so… i quote ben ‘humans, and humans alone, have the conciousness to be able to overcome our genetic programming’
this means that homosexuality is not natural… you learn to be homosexual??? is this right benny?
In the same way that wearing clothes, building houses, driving cars, piercing, tattoos, vegatarianism, taking medicine isn’t natural?
No-one learns to be homosexual, you don’t goto “gay school.” People just are gay in the same way that people just are heterosexual. Society is biased towards heterosexuality because that is the way to reproduce. No-one knows if your sexuality is genetic, they are still investigating it. Regardless of whether it is or isn’t, its no less natural than all the things i’ve mentioned above. If you think they aren’t natural then i suggest you move into a cave somewhere.
I do not do RS, I am not an expert on Christianity. But I was of the opinion that it is a religion based on tollerence. Being against a group of people simply beacuse of their sexual orintation sounds pretty damn in-tollerant to me. Is wearing clothes natural? Is detroying the environment natural? Live and let live. Also with the whole Aids argument, Yes homosexuals are the single most group with the largest numbers of infections. But that’s because they are a small group compared to hetro-sexuals. I think the most important factor that we must consider with aids is prevention .i.e. education and contraception. The pope telling people in developing countries where the population is out of control and aids is widespread, that using condoms is a sin…that’s just so wrong! Sorry this sounds like a bit of a rant, but I feel strongly about it 
Olly
------------------
In exams the foolish ask questions that the wise can not answer - Oscar Wilde
My personal opinion is that Homosexuality is wrong. Wrong in the sense that it isn’t according to what i believe in, and that is the concept of Heterosexual relationships. Yes this concurs with my religion, but this is out of coincidence! i didn’t agree with Homosexuality long before i knew what Islam said about this topic.
i must agree with olly on the christianity/homosexuality thing. and such inconsistencies and contradictions are partly why i find it difficult to believe in the christian faith, and their god.
I have found that trying to talk someone out of their religious beliefs is futile, so i will not try here. However, I have to say that i find the discrimination against homosexuals in our society to be disgusting. It is a remnant of medieval thinking, but it is strange that not all societies evolved to be homophobic, native americans, ancient greeks/romans, ancient indians (from india), druids and others had no problems with gays. In many of these, gays, as well as left handed people, were put into shamanic roles, wheras in judeo-christian cultures both were condemed as evil.
Womens lib–>Black pride–>Gay Pride–>???
As seen above, society does generally change to eliminate discrimination, but it could be a while.
Sorry if this is incoherent, but i am thinking as i write, instead of before
------------------
Join the POEE!
Paratheo-anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric
A Non-prophet organisation
rawilson.com/main.shtml
PS I thought this was philosophy vs religion?
------------------
Join the POEE!
Paratheo-anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric
A Non-prophet organisation
rawilson.com/main.shtml
It is interesting to note that bestiality does happen in nature. The mule is one example, also, certian species of insect will mate with a different species if cannot find a mate of its own kind. Just an interesting side note
sorry i havent replied to olly and now to you clarice…
i need to expell some myths about christianity, for those of you that dont know…
right, in my view, christianity is the most intolerant religion out of them all… there is only one way. So all the tolarance rubbish is the worlds way and also the church of englnad not wishing to anger anyone… fools!
‘Being against a group of people simply beacuse of their sexual orintation sounds pretty damn in-tollerant to me.’ (quote olly)
Well, yet again, someone has just read what they want to… all the way back in the beginning i said ‘further christianity teaches that people should ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’.’ and in this way christianity may be seen as tolerant… but christians are not against homosexuality…
and on the inconsistancies of the faith, it is generally people mis quoting the bible/ not reading it properly that causes people, much like your self to say this… there is also a number of christians who get it wrong or mis quote it, this is human error…
my last point would be this, it is very easy to dismiss religion and faith as contradictions and rubbish, but from what i have read none of you have actually looked into it properly and thus why dismiss it? i think that it is only sane to look into it properly as if it is right… well, you a bit stuck really!
(ps. i know clarice went to church before…)
amendment to the above ^
where i say… christians are not against homosexuality… substitute homeosexuals for homosexuality!
It is also interesting to note that homosexuality not only occurs in practically all human societies known, but also has been seen in other animals, such as vultures. Theres something to think about...
In which case, if what Ben wrote about humans being the only beings able to change their genetic programming is true, then homosexuality (in vultures at least!) must be at least partly due to genetics. In which case it is entirely natural.
[This message has been edited by clara (edited 11 February 2002).]
Oh, and before I forget, my friend’s dog is also homosexual… just in case you were thinking that it only occurs in humans and vultures.
Thanks for your reply Daniel. I was just going on what I’ve been told/read/learnt from Christian friends. If it is all wrong…fair enough. but you said
is this something to be proud of? You also stated the Christians are not against homosexuals. But I know a good few, who express feelings on the matter, that whilst not homophobic are definitely not what I'd call accepting. I have no doubt that your knowledge of Christianity dwarves mine. But I have done research on the topic, including many long conversations with Christians, as I have a genuine interest in religions. I do not condemn, nor condone your beliefs. I just feel that intolerance is what leads to most the world's problems.
Olly
HVD wrote:
awesome!!!
does anybody believe that one day the world will ‘mature’ enough to accept homosexuality?
Sorry to get back to the original topic…
but aren’t philosophy and religion essentially the same thing?
I don’t have any religion, but from my observations of deeply religious people it seems religion is something that explains something science does not, that is the meaning of life, the correct way to act, etc.
Philosophy seems to be a pursuit of the exact questions that religion answers.
Its as if religion is a book that you read…and philosophy is the process by which you write the same book…
Sure. The Greeks did.
Philosophy and Religion do try to answer the same kinds of questions, but they differ on method. Religion is older than Philosophy. It results from a collection of myths and moral prescriptions; it rarely attempts to justify itself–only proseletyse, by whatever means it can. Philosophy tries to arrive at a sound system of objective beliefs using reason. Where a religion will employ faith to constantly reassure itself of being right, Philosophy (when done correctly) constantly questions its assumptions to see if it is wrong.
However, Religion does have a more positive element of spiritual experience not found in Philosophy. Philosophy can tend to oversimplify life by dumbing it down to its cold logical truths. Religion and spirituality, however, use stories, metaphors and poetry to enhance the imagination and (in the best cases) enrich one’s experience of life.
gives logo the evil eye
In modern society, expecially with the influence of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, there is quite a distinction between religion and philosophy; however, during other times and in other places, this was not the case. Toaist and early budhist text read more like philosophy as opposed to religion. The Zen Budhist sect, although considered by some a religion, relies more on logic and experience, as oppose to fait. Confusious did not write about a lot of spiritual things in his book the Analectics (spelling?) however, he became a founder of a major religion.
Logo, I understand what you are trying to say, but hear me out. Religion isn’t older than philosophy because it takes “philosophical” thinking and constructs what can be called “metaphysics.” The type of thinking involved in establishing a system of “religious” beliefs is also theoretically metaphysical, a branch of philosophy. What distinguishes it from “philosophy” so much is its allegorical and dogmatic nature, characteristic of all metaphysics, without which would jeopardize it and subject it to intense epistemological scrutiny. Religion is abtruse, but so are many established philosophies(a contradiction?). My point is that “reason” and logic such as “If God then creation,” or “If shame then fig leaf,” is no different than the logic that “If human action then will to power,” or “if lying to oneself then bad-faith” whithin the bounds of the premise is formally a type of sound philosophical thinking. They all are metaphysical propositions assuming some premise to be true though dubious and theoretical by nature, but philosophy allows this in the broadest sense of the word.
naw man!! Certain relgions don’t allow you to even ask certain questions. Plus some of them make up your mind for you. And if you think the opposite they say that ‘God’ will punish you for sinning.