Dagens sitat

Om ingen setter andre foran seg selv
vil alle føle seg annenrangs.

Sex , homosexuality and Bahai

I have heard that sodomy means pederasti, sex between young men/boys and men. It it mentioned here in a discussion as well at the middle of the page.http://bahai-library.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2016

Baha'i Library Forum - View topic - Sihaq

bahai-library.com

and if that is what it means I totally understand it is forbidden ,because then men take advantage of boys. I see no evil in sex the way a married couple wants. Anal sex is suppose to activate kundalini, and that is exciting, I think.

LIWAT=Arabic word meaning “the sin of the men of Lot” (i.e. Sodom). It refers to homosexual “sex acts” and not merely to anal sex as “sodomy” has come to mean in modern American English. From:http://justabahai.wordpress.com/.../a-bahai-view-of.../

A Bahá'í View of Homosexuality and Gay Rights?

justabahai.wordpress.com

"Say, it is forbidden to you adultery, homosexual relationship, and treachery. Do not commit these, O assemblage of believers."
Here it is the relationship between men that is the sinful, not the anal sex itself.

http://bahai-library.com/compilation_chaste_holy_life 

I think of sex as a spiritual practise so I can't see the evil in it. Do you mean homo-sex is forbidden because kundalini may have harmful consequenses Byron Jefferson Bailey or what did you have in mind, please? Evil must be to use others and harm them, I think, and here is a lot said about the translation of the words that is saying something similar. It is a bit down on the page. This is really interesting, and I am not finished reading it yet. I appreciate your comments here.http://bahai-library.com/armstrong-ingram_provisions...

Provisions for Sexuality in the Kitab-i-Aqdas in the Context of Late Nineteenth Century Sexual...

bahai-library.com

The word pedophile is not used, is it? What if that is what Bahaullah meant was evil, one adult using a boy, and not the loving realtionship between men? What if it was not sex outside marriage, but rape he meant was evil? Marriage is important for children growing up, but two can marry even though they do not want children, so it is not a good argument saying two men can not marry because marriage is for the sake of children.

Nino Nietsuah Dear Henrikke Julie Wilhelmsen,
The Old Testament sums up in Ezekiel 16:49 what was the sin the people of Sodom committed:
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. "

To state that the sin of Sodom is having same-sex sex is, Biblically speaking, wrong.

Robert Montes Thank you Byron! Unfortunately despite the 2010 letter from the UHJ admonishing Baha'i's not to discriminate against gay people I can see it is still going on here among Farhan and others. You are right that most Baha'is want to act like the sexual impulse that all humans have can be ignored. People need to be educated. Baha'u'llah himself that nobody should live a celibate life, that monks and nuns should come out from their monasteries, that everyone should find a mate (and in my opinion that includes gay people) and live in a monogamous, married relationship.

For me this discussion is not "talking about or sex-life". I would like to understand what Bahaullah must have had in mind when he said no to homosexual relationships and what meaning he put in the words that are translated to sodomy and pre-marital sex.

What is it about masturbation that is no good? Is it the energy that are removed with the orgasme? Is it the fantasies? The focus on it? Is it that you do not make a union? What if you do it to raise the energy and do not have a normal (top) orgasme and don't touch yourself physical at all, or as a meditation where you give up your own will? Is masturbation wrong when it is done just to have pleasure? or release tention?

What does sex mean for Bahaullah? Is it the action or the purpose of doing it the most important? To want to delete it sounds like it is provoking some issues. There should be no shame in our sex life. That is why this topic is important to discuss.

I have wanted to understand what it is about sex before marriage that is wrong and have given it much thought and also experimenting. Is it because it can make children? Is it because noone should be used for pleasure, is it because the energy should not be used for pleasure? It is not for pleasure but for making union? Is it because they don't love each other yet? Is it because many get feelings for someone they have sex with and the same don't always happen with the other?

And why is it forbidden to love someone of the same sex physically? Is it because of the energies that do not unite, or do they unite? Is it the anal- sex that is unhealthy? Is it unhealthy physically or energetically? Is it because God never meant that some of the same sex should fall for each other, but that something happened that made someone stumble out of the straight line?

For me the most important to understand now is the energy-aspect of relationships and methods. Anal sex has some effects that genital sex hasn't. Not very much is known about the subject unfortunately, and not strangely, since it is tabu. Everything can be negative or positive, it depends on when /where it is used. If it is suitable or not.

Can something done in love or making love be a sin? I don't think so. If what you do, either you do it by your self or someone else no matter the gender, it is pure when love is involved. When the ego is withdrawn everything is well.

i går kl. 11:26 · Redigert · Liker

Sonja van Kerkhoff good question Henrikke Julie Wilhelmsen - "I would like to understand what Bahaullah must have had in mind when he said no to homosexual relationships and what meaning he put in the words that are translated to sodomy and pre-marital sex." - which means we need to look at the original text (as far as I know the text translated into English which begins with " "Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery...." originates from one source penned by Baha'u'llah). And the 2006 text from the Research department indicates that the word "liwat or liwaat" used in this text refers to the act of sodomy/perverted sex done by whomever, not on homosexuality as an orientation. If so then as far as I know there is no mention by Baha'u'llah on the topic of homosexuality.

How do we know that adultery is not just cheating on a partner (hurting someone)? Does perverted sex/lethergy include actions that do not offend others? Perverted actions that offend others is to use others for their own satisfaction, either it is adults or children, exposing them selves while masturbating and watching others having sex. Pervertion is going over other people's line. I don't see the harm in a man who wants his wife to pee on him or want to have some kind of role play.

nino says
Also, all that stories of growing spiritually by ttaking away people the opportunity to feel and live love is, in my humble opinion, nothing else than hearsay. The institutions tell us it was for the personal betterment of those people to abstain from loving relationships and,therefore, reality must be that way. But reality is quite the opposite: people losing their faith because of that ... and stop growing spiritually. They start loathing themselves and are pushed further and further away from God.
I know so many LGBT people who used to be Christians, Muslims, or Bahais but they lost any spiritual connection simply because their religions told them that.

Religion is supposed to be a safe haven and a cure for people's lives - but in matters of LGBT people it turns out to be not only hell on earth but also a disease.

If this religion, as well as Islam and Christianity, narrowmindedly have misunderstood God on that point, Nino Nietsuah, we have a huge job to do. The world would look different. Less shame all over. It is the allembracing love that is important. It is very strange that God would make a body that have to live alone with no intimicy. It would be more like God to make differences so we had to stretch ourselves to tolerate and love these differences.

Sonja van Kerkhoff I agree Farhan Yazdani - you wrote " we very clearly have that legislation on homosexuality" and so because there is nothing written by Baha'u'llah the U.H.J. is free to make and change its own policy - here is the lastest U.H.J. policy dated Oct 2010: "Therefore, to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith. Furthermore, a Baha’i is exhorted to be “an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression”, and it would be entirely appropriate for a believer to come to the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated."
Earlier policy referred to homosexuality as a disease or as something to overcome. Since 2010 that is no longer the U.H.J. policy on homosexuality and I wish more Bahais would take heed and stop writing things such as homosexuality is wrong, etc. I guess it takes time.

A friend of mine, a bahai, said when i mentioned homosexuals that Bahaullah had reacted negatively towards men using boys, only. That is very different. Calling a desire for children sick sounds more likely than calling homosexuals sick. No not the desire, but the action that is so heartless and full of self.

for 22 timer siden · Redigert · Liker · 1

sexual addiction is a disease and that may be the meaning of the word "Liwat". Here I found that the word lechery is wrong. that it should be treashery. The meaning is then not sex between two women but cheating. "The original Arabic excerpt of the 1875 Tablet of Baha'u'llah can be found on page 338 of Ishraq-Khavari's "Ganjineh-ye-Hudud va Ahkam" (Treasury of Laws and Ordinances). The three key words mentioned are:

1. Adultery ("Zenaa")
2. Pederasty, or sodomy ("Livaat")
3. Treachery ("Khiaanat"), NOT lechery ("Fesq," literally "immersed in lustful or immoral activity")" source:http://bahai-library.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9470

Bahaullah do not say much about sex. That we know. But he does say many times, yes stresses, that we must get our body, our desires under control. So I think this is what he is thinking about when he is on the sex-issue. In heaven you will not see two men standing behind each other behind every other tree:) Love must come first.

Have Bahaullah or Abdul Baha said marriage is for men + women only?

Where does Bahaullah say that homo-sex is sick? Some bahai's say homosexuality is possible to treat. I do not think Bahaullah thought of that when he said something was sick, but to have no control over the body and being heartless.

6 t · Liker

Farhan Yazdani Henrikke the sacred writings speak of men and women but I have found no text specifically saying that same sex marriage is prohibited.

Henrikke I know of no Baha'i text referring to homosexuality as a disease. Medical science for a long time has done so and has changed more recently, and many Baha'is have not studied the subject so they give their own understanding. There is however a text of Shoghi Effendi saying that doctors can help overcoming this condition and you will find this in various documents from the UHJ

Bahaullah and Abdul Baha never said: do not ever fall in love with someone of the same gender.

I can understand that men are not allowed to have sex with boys and men in a profligate manner, because this threatens marriage. But if two men marry this is not a threat. Most people are not homosexual and there will not be too few children because of it. On the contrary, there are a lot of children that needs parents.

 It has been very satisfying to have this discussion. A burdon has been lifted. When i became bahai when I was 23 I got so disappointed when they told me about the gays rights, that gays are not allowed to have a partner. Now i understand Bahaullah did not think like that, and then i love this religion even more. I am not lesbian myself, but I think justice should be for all. And having a loving partner is very important for most people, so I care about this even though I am not effected personally.     

 

            

Ye are forbidden to commit adultery (zina), sodomy (liwat) and treashery ( khianaat). Avoid them, O concourse of the faithful. By the righteousness of God! Ye have been called into being to purge the world from the defilement of evil passions. This is what the Lord of all mankind hath enjoined upon you, could ye but perceive it. He who relateth himself to the All-Merciful and committeth satanic deeds, verily he is not of Me. Unto this beareth witness every atom, pebble, tree and fruit, and beyond them this ever-proclaiming, truthful and trustworthy Tongue.

So what does sodomy, adultery and treashery mean?
Sodomy is not as simple as anal sex. Bahaullah reacted negatively towards the action: men using boys. He is talking about something evil here, so it must mean something that is hurting others. Like rape, cheating (treashery), using animals or people or masturbate in public.

Sodomy, the sins in the town Sodomy, is not about homosexuals at all: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombibg193.htm 

In the bible anal sex between men is mentioned, but not as a sin but as something dirty:

Leviticus 18:22

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Romans 1:26–27

26 For this reason wGod gave them up to xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 

1 Corinthians 6:9

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,3

 

Deuteronomy 22:25–27

25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

Zina: sex outside of marriage or cheating?

Liwat: male homosexual, pedophilia or sex-addition?

Khianaat: cheating.http://bahai-library.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9470

Bahaullah do not say much about sex. That we know. But he does say many times, yes stresses, that we must get our body, our desires under control. So I think this is what he is thinking about when he is on the sex-issue. In heaven you will not see two men standing behind each other behind every other tree:) Love must come first.

 Where does Bahaullah say that homo-sex is sick? Some bahai's say homosexuality is possible to treat. I do not think Bahaullah thought of that when he said something was sick, but to have no control over the body and being heartless. Neither Bahaullah or Abdul Baha have ever said that homosexuals can't marry each other.
I wonder what happens to a man who is already married to another man in the church when he wants to be a bahai. He is not occupied with sex, but to serve humanity. He loves his partner. And what if they already have adopted children? Is he told to divorce him if he wants to be a bahai? That would be embarrassing, I think.

http://justabahai.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/bahaullah-the-subject-of-boys/ :


“”We shrink, for very shame, from treating the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desire.” (page 58, Kitab-i-Adqas, 1992 English edition) Baquia then illustrated use and context for the Arabic term Baha’u’llah used “ghulaam” which refers to: slave, page; lad, or servant, and exclusively males.

I can understand that men are not allowed to have sex with boys and men in a profligate manner, because this threatens marriage. But if two men marry this is not a threat. Most people are not homosexual and there will not be too few children because of it. On the contrary, there are a lot of children that needs parents.

Ny åndelig praksis.

Jeg har begynt med en praksis endelig. Jeg har ønsket en praksis og har skjønt den utvalgte praksis var anbefalt av Gud ettersom to personer "tilfeldigvis" snakket varmt om den på samme uke uten at de visste at jeg var på søken etter en praksis. 

Inspirert av den hellige ånd/ intuisjonen (tanker gjennom mitt hode, altså, ikke fra boka):
Ting, tanker, følelser og hendelser, alt det skapte tillegger vi betydning og kan derfor velge fritt å ikke bry oss om fordi de ikke representerer noen sannhet i seg selv.

Det er ved å tillegge ting betydning vi holder liv i de. Om vi ikke tillegger de noe betydning vil de være som døde for oss fordi vår bevissthetskraft er trukket ut av dem. Det siste merket jeg under øvelse 2 i et kurs i mirakler. Et poeng er at vi skal være klar over at det er vi selv som bestemmer og har fri vilje i dette henseendet. Det må være slik vi skaper vår egen virkelighet. 

Buddha sa at vi ikke skal sette merkelapper på ting. Heldigvis forklarer EKIM ( et kurs i mirakler) poenget med dette nøye.

Riktig å korrigere andre?

Igjen og igjen lurer jeg på om det er moralsk rett å snakke andre til rette. Selv liker jeg det ikke om det sies i en irritert tone og med nedlatende holdning. Sjelden har jeg opplevd å bli forsøkt korrigert på en vennlig måte, som om det var en gave som ble gitt. Men det har hendt og da ble jeg svært takknemlig. Jeg betrakter det da som en kjærlighetshandling. Det samme budskap kan altså gis uttrykk for enten i kjærlighet eller hat.

Det står i bibelen "du skal sette din neste til rette" (noe sånn). Da jeg tenkte det kom denne innskytelsen: "du skal gjøre mot din neste som du vil andre skal gjøre mot deg". Stilt opp imot dette vil bibelsitatet om å sette andre til rette få en veiledende støtte. For jeg kan da spørre meg: ville jeg selv likt å bli korrigert på den måten jeg tenker å korrigere på? Et budskap kan sies på uendelig mange måter men også bare to. Så svaret er både ja og nei. I vennlighet blir svaret ja. I fiendtlighet blir det nei.

Vitebegjær.

Jeg har blitt kalt et levende leksikon, men det er langt fra sannheten. Sønnen min bombarderer meg med 100 spørsmål hver dag. I tillegg har jeg alle mine egne. Heldigvis har jeg internett-tilgang. Men internett eller ikke; jeg skal ta dette som en hint fra en høyere intelligens om at vitebegjæret må styres hele tiden, akkurat som annet begjær, i en retning som er verdifull. Og jeg skal lære sønnen min det samme, ved å ikke gidde å finne svar/ svare på det jeg finner uvesentlig.