoriate in order to unite the majority. A role that
covenant-breakers serve quite well in the faith today.
|Obviously if he was only a man seeking glory or personal gain or social
|advancement, why did He limit His followers?
Again, I don't think _he_ was such a person. But if he were, not
everyone was going to become a Baha'i anyway. And in order to attract
more people, it is often very useful to create an atmosphere of
exclusivity to your group.
How many people would join the KKK if it allowed in blacks and jews?
|Point well taken. I completely agree. But this does not work for your
|arguments or position as opposed to mine. Indeed, as humans our
|understanding is limited. That means that we either can't or won't see
|many things. It doesn't make the Baha'is wrong any more so than it
|does you.
Nor more right.
|: >I see your point here but don't feel that it really addresses the
|: >issues I raised. How, if not through spiritual means and Divine
|: >Guidance can humanity overcome its problems?
|
|: I never denied spiritual means nor divine guidance. Merely that
|: there was a monopoly on the two, owned by Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i
|: institutions.
|
|I still don't think that you have answered a question I have raised on
|numerous occasions. If there is a system you are aware of that works
|better than the Baha'i faith, I would be interested to hear of it.
I do. It is called the enlightenment.
Seriously, I think that taking personal responsibility for our souls and
our relationship with the divine, using our own minds and eyes to
discover the truth, and finding our own moral values (although drawing
on the resources of our ancestors as well) is the best path for most
people.
|Otherwise, I think we are talking about human beliefs. Human beliefs
|do not lead millions into willing submission for millennia, or create
|rapid and unmistakably improved social structures and mores that lead
|to human progress on all levels.
Actually, they can do exactly that. The enlightenment is exactly what
you just said can't happen: it was a human conceptual breakthrough that
created rapid and unmistakably improved social structures and mores.
If you care to argue this, I will be glad to point out exactly why the
enlightenment was an improvement over the theocracy and feudalism that
came before it.
|I also don't get this "monopoly" idea, because Baha'u'llah praised many
|non-religious figures throughout history such as Plato, who He called
|"The Divine Philosopher". If anything I think that the Faith is the
|one body of understanding that makes it very clear that understanding
|is progressive and that no one, including the Manifestations, knows
|everything. Only God does, which makes sense if you believe in God to
|begin with. If you don't, well then much of what I am saying is
|useless, because my arguments assume a belief in some form of Higher
|Understanding.
The "monopoly" idea is pretty simple. Baha'is claim that their
revelation is "the truth". In other words, every Baha'i scripture is
true, every Baha'i idea is true, the Baha'i theology is true, the Baha'i
morals are true, etc. etc.
The problem is, other systems of thought are relegated to being "less
true" inasmuch as any parts of them disagree with the Baha'i scriptures
and teachings. Which they all do, to varying degrees. Catholic belief
conflicts with the Baha'i. So does Unitarian teachings. So does
atheism. So does Buddhism.
So Baha'i has claimed it has the monopoly on absolute truth, to which
all other belief systems must bow down in acquiescence and fealty. They
are true only when and where they do not conflict with Baha'i teachings.
This is what I mean by "monopoly". Yes, Baha'is _do_ accept other
thought-systems and beliefs as _containing_ truths, but the absolute
standard is the Baha'i revelation.
|: >The correlations are quite clear: Increase in atheism in this
|: >century has also correlated with an increase in warfare, terrorism,
|: >psychoses, neuroses, diseases, strife, poverty, famine, stress,
|: >divorce, crime, and the list goes on. I do not claim any sort of
|: >cause and effect relationship, but to ignore the correlations is to
|: >ignore historical facts.
|
|: I could as easily "correlate" these woes with the Baha'i faith, and
|: blame them on the Baha'is.
|
|Really? How? I wish you had provided a deeper explanation of this
|because I can't see how 5 million Baha'is who have helped to raise
|social consciousness on many important issues, have caused "warfare,
|terrorism, psychoses, neuroses, diseases, strife, poverty, famine,
|stress, divorce, crime" or any other socially "bad" phenomena.
You just blamed all the woes of the world on the rise of atheism,
because they occurred at the same time. I merely suggested that it
could as easily be correlated with the Baha'i faith as with atheism. It
was a fascecious argument, designed to show the problems with your
argument.
|: C'mon here, that is no way to construct a logical argument.
|
|I am not trying to construct anything. I think I even mentioned that
|there is no causal link, but that a correlation points towards certain
|areas to further investigate.
I think this is an unfair way to argue. You pick out a phenomenon you
dislike or disagree with and try to associate it with the forces of
decay and chaos.
|Personally, I think all of these factors tie in together and do effect
|cause, but you may disagree. As i said before, I pray for you and hope
|that you are happy. If you feel you can improve our world through your
|own means, then I don't think any Baha'i has a problem with that...
I do feel than my *means* (ie enlightenment logic, thoughtfulness,
reflection) improve the world.
|: >Moreover, look at history, every time society has reached its lowest
|: >point, the appearance of a new religion has catapulted humanity to
|: >new levels of understanding and knowledge.
|:
|: What is "society"? There have been thousands of societies born,
|: growing, decaying, dying, disappearing throughout time. When one
|: dies, another takes its place. And many of the successful new ones
|: have nothing to do with the official Baha'i Manifestations--such as
|: the rise of the enlightenment and birth of the idea of human rights.
|
|When referring to "society" it certainly depends on the technology and
|understanding of the time. 2000 years ago, society was the Roman
|Empire because it covered the majority of the globe and where it did
|not reach, many "societies" existed but were not as socially developed.
|Some existed at the level of Tribe while Rome existed as essentially a
|really big city-state. today, because we have an ability to reach all
|parts of the world and meet and speak with all people, society reflects
|universal humanity.
Of course, Roman religion (which worshipped living Ceasars) was not
"manifestation" religion.
|Moreover, I respectfully disagree with your statements about new
|societies that have nothing to do with religion and were successful.
I never claimed societies having nothing to do with "religion" were
successful. Merely that religion takes forms which have nothing much to
do with the Baha'i theology of manifestations coming every thousand
years or so and renewing society.
I would consider the enlightenment to be a religious movement isasmuch
as the motivations behind it were about the divinization of the
individual mind and scientific thought.
|could you provide evidence for this? Indeed, more importantly could
|you provide evidence that any religion has created conditions that were
|detrimental to the society it created, as compared to the conditions
|people existed in before the advent of that religion...
Sure. Jim Jones, David Khoresh, the Ayatollah Khomeini, etc.
The *successful* religions grow and spread, the bad ones die out
quickly.
| : >How does our society today differ, from, say pre-collapse Rome?
|
|: The similarities do not bear on the question of atheism.
|
|We are not talking about atheism, my friend. We are talking about
|social collapse and how to prevent it.
Go live off the land. Societies are born, grow, get old, die. The
simple folk simple live on their farms, and watch empires rise and fall
around them.
|Thus, the similarities are VERY important because our universal society
|is already in the process of collapse. As with Rome, only religion
|will pull us out of our own errors. You said yourself, that ancient
|people were "not complete idiots", so why didn't they prevent the
|collapse of Rome, the enslavement of the Hebrews, the Dark Ages, etc.?
So your nostrum is supposed to cure all the ills of society?
I don't particularly even see it curing all the ills of the Baha'i
community. In my last community before leaving, there was a group of
youth who went off with a Baha'i on an extended trip. He proceded to
sexually molest most of the Baha'i boys on that trip.
There are several Baha'i girls pregnant (and single) in that community
today and recently. Divorce is rampant in that community. One Baha'i
there (my mother in fact) is homeless, yet the Baha'is haven't given her
a home. Another is under serious mental stress from being a single mom
without any financial support from the father of her three teenage boys,
and working difficult, financially meager jobs--she has suffered two
breakdowns already. Another woman is a shut-in with chronic arthrhitis,
with few in the community who visit her. A teenage Baha'i girl I knew
had sexual relations with a married Baha'i man in that community.
I don't see all the problems in the world suddenly solved through Baha'i
religion.
|: I never claimed religions were all bad. Yes, we owe a lot to
|: Muhammad. And to Jesus. And to King, and Ghandi, and Einstein, and
|: Galileo...
|
|A couple of points here. If we are talking about Truth with a capital
|"T" there is only one Truth.
What does capitalization have to do with anything?
|There may be many ways of getting to it, but the reality is singular.
I agree that all of reality is connected, but don't agree that it is
"singular".
|Now if religions have some "bad" then they |are not "Truth".
true.
|I don't believe that any religion teaches anything "bad" and that is
|why I believe religion is Truth.
O.K.
|Second, With the exception of Einstein ( who was a very moral person
|and was tragically upset with the uses of his knowledge) the figures
|you have mentioned above were all very religious...
So are most people.
What does "religious" mean though? I consider myself religious, just
not in the "obey a prophet and religious organization" way.
|Carl Marx gave humanity a lot and he wasn't very religious...Where did
|that get the people that followed him?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
|I do however have a little more of a problem with why you don't chose
|to but your brother can. Philosophy has to be universal in this day
|and age. If its good for the goose its good for the gander.
So everyone has to prefer the same things? If I were attracted to men,
I would have a male partner. I am attracted to women, so I have a
female partner.