Servant, you like to appeal to nature in your argument against homosexuality right? Well let me appeal to nature demonstrate that mankind will reject the next manifestation and I am granting the bahai version of history as true. Abraham came, the pagans rejected him. Moses came, the Pagans rejected him, Budha came, the jews when they found out about him rejected him. Jesus came, the Jews rejected him. Muhammad came, pagans, jews and Christians rejected him. Your prophet came, secularists, Christians, Jews and Muslims rejected him. When your future prophet appears I dare say here will be what happens; the Christians, jews, Muslims, bahais, secularists, Mormons, Jehovahs witnesses will reject him. Now we see a pattern donāt we, humans in the bahai tradition do not want to accept God and will reject him every time he comes, except a select few. Now itās either going to be youāre the special ones who will accept the next great manifestation and put the rest of us all to shame, or when he (Perhaps a her) teaches things contrary to your tradition you will like everyone before you reject him. Just something I would note and a problem bahai will have to deal with when I think a lot of people in a thousand years claim to be the true manifestation and bahais will be divided or remain bahai or leave, assuming your faith doesnāt die out before then.
Now, where in the sexual act is there room for God? I imagine it is very hard, are you saying two people in creating a child who do not think about God, who do not glorify him in their minds constantly in all things are doing a thing equal to having God in mind constantly? I do not believe that to be the case, we should never not think about God, we should always be drawing attention to him and this is quite simply higher. I might also make the argument that celibacy, in giving up a pleasure which is nearly irresistible and seeking to tame the body is more worthy than to give in to it. But you have shifted the attention of this conversation. This is not whether or not it is higher to be celibate, its what during the period when the New testament and Christians were true, that celibacy was the highest calling. You have not dealt with Paul, you have not dealt with Jesus. They lived out a life of celibacy, was Jesus incomplete for having not had a wife? Did his life lack fullness and virtue because of it? Or was he perfect and the ultimate example for all humanity? More perfect than Moses who disobeyed God and was punished for it? More perfect than Abraham who took his own destiny instead of listening to God about Sarah and slept with Hagar? This is the topic in question and I think I have defended celibacy and consequently the lives of Jesus, Paul (although he was married at one time he dedicated himself to the lord when he started his ministry), the saints and virgins of Old enough for you to deal with the problem instead of diverting it.
Was the period of the New testament, a time when celibacy was higher than marriage? Paul certaintly thought so, Jesus certaintly approved of those who became āeunuchs for the kingdomās sake,ā and in the example of men like Saint Anthony we see a life which lives out the gospel. Lets use saint Anthony as an anchor for this discussion, did he live the proper Christian life? The Highest idea of the Christian life? What besides his sin, did he err in? Living in the desert and praying to God without distraction? Why is this a bad thing? That he didnāt take a wife but gave up everything he owned, slept on the ground in caves in the desert? Why is this less than say Muhammad, who took as many wives as he pleased and probably as many concubines as he pleased and set the same example for Muslim men (whatever your right hand posseses). No doubt you will deny the accounts of Muhammad having concubines from a preconceived notion of your modern morality. You refuse to let the past define its own morality, its own revelation, instead it must be in line with bahai, although I cannot understand the reasoning. God changes the social fabric right? Its only divine dogmas he doesnāt change right? Why canāt God experiment every generation? You are fond of quoting your prophet, does your prophet ever say that homosexuality will always remain a sin? Even then why canāt we treat those words like you treat the words of Jesus, Moses or Muhammad as respective of their age? Do you see the problems here?
Now God gave us reproductive organs true, but is humanity to be defined in creating more humanity? Or in obedience to God? That that one cannot do both, you certaintly can, but what prohibits one from choosing a life in the cloister? How is that a life less than the life of the married?
Now you speak of Godās will, you then have to deal with those who cannot reproduce. What is their purpose in not being able to conceive? It seems to me you would have to say they have not lived life to its fullest, even if they have worshipped and dedicated themselves to God as such. Why should the mere existence of reproductive organs mean we must produce? Since God gave us the mouth and out of the mouth come evil things, does that mean God intended evil? Reproduction can be done immorally and is done so today, who is to say it shouldnāt be done that way and God intended it that way? The mouth was also created to eat but why shouldnāt that mean we can eat everything we want. Why is fasting from food good in bahai and fasting from sex oneās entire life a bad thing?
you should know this as well as we do.
