Hume said: “Mistakes in religion are dangerous, mistakes in philosophy only ridiculous”
Your thoughts please…
My immediate thoughts are, “ARGH! DON’T PUT TOPICS LIKE PHILOSOPHY VS. RELIGION UP. IT DISTURBS PEOPLE.” Philosophy and religion are not opposites and should not be seen as such.
I can see Hume’s point and I would further use the example of science. Science, like religion, is interested in the truth. However, science allows for mistakes and corrects itself when mistakes are found. Some religions (please note not all) are not subject to change and will not admit mistakes.
To use the example of “homosexuality is wrong” in the monotheistic religions, this is clearly a cultural misunderstanding of those living in the time it was written down. However, it is so intrenched within the religion that believers will hold this to be true even today. Scriptures also tell us that women and inferior, slavery is acceptable and so is stoning people to death. This is how mistakes are dangerous in religion.
HOWEVER, before i’m accused of being a staunch atheist (which i’m not) I should like to propose a religion that corrected its mistakes. It has, like most religions, divinely inspired texts. How can a religion work if the text written by its supreme being is flawed? The believers must hold it to be true until the end of time in order to be consistent with the religion.
So yes, it may be dangerous, but it is certainly understandable and perhaps not as foolish as Hume thought?
Ben, I apologise for my use of title but that is the title given to me by my philosophy teacher to write an essay on the Hume quote. I am fully aware that religion and philosophy are not opposites and I apologise for any offence I may of caused.
yet again i find myself correcting ben… ‘To use the example of “homosexuality is wrong” in the monotheistic religions, this is clearly a cultural misunderstanding of those living in the time it was written down. However, it is so intrenched within the religion that believers will hold this to be true even today.’
Firstly, this is most offensive… claiming that i only hold this to be true because it is intrenched in my religion… i believe this because my faith has always believed it and clearly it is still relivant today… what is natural and usuful about homosexuality… it serves no purpose… however before i get accused of be homophobic, i also belive that sex before marriage is wrong as are lots of other things… further christianity teaches that people should ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’.
‘Scriptures also tell us that women and inferior, slavery is acceptable and so is stoning people to death. This is how mistakes are dangerous in religion.’ on this section of bens text i would say that these examples were those of the jews and jesus completed the scriptures. The mention of women be inferior in the new testiment is by paul who states that it was his opinion for the time that women should not teach in the church… paul makes a clear definition between his view and that of God, which consequently differentiates between Rules for ever and rules for those times. One rule that is for ever is that homosexuality is wrong as is sex before marriage.
The stoning people to death is dealt with by way of love you neighbour as yourself and was consequently finished.
And so in conclusion, Christianity does answer all bens points… i do not claim that every religion does so… i would be interested to hear if the Jews and Muslims have answers to these???
i’m sorry if you find it offensive but everyone must be allowed an opinion if these boards are going to work.
You say homosexuality has no purpose. If it brings two people together in a loving relationship is that not a good enough purpose? If, by banning homosexuality, you are denying millions of people their right to love and express their feelings and emotions it seems like you are just denying a purpose that is there.
Secondly you say homosexuality is unnatural. What does it mean to say something is unnatural? Being a vegetarian is unnatural since humans have carnivorous teeth. All types of medicine are unnatural. Are you saying we should ban vegetarianism and stop all types of medicine since they are both unnatural? It’s a ludicrous proposition but it does follow from what you have said.
Did Jesus not say “I have not come to change the law but to fulfil it”? When you say the text is that of the jews you are talking about people who are following a law that God has given them. If Jesus has changed the scriptures which he says he hasn’t, did God just get it wrong the first time round? If yes, can the homosexuality law be wrong too?
As you said Paul takes his authority from God, from society and from himself (and other places too.) I can assure you that a lot of the things that Christians follow today, including the idea that Jesus was both fully human and fully God, come from Paul’s own authority and was made gospel at the Council of Chalcedon during the Roman Emperor Constantine’s reign. However, you do not reject this and others but you seem happy to reject other things that Paul has said including the woman speaking in church etc.
I’m not convinced therefore that Christianity has answered all the questions and I do not think any other religions could either.
firstly… it does not say that medicine is wrong in the bible… this is why i have a belief that homosexuality is wrong as i do believe that sex before marriage is wrong also.
As i said before, a lot of pauls teachings are his own, based on how he applied Jesus’ laws… but the difference between what God says through Paul and what Paul says is clearly defined in his writings… There are things that Paul teaches (not God (see above)) that wouldnt apply today… and one of these is the women business… in those times women were disruptful in the Church and caused problems in a male dominated society… whereas now we have an equal (almost) society! If you are going to question ‘why does this change not apply to homosexuality’ then don’t… as that rule was one of Gods laws and not Pauls teachings.
Now reguarding God changing his laws… this is perfectly acceptable. As in the old testiment the Jews were fighting great oppression from the Egyptians and consequantly had to fight there way out and battle for many years… the Laws God gave them enabled them to survive. Now, in Jesus time, although still being oppressed, God had given another oppurtunity and no longer was eg ‘an eye for an eye’ necessary.
in conclusion, it is perfectly acceptable to change laws to suit the ever changing world… our Government does it constantly! But until God changes a law then there is no debate over it being right or wrong… to a believer it is simply law.
homsexuality is no more unnatural than heterosexual oral sex. If you argue against homosexulaity on the grounds that men are designed to have sex with women and not men then you must argue against heterosexual oral sex by saying that the mouth is designed for eating and nothing else.
or…
God gave us intelligent, thinking minds with which to interpret the clues he gave us thousands of years ago. It’s perfectly fine to say that we should sit around innocently waiting for God to change laws that need to be changed as mankind progresses, but then are we not squandering out God-given gift of reason?
An extremely good point there chloe, which reminds me of the story of the man who is trapped in a burning building. A policeman(person?) runs in and says “come on lets go” and the man says “no, God will save me.” Then an ambulanceman comes in and says “come on let’s go” and the man again says “no, God will save me.” Then finally a fireman comes in and the same things happens.
The man dies in the flames. He goes to heaven and says “ere God, why didn’t you save from the flames?” and God says “I sent the policeman, the ambulanceman and the fireman you idiot!”
It just goes to show that you don’t need a “sign from God” to do things in life and as chloe said, reason could be the gift from God which enables us to change laws that we feel are outdated or wrong.
a very good point… however,the story does not show anything applying to laws though it is true that some people are oblivious to Gods call to them or how he speaks to them but it is clearly not a change in law and thus not a change in belief.
about the ‘God given gift of reason’, it is true that this is a gift of God but it is also true that we should not take this gift and abuse it to become gods ourselves. We should not decide when God is wrong… it is not our place to do so (and personally i dont believe he is ever wrong… but thats another discussion)… you are right Chloe, God has given us a gift as he has in many other ways but to abuse this is wrong.
About oral sex being unnatural, this is true also… but again (such with medicine) it does not say that it is wrong in the bible so it is not law. However, if i am true to my beliefs i believe that oral sex along with mutual masturbation is wrong before marriage as to say that these actions do not constute part of sex would be wrong of me.
one finds themselves wondering how a god-fearing christian can live by the bible and yet spell testament “testiment” but there we go, that’s another point.
you claim that homosexuality is useless. but at the same time, what is the harm in it? one of my main problems with people who are fervently religious is that they stop questioning what is in the scriptures even when it is entirely unreasonable. granted, much of what is within the bible is very relevant and probably will be for years to come … “do not kill”, etc. they are pretty much absolute morals. but what harm does homosexuality actually do? if god was so loving, why would he limit a way of life which does not detrimentally affect anyone? so before you simply answer “god said it, it must be right”, ask yourself, “god said it so it’s probably right, but why the hell DID he say it?”
(we wont talk about my spelling)
secondly, dont get me started on God-fearing, i have long debates with many Christians about this topic…
… one thing that was brought about by homosexual sex - HIV - even though nowadays it is also a sexually transmitted disease, initially it was a homosexually transmitted disease… and would not have come about but for Gay sex. HIV now costs many lives and pain all across the world… so please dont tell me there was no harm in it! Ok nowadays any sex can transmit this terrible disease… but orgininally it was Gay sex… but this also stands for hetrosexual sex… as if we stuck to Gods rules, no sexually transmitted diseases would occur, as any infection would stay between partners…
So you see Gods rules do apply today, even though you may think they dont.
This is my problem with religion. It creates narrow-minded ignorance such as above.
Daniel said:
“one thing that was brought about by homosexual sex - HIV”
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THIS? Show me ONE bit of unbiased medical evidence which shows HIV comes from homosexual sex!!! How can having sex create a virus!! That’s like saying heterosexual sex created the flu!!! IT’S ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! This is the biggest myth surrounding HIV and it is ignorant and completely unfounded. It’s just a lame argument used by homophobes to condemn homosexuality. It’s a disgrace that people still think like this!
If you actually bothered to look for 5 MINUTES on the subject you will have come across this page:
http://www.avert.org/origins.htm
The origins of AIDS/HIV. Not once in the WHOLE page does it mention homosexual sex. And I quote:
“So where did HIV come from? Did HIV come from an SIV?
It is now generally accepted that HIV is a descendant of simian (monkey) immunodeficiency virus (SIV). Certain simian immunodeficiency viruses bear a very close resemblance to HIV-1 and HIV-2, the two types of HIV.
For example, HIV-2 corresponds to a simian immunodeficiency virus found in the sooty mangabey monkey (SIVsm), sometimes known as the green monkey, which is indigenous to western Africa.
The more virulent strain of HIV, namely HIV-1, was until very recently more difficult to place. Until 1999 the closest counterpart that had been identified was the simian (monkey) immunodeficiency virus that was known to infect chimpanzees (SIVcpz), but this virus had significant differences between it and HIV.”
Before you reply to this post I strongly suggest you read this website and others like it. Your claims are TOTALLY unfounded and are just a result of narrow-minded Christian propaganda. You think that’s unfair? Show me one bit of evidence to support your claims and then I might reconsider.
It’s stuff like this that causes so much hate in the world.
couldn’t agree more ben. yup, i am often an ignoramus myself, but that statement was pretty rash.
i’d also like to add that the spreading of HIV - which has now got to ridiculous levels - is surely not helped by the fact that Catholics and others condemn contraception. I know you will probably say “people shouldn’t have promiscuous sex, etc” but the desire to have sex is part of human nature, and the fact that the Catholic church condemns something which could help stop the spread of AIDs is completely bizarre to me.
So if gays didn’t “create” AIDS, and aren’t doing anyone any harm, what exactly IS the problem with them?
ok… perhaps that was a mistake… but the fact still remains that Gay sex and hetro-sexual sex still spreads aids and HIV… there is not one argument against that. If the rules were kept to; it would not have spread.
secondly… the catholic church may condemn contraception, although it does not say in the bible this is wrong i can see why they think like this: The freely available contraceptives promote promiscuous sex and so i can see why the catholic church are against it, although personally i dont feel it is wrong (with marriage).
I would argue that God’s Law promotes the complete opposite of HOMOPHOBIA… which is a disgusting word in itself and i am appalled that you would label me as such ben, just because you are so narrow minded that you cant understand my beliefs on this matter, or simply wont open your eyes to the fact that they do make sense doesnt make me a homophobic. My faith does stand up to any scrutiny on this matter if people took the whole set of rules and didnt just single out the bits they find slightly uncomfortable.
‘Hate the sin, love the sinner’ this is my most fundamental beliefs. Just because you believe something is wrong, doesnt mean that you hate the person… infact christianity teaches the opposite and it is narrow minded people such as yourselves who bash christianity without reading the passages that disgust me… it is athiest propaganda that singles out a rule and makes it seem bad for the devils benefit! So before you insult me some more learn about what you are talking about!
(ps: Ben this is me you are dealing with)
AIDS doesn’t spread, it is acquired. HIV is spread via sexual contact, blood transfusions and drug use (needle-sharing). What rules are you referring to which would have stopped HIV spreading?
In my post I did not label you a homophobe, I said that the argument you gave was used by homophobes. I’m not equating Christianity to homophobia because I know many christians who do not have a problem with homosexuality.
No, I’m not an expert on the bible but I know that Leviticus clearly states “homosexual sex is an abomination unto the Lord.” Paul condemns it countless times in the NT and traditional Christianity sees it as wrong. Whatever label you want to give it, I see the condemnation of the sin as wrong. I believe it was a cultural law proposed at the time which has been taken as eternally true as deemed by God. You tell me not to take things out of context, but you are not taking this law in context of the time it was written.
The whole point of this exercise is to learn what each other is on about. I think homosexuality is fine and I think that religion condemning it does no good for making homosexuals accepted in society. Maybe in theory Christianity does not promote homophobia but in practice you will find it often does. In the same way the communism works when written down, but in practice it is doomed to failure. That’s human nature for you.
P.S (see you at the mill tonight 
)
I know I’ve come in a bit late in this argument I do apologise, but ppl here condoning homosexuality is a reflection of the society we live in today where almost nething goes…if u can justify nething on the basis of pleasure then who r we to say that beasteality (spelling !!!) is wrong ?! Morals and principles are out the window and as long as ur happy and as long as ur satisfied everything and anything goes (As long as its legal !) There are two points of view here…one the religious the other scientific…in regards to Islam homosexuality is wrong FULL STOP. Its entirely absurd and deviates from the essence of mankind and therefore ultimately from God. Now thats all well and good if ur a Muslim but as this doesn’t seem to be the case lets look at it according to science. If, as it seems to be doing, homosexuality continues to grow then where are we as mankind heading…to extinction ??? Ben to condemn these views as narrow minded is firstly narrow minded in itself but secondly and more importantly rubbish…simply because a religion gives u a law such as: homosexuality is wrong, does not make u narrow minded it just goes to show that u stand for something. In the world we live in today, if we don’t stand for something we will fall for nething. Which is what seems to be happening right now.
p.s: The Israel post is on its way !!! (i’m really sorry about the delay !)
Muslim Reprasentative,
I can tell that from your viewpoint what you are saying makes a lot of sense, but it’s actually quite absurd.
Homosexuality is not the same thing as bestiality. Bestiality is effectively the rape of non-consenting animals, and is based purely on (rather twisted) sexual desires - it is not a social interaction/relationship. A homsexual relationship is just like any other, and is not simply sex.
Also, the human race is not heading towards extinction - quite the opposite. I think most scientists would suggest that overcrowding is more of a worry. I would also argue that homosexuality is not “growing”, simply more people are admitting to being homosexual because - thankfully - people like yourselves are starting to have less of a voice in society. So whilst the number of people who call themselves homosexual is rising, it will probably plateau out at some point when no-one has to hide it, and not keep rising until everyone in the world is gay.
As for your views based on Islam, I see there is little point in challenging them because you obviously believe in them very strongly.
As for your argument that in today’s society “anything goes” if it is pleasurable, that’s a valid point. However, if it harms no-one, then surely anything SHOULD go if it makes people happy? Fairly basic point, but I’d say a fairly profound one. I’m repeating myself here, but most religious “rules” stop people doing harm - killing, stealing, and such like. Condemning homosexuality does not stop anyone being harmed, it simply oppresses perfectly decent human beings and makes many poeple’s lives very miserable.
it is at this point (after a discussion with faz…) that i would like to bring in bens favourite book… ‘the selfish gene’… does this book not say that it is in every humans nature to reproduce and see their genes passed on as genes are selfish… and in this respect every human gene is selfish…?
so, this being true it means that homoselxuality goes completely against human genetic nature and its basis…
i’m afraid I shall have to defend my “favourite book”. I will say though that Dan’s post was as a result from conversation with me and I did not give him the full story, so i shall give it here.
It is not in human nature to be selfish. Dawkins (author of the book) later regretted using the word selfish because people got the wrong idea. Countless times in the book he reminds us that when we ascribe the word ‘selfish’ to genes we merely are saying "genes want to reproduce themselves’. They are just cells so they do not think of the consequences and do not have a conscience to feel guilty. It is not the same as a human being selfish because it is not a concious act.
We are survival bodies for our genes and sometimes, to make sure the genes are replicated, the genes program us to act in a selfish way. This does not mean that selfish genes program us to be selfish. For example, sometimes it is beneficial for us to be nice to others because it will benefit us in the long term.
Now onto homosexuality. Yes, at first glance, homosexuality seems to go against the selfish gene theory, as does contraception, adoption etc. However, just as some forms of altruism can be explained by the selfish gene approach, it is possible that homosexuality, contraception etc.
Dawkins however says that humans, and humans alone, have the conciousness to be able to overcome our genetic programming. Homosexuality is one example of this. But, the crux of the argument is this: EVEN if it IS the case, that homosexuality goes against our genetic programming, it does not necessarily make it wrong. Richard Dawkins does not say that people who go against genetic programming are wrong, in fact he says it is GOOD that we shy away from the animal instincts inside us and use our brains to come to conclusions.
So, in short, human nature is not selfish, homosexuality is not necessarily against genetic programming and even if it was, so what? vegetarianism is too.