Bahai Forums

Go Back   Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Teachings

Baha'i Teachings Baha'i Teachings and Doctrine - Social Principles, Greater Covenant, Lesser Covenant


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-29-2015, 07:31 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: USA
Posts: 116
Silly stuff in the faith.

IMHO: Church has always failed in the bedroom. You have a middle aged man who is married to what, 3-4 women, telling me not to masturbate for the first 18 years of my life , because here in America you basically cannot marry until 18 years old. I'm sorry but that is totally stupid. Then he says I can only marry two women and then his son says Ahh no, what he meant to say was that it was impossible to love more than one woman at a time. This is the retarded stuff I held against most every other religion. Ignorant stuff that makes no sense and hey, just take our word for it. You cannot defend this silly stuff to anyone outside the faith. You cannot defend this type of hectic, sporadic teaching. I don't care what you say, it is messed up.

In God Speaks Again, it is addressed that God is not a man even though the masculine term is applied, yet SE used just that argument to determine only men could be in the UHoJ, because the Manifestation used the masculine in referring to the members of the UHOJ! ,and no one questions it because SE is perfect, right. Same as homosexual. the Manifestation denounced the act of grown men taking boys for sexual use, not homosexual, consenting adults. Yet here again SE distorts the Manifestations teaching to denounce homosexual and not child sexual abuse. and he is perfect so we cannot question, When I get questioned about these silly Teachings I cannot defend them.
 
Join Baha'i Forums


Welcome to Baha'i Forums, an open Baha'i Faith community! We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the Baha'i Forums family!


Old 06-29-2015, 09:27 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Blue Planet
Posts: 1,132
I only answer one of the accusations here and leave the rest for others.

you have said :
Quote:
Same as homosexual. the Manifestation denounced the act of grown men taking boys for sexual use, not homosexual, consenting adults. Yet here again SE distorts the Manifestations teaching to denounce homosexual and not child sexual abuse.
now look; this is the translation you usually see about what Baha'ullah has stated on the matter:
Quote:
"Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery."
BUT

let me tell you that this translation is NOT accurate. Baha'ullah in original version (Persian language) has used the word "Lawat" for sodomy. I don't care what anyone wants to give as the English trans. for Lawat but I am a Persian language and i tell you that Lawat means "any kind of sexual relationship between two men- and it is not related to age at all". Lawat is also used in Quran for a group of people called "people of Lut". they had used to do Lawat. so God cursed them and they were all killed in a natural disaster. a better translation for what Baha'ullah's law is this:

Quote:
"Say, it is forbidden to you adultery, homosexual relationship, and treachery. Do not commit these, O assemblage of believers."
(The prophet Baha'u'llah stated in 1875 (as translated by Kamran Hakim))

The former translation might be interpreted to condemn even celibate gay and lesbian relationships. The latter translation uses the word "sodomy" which is ambiguous; it might be narrowly interpreted to condemn only anal intercourse, and thus only refer to some male gays. It might have a much wider meaning covering other non-coital sexual activities. It would then include sexual activity by the vast majority of gays and lesbians, and some bisexuals.

you can agree or not. but to disagree with a Persian language person on the matter of translation of a Persian word is not wise.
and one more thing:
if we don't like some laws or we cannot adjust ourselves to them let's be frank and just say that we can't. it is no use putting the fault on someone else's (Shoghi Effendi, UHJ etc) shoulders.
 
Old 06-29-2015, 09:38 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: United States
Posts: 1,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelAW View Post
IMHO: Church has always failed in the bedroom. You have a middle aged man who is married to what, 3-4 women, telling me not to masturbate for the first 18 years of my life , because here in America you basically cannot marry until 18 years old.
I'm sorry but that is totally stupid.
What is stupid? That the Baha'i writings say that masturbation is not the best use of the sex instinct, and that sex outside of marriage is a bad idea? There is actually an enormous amount of scientific evidence that having multiple sex partners damages the ability to form permanent pair-bonds with your spouse when you do get married. This blog post cites several such studies:

The Social Pathologist: Sexual Partner Divorce Risk

As for masturbation and pornography consumption, there is good evidence that the dopamine rush of orgasm rewires brain pathways and can permanently change sexual response and attraction triggers:

Your Brain On Porn | Evolution has not prepared your brain for today's Internet porn

Quote:
Then he says I can only marry two women and then his son says Ahh no, what he meant to say was that it was impossible to love more than one woman at a time. This is the retarded stuff I held against most every other religion. Ignorant stuff that makes no sense and hey, just take our word for it. You cannot defend this silly stuff to anyone outside the faith. You cannot defend this type of hectic, sporadic teaching. I don't care what you say, it is messed up.
You think it makes no sense that, in a polygamous culture, the Baha'i Faith gradually ended the practice of polygamy over a couple of generations, instead of banning it immediately, outright? Baha'u'llah made it very clear that monogamy was the strongly preferred option in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, and Abdu'l-Baha simply, eventually, stated that monogamy was in fact required.

Quote:
In God Speaks Again, it is addressed that God is not a man even though the masculine term is applied, yet SE used just that argument to determine only men could be in the UHoJ, because the Manifestation used the masculine in referring to the members of the UHOJ! ,and no one questions it because SE is perfect, right.
People don't question Shoghi Effendi simply because the Baha'i Covenant gives him the absolute authority to determine the interpretation of the teachings as the Guardian. He made it very clear that he is not "perfect". But the Baha'i Covenant gave him authority to authoritatively interpret the meaning of the sacred text. With his passing, there is no longer anyone else empowered to perform authoritative interpretation.

Quote:
Same as homosexual. the Manifestation denounced the act of grown men taking boys for sexual use, not homosexual, consenting adults. Yet here again SE distorts the Manifestations teaching to denounce homosexual and not child sexual abuse. and he is perfect so we cannot question, When I get questioned about these silly Teachings I cannot defend them.
I think it is pretty obvious and incontrovertible that practicing homosexuality instead of heterosexuality drastically reduces the chance that a person will have any biological offspring. One of the primary purposes of religion is to enable the human race, individually and collectively, to carry forward an "ever-advancing civilization".

Now, academic studies have shown pretty clearly that religious people in the modern world have a fertility rate equal to replacement rate, while the non-religious have a fertility rate about half of what is necessary. It doesn't seem strange to me that religions give their followers rules that support reproduction, since non-religious cultures cannot sustain their population over many generations.

See Michael Blume's research for a good summary:

http://www.blume-religionswissenscha...sKnowledge.pdf

The Baha'i rules around sexuality are for Baha'is - we are admonished not to hold prejudice or treat with bigotry anyone who is not a Baha'i nor expect them to follow our religious laws. Nonetheless, those laws are not "irrational" - in fact religious laws, especially those around the "bedroom" appear to be *necessary* for social function, most especially to encourage reproduction and the transmission of values from one generation to the next.
 
Old 06-29-2015, 10:00 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Blue Planet
Posts: 1,132
OK Michael, I didn't use the word "silly"- you can have your own personal idea and then I SAID that I will only comment on ONE of the points, that is Homosexuality and i will leave the rest for others simply because the rest of the cases are too clear to me to even be able to explain them more!

you have said :
Quote:
I think it is pretty obvious and incontrovertible that practicing homosexuality instead of heterosexuality drastically reduces the chance that a person will have any biological offspring.
this might be true (I don't have enough scientific researches) but please let me give you my personal idea:
some laws within a religion are not about "physical" aspect of life. some laws are more concerned with spirituality like for example in Islam, eating pork is forbidden, clearly forbidden and look at the thousands of scientific researches which Muslims refer to to bring reasons for the law on not eating pork. Muslims will tell you that scientific researches show that pork has some microscopic bacteria which cannot be killed even in 100 degrees. but what happens next? in Baha'i faith eating pork is NO MORE FORBIDDEN. so what has happened? the story about bacteria had been wrong? I don't know but what i know for sure that in each age some rules are necessary for spiritual reasons.condemnation of homosexuality may or may not have any scientific reasons- to me it is more about spirituality and the fact that many people have talked now against the Baha'i laws only because they cannot control their sexual desire is a good proof to show how this law is about spirituality. if one can control this aspect, it may lead to a stronger personality.

PS: I agree with the law of having only one wife and i don't care if it is given gradually or immediately. and also, as a woman I have no problem with not being able to be a UHJ member! these days men are more enthusiastic about women rights! funny!
 
Old 06-29-2015, 10:08 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelAW View Post
IMHO: Church has always failed in the bedroom. You have a middle aged man who is married to what, 3-4 women, telling me not to masturbate for the first 18 years of my life , because here in America you basically cannot marry until 18 years old. I'm sorry but that is totally stupid.
Actually I don't think Baha'u'llah ever said anything about masturbation. The Bab refers to it in a Tablet wherein He says, "You are forgiven your masturbations."

In any case, this isn't a law which carries penalties anyhow.

Quote:
Then he says I can only marry two women and then his son says Ahh no, what he meant to say was that it was impossible to love more than one woman at a time.
Actually not what was said. Baha'u'llah says beware that you don't take more than two wives and that if you want tranquility stick to one. What Abdu'l-Baha says is that you can't be just to two women not that you can't love them both. The Qur'an had conditioned polygamy on justice.

Quote:
In God Speaks Again, it is addressed that God is not a man even though the masculine term is applied,
The masculine form applies only the Writings in Arabic. Persian has no gender.

Quote:
yet SE used just that argument to determine only men could be in the UHoJ, because the Manifestation used the masculine in referring to the members of the UHOJ!
Actually it was Abdu'l-Baha who made that interpretation.

Quote:
Same as homosexual. the Manifestation denounced the act of grown men taking boys for sexual use, not homosexual, consenting adults.
Baha'u'llah condemned both though His language when referring to pederasty is much stronger. The Guardian didn't make this up.
 
Old 06-29-2015, 10:20 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryamr View Post
let me tell you that this translation is NOT accurate. Baha'ullah in original version (Persian language) has used the word "Lawat" for sodomy. I don't care what anyone wants to give as the English trans. for Lawat but I am a Persian language and i tell you that Lawat means "any kind of sexual relationship between two men- and it is not related to age at all". Lawat is also used in Quran for a group of people called "people of Lut". they had used to do Lawat. so God cursed them and they were all killed in a natural disaster.
The reason Liwat is translated as sodomy is that we are talking about the same store which is found in the Bible as well as the Qur'an. The English translation of Lut is Lot, Abraham's nephew. Sodom is the name of the city that was destroyed. The story goes that three angels visited Sodom where they were hospitably received by Lot, but the other citizens not only did not show hospitality but tried to rape them. So originally it referred to male rape not simply anal sex. In fact the original biblical story was about Sodom's inhospitality, male rape merely being the worst example of that. But the emphasis of the story changed over time and when it appears in both the New Testament and the Qur'an the emphasis is clearly on sexual perversity. I would agree that Liwat as generally used refers to any homosexual activity, whether by males or females.

This statement doesn't make sense to me, however:

Quote:
The former translation might be interpreted to condemn even celibate gay and lesbian relationships.
We don't condemn homosexuality as such, but rather homosexual activities. If one is celibate one is not engaged in such activities whatever ones proclivities might be. Celibacy precludes both anal and oral sex.
 
Old 06-29-2015, 10:32 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
[QUOTE=Matthew Light;66374
I think it is pretty obvious and incontrovertible that practicing homosexuality instead of heterosexuality drastically reduces the chance that a person will have any biological offspring. One of the primary purposes of religion is to enable the human race, individually and collectively, to carry forward an "ever-advancing civilization".[/QUOTE]

The terms translated as 'carry forward an ever-advancing civilization' is islah-i alam literally bringing about the repair or betterment of the world. Reproduction may not be the best way of doing that. Note Baha'u'llah tells us to raise up one who will make mention of Me. We are no longer told to multiply and fill the earth. (Done that, quite nicely, thank you.)
In any case, by this logic should people who are no longer capable of bearing children be prohibited from marrying. Should the elderly stop having sex? The argument you raise is precisely the one which the Supreme Court found unpersuasive for precisely that reason.

Quote:
Now, academic studies have shown pretty clearly that religious people in the modern world have a fertility rate equal to replacement rate, while the non-religious have a fertility rate about half of what is necessary.
Do we really want to maintain our current population? Is that leading to the 'betterment of the world'? Again, Baha'u'llah said 'raise up one.' The fact of the matter is birth rates go down as people become more educated and prosperous. This corresponds to religious people because sadly it is the poor and uneducated who tend to be the most religious.
 
Old 06-29-2015, 10:38 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Blue Planet
Posts: 1,132
what is all this argument for? frankly i cannot see the reason! there is the law stated by Baha'ullah which says that act of Lawat (homosexuality and having sex with same sax) is FORBIDDEN. it is forbidden and that is the end of the matter whether it has or has not a scientific reason.
 
Old 06-29-2015, 10:40 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Blue Planet
Posts: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post

This statement doesn't make sense to me, however....
OK, don't be so picky. get the gist of the matter
 
Old 06-29-2015, 11:01 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: _
Posts: 502
Actually is is a bit more complicated, depending on how liwat is translated. If it refers to just one or two particular sex acts, then, presumably, a lot of married straight folks are just as guilty if not more so, then many homosexuals. Of course, who'se to know? Reminds me of sex education class in 7th grade when the teacher let us fine upstanding and mortally embarassed students know that 95% of males masturbated, and afterwords we all lied and assured our friends that we were in that superior 5%.

Maybe just maybe this is a kind of conversation no one wants to really have? I don't. Said my peace.
 
Old 06-29-2015, 11:05 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: United States
Posts: 1,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
The terms translated as 'carry forward an ever-advancing civilization' is islah-i alam literally bringing about the repair or betterment of the world. Reproduction may not be the best way of doing that.
Without religion, the population by the time of the next Manifestation would be a few million human beings.

I don't think we can maintain the global institutions of science, art, religion etc. with such a small population.

All religions encourage that the religious reproduce themselves - secular atheism encourages birth rates far below replacement. Of course we don't need Amish-style population rates (and I think the Amish will have to reduce their growth rates drastically, soon).
 
Old 06-29-2015, 11:08 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: United States
Posts: 1,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryamr View Post
what is all this argument for? frankly i cannot see the reason! there is the law stated by Baha'ullah which says that act of Lawat (homosexuality and having sex with same sax) is FORBIDDEN. it is forbidden and that is the end of the matter whether it has or has not a scientific reason.
I have never seen any religious law from an Manifestation that did not make sense.
 
Old 06-29-2015, 11:09 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by noogan View Post
Actually is is a bit more complicated, depending on how liwat is translated. If it refers to just one or two particular sex acts, then, presumably, a lot of married straight folks are just as guilty if not more so, then many homosexuals.
By the time Islam comes along liwat definitely refers to homosexual activity. Muslim jurists sometimes included heterosexual sodomy as liwat or even aggression and inhospitality. But the primary meaning is same-sex relations and Shoghi Effendi certainly interpreted it that way.

Quote:
Of course, who'se to know? Reminds me of sex education class in 7th grade when the teacher let us fine upstanding and mortally embarassed students know that 95% of males masturbated, and afterwords we all lied and assured our friends that we were in that superior 5%.

Maybe just maybe this is a kind of conversation no one wants to really have? I don't. Said my peace.
Probably. Let's just keep it with what the Bab indicated. Better to keep it where it belongs, but "you are forgiven your masturbations."
 
Old 06-29-2015, 11:11 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Light View Post
I have never seen any religious law from an Manifestation that did not make sense.
I think Baha'u'llah indicates in the Tabernacle of Unity that some laws are merely to distinguish the community.
 
Old 06-29-2015, 11:21 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Light View Post
Without religion, the population by the time of the next Manifestation would be a few million human beings.
Not likely. We will keep up a certain level of population simply because the need will become apparent. China loosened up on its one-child policy because
1) There aren't enough females for the males to marry.
2) There won't be enough people to take care of the elderly.

Right now developed countries don't normally abort female fetuses. In the developed world if we don't get the gender we want, we will go ahead and have another child. We don't abort female fetuses because they are the wrong gender. While this was widespread in India when I lived there, it is now illegal. As for the second issue, that can be resolved at present by immigration. When the demographics start creating a problem for us we will have more children.

Quote:
I don't think we can maintain the global institutions of science, art, religion etc. with such a small population.
I doubt if it will ever get that small. At present our world population is still growing, though not at the rate it was previously. So let's cross this bridge when we get to it. Things like science and art do not decrease because the population decreases. As for religion, that remains to be seen.

Quote:
All religions encourage that the religious reproduce themselves
Like I said, all we were told to do was 'raise up one.' Doesn't mean we can't have more but it is clear doing so is not a religious injunction. We've already multiplied and subdued the earth. A little too well if you ask me.
 
Old 06-29-2015, 02:09 PM   #16
Minor Bloodsucker
 
gnat's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: Stockholm
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelAW View Post
You cannot defend this silly stuff to anyone outside the faith. (...) Yet here again SE distorts the Manifestations teaching.
These are issues that can be discussed, and there is sense in doing so. However, I cannot dedicate any effort to this discussion for a simple reason: I resent the lack of basic respect. Words like "silly stuff" and "SE distorts" make me totally lose interest in devoting any effort to the clarification of these matters. Referring to the Guardian as "SE" who "distorts" things is an unacceptable show of disrespect.

gnat
 
Old 06-29-2015, 04:10 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: n ireland
Posts: 1,747
I have a problem with equating sodomy with homosexual activity. Don't heterosexual couples sometimes include sodomy in their sexuality?
 
Old 06-29-2015, 04:24 PM   #18
Jcc
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Edwardsville, Illinois, USA
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnat View Post
These are issues that can be discussed, and there is sense in doing so. However, I cannot dedicate any effort to this discussion for a simple reason: I resent the lack of basic respect. Words like "silly stuff" and "SE distorts" make me totally lose interest in devoting any effort to the clarification of these matters. Referring to the Guardian as "SE" who "distorts" things is an unacceptable show of disrespect.

gnat
That was my reaction too, but some of the later discussion is interesting and helps to provide clarity. It's good practice in keeping cool, refusing to be baited and providing clear, truthful answers.
 
Old 06-29-2015, 04:33 PM   #19
Jcc
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Edwardsville, Illinois, USA
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by aidan View Post
I have a problem with equating sodomy with homosexual activity. Don't heterosexual couples sometimes include sodomy in their sexuality?
If you read Susan's discussion above you see that "sodomy" or "liwat" in the original Arabic refers more generally to homosexual acts, and references the story of Lot in the Qur'an and Bible. Apart from that, I wouldn't know about anal sex, not that adventurous.
 
Old 06-30-2015, 08:15 AM   #20
Minor Bloodsucker
 
gnat's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: Stockholm
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcc View Post
That was my reaction too, but some of the later discussion is interesting and helps to provide clarity. It's good practice in keeping cool, refusing to be baited and providing clear, truthful answers.
Oh, I do understand what you say. I'm not a bit upset. I just feel a very strong voice inside me, saying NO! to even considering deliberating on an issue for as long as it is presented in such a disrespectful way. Or to put it in another way: I'm absolutely unable to do it.

gnat
 
Old 06-30-2015, 09:56 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: United States
Posts: 1,203
People can get in a very difficult place with their faith, and we should do what we can to help them out rather than to criticize them for what they say when they are in that place.

Often times people lash out because they are hurting.
 
Old 06-30-2015, 11:01 AM   #22
Minor Bloodsucker
 
gnat's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: Stockholm
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Light View Post
People can get in a very difficult place with their faith, and we should do what we can to help them out rather than to criticize them for what they say when they are in that place.

Often times people lash out because they are hurting.
I'm not criticizing a person. I just express my deeply-felt inability to accept certain ways to talk about the Faith. It is my weakness: I can't stand such language. It belongs in certain circles. If the person asking the question were to reformulate the question in respectful language, I'd be able to discuss the issues.

gnat
 
Old 06-30-2015, 02:40 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: n ireland
Posts: 1,747
And , for me, the only acceptable abbreviation of the Universal House of Justice is "The House "
 
Old 06-30-2015, 07:43 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
ahanu's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: 北京/美国
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
. But the emphasis of the story changed over time and when it appears in both the New Testament and the Qur'an the emphasis is clearly on sexual perversity.
It seems the concept of homosexuality in the NT differs from our modern view. The Oxford Classical Dictionary reads:
"No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term 'homosexuality,' and ancient Mediterranean society did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operating category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. ... The application of 'homosexuality' (and 'heterosexuality') in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised."
 
Old 06-30-2015, 09:44 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahanu View Post
It seems the concept of homosexuality in the NT differs from our modern view.
I think the major difference is that in antiquity there was no such thing as a 'gay identity.' If we look at the Greeks, for instance, it seems that same-sex was for pleasure whereas opposite sex was for babies. Most of those who engaged in same-sex behavior eventually got married and made babies.
By the way, this still was still largely the case when the Aqdas was written.
 
Old 06-30-2015, 09:52 PM   #26
Tony Bristow-Stagg
 
tonyfish58's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Normanton Far North Queensland
Posts: 3,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnat View Post
Oh, I do understand what you say. I'm not a bit upset. I just feel a very strong voice inside me, saying NO! to even considering deliberating on an issue for as long as it is presented in such a disrespectful way. Or to put it in another way: I'm absolutely unable to do it.

gnat
The smell of the Bait did not catch this fish

God Bless and Regards Tony
 
Old 06-30-2015, 11:03 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
ahanu's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: 北京/美国
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
I think the major difference is that in antiquity there was no such thing as a 'gay identity.' If we look at the Greeks, for instance, it seems that same-sex was for pleasure whereas opposite sex was for babies. Most of those who engaged in same-sex behavior eventually got married and made babies.
By the way, this still was still largely the case when the Aqdas was written.
By writing "there was no such thing as a gay identity," do you mean they had no concept of homosexual orientation? If so, how can Christians, for example, use the NT as a proof text for the condemnation of gay marriage today?
 
Old 07-01-2015, 05:59 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
randalljazz's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: anchorage, ak
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by aidan View Post
And , for me, the only acceptable abbreviation of the Universal House of Justice is "The House "
yes.
 
Old 07-01-2015, 11:23 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Blue Planet
Posts: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Light View Post
People can get in a very difficult place with their faith, and we should do what we can to help them out rather than to criticize them for what they say when they are in that place.

Often times people lash out because they are hurting.
for some unknown reasons what you have said here had made my heart ache. I agree with you. i will try to be kinder. maybe someday such questions happen to me too
 
Old 07-01-2015, 11:28 AM   #30
Minor Bloodsucker
 
gnat's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: Stockholm
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahanu View Post
By writing "there was no such thing as a gay identity," do you mean they had no concept of homosexual orientation? If so, how can Christians, for example, use the NT as a proof text for the condemnation of gay marriage today?
Oh, in those days it seems that anything was ok in Rome and Greece. Heard the opinion on Caesar's bisexuality: "Every woman's husband and every man's wife"? Thus is Julius Caesar characterized by Curio, according to Suetonius.

gnat

Last edited by gnat; 07-01-2015 at 11:50 AM.
 
Old 07-01-2015, 03:00 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahanu View Post
By writing "there was no such thing as a gay identity," do you mean they had no concept of homosexual orientation?
It generally was not an exclusive orientation, nor did people form their identities around it.

Quote:
If so, how can Christians, for example, use the NT as a proof text for the condemnation of gay marriage today?
What the Bible condemns is homosexual behavior not an identity per se. But I'm not sure how the very recent emergence of gay identity should effect how Christians read their Bible.
 
Old 07-01-2015, 03:05 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnat View Post
Oh, in those days it seems that anything was ok in Rome and Greece. Heard the opinion on Caesar's bisexuality: "Every woman's husband and every man's wife"? Thus is Julius Caesar characterized by Curio, according to Suetonius.

gnat
Not quite. Polygamy for instance, was prohibited in both cultures. But as I mentioned same-sex for pleasure was fairly widespread. In the Roman Empire it was okay to pitch but shameful to catch. Hence, acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, never freeborn minors.
 
Old 07-01-2015, 03:48 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: n ireland
Posts: 1,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
Not quite. Polygamy for instance, was prohibited in both cultures. But as I mentioned same-sex for pleasure was fairly widespread. In the Roman Empire it was okay to pitch but shameful to catch. Hence, acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, never freeborn minors.
" ok to pitch, shameful to catch". What does this mean please?
 
Old 07-01-2015, 03:58 PM   #34
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Here
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by aidan View Post
" ok to pitch, shameful to catch". What does this mean please?

To be polite, it was acceptable to be the giver in the homosexual act, but not the receiver.
 
Old 07-01-2015, 04:45 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: n ireland
Posts: 1,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace View Post
To be polite, it was acceptable to be the giver in the homosexual act, but not the receiver.
O my dear God!!! Such flippancy regarding sexuality is symptomatic of today's society
 
Old 07-01-2015, 06:54 PM   #36
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Here
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by aidan View Post
O my dear God!!! Such flippancy regarding sexuality is symptomatic of today's society
Hey I was just delicately answering the question you asked!
 
Old 07-01-2015, 08:36 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
becky's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: colorado/summer-Oklahoma/winter
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace View Post
Hey I was just delicately answering the question you asked!
I think he was referring to the OK to pitch, shameful to catch...
I was clueless as to what it meant, too.
Strange conversation...

Last edited by becky; 07-01-2015 at 08:40 PM. Reason: Added
 
Old 07-01-2015, 11:56 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
ahanu's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: 北京/美国
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
What the Bible condemns is homosexual behavior not an identity per se.
No, what the Bible condemns is homesexual behavior in its societal context, rendering it silent to today's homosexual behavior.

Quote:
But I'm not sure how the very recent emergence of gay identity should effect how Christians read their Bible.
Here's how: they understood same-sex acts as something between heterosexual people. Since the concept of a homosexual person didn't exist back then, progressive Christians say the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual behavior between homosexual people. I'm not sure how this doesn't affect one's reading of the Bible.

Last edited by ahanu; 07-01-2015 at 11:59 PM.
 
Old 07-02-2015, 01:06 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by aidan View Post
O my dear God!!! Such flippancy regarding sexuality is symptomatic of today's society
Well, how do you say it delicately?
 
Old 07-02-2015, 01:51 AM   #40
Minor Bloodsucker
 
gnat's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: Stockholm
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
Not quite. Polygamy for instance, was prohibited in both cultures. But as I mentioned same-sex for pleasure was fairly widespread. In the Roman Empire it was okay to pitch but shameful to catch. Hence, acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, never freeborn minors.
Well, not for nothing, Caesar was called 'the queen of Bithynia', after having had an affair with king Nicomedes.

gnat
 
Reply

  Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Teachings

Tags
faith, silly, stuff



Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook @bahaiforums RSS


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2006 - 2017 Bahai Forums. All rights reserved.