Let me answer this question by comparing it to gambling. A good bet is one where the conditions are favorable based on probability. A bad one is when they are not. The winning and losing are irrelevant to whether the bet is good or bad.
If the information and reasoning behind a belief system seems correct and you act according to them you are not doing a bad thing. If you were a juror and convicted a man of murder who was executed based on the evidence before you, but later the evidence was proven tainted, you can not say you did something wrong.
For certain types of religious people this kind of question is very difficult to even think about. That is not because they are stupid, though some may be. If I were to ask; if at the end of life you discovered there was no God, would you regret the moral choices you have made. Many religious people would find it hard to even approach the question because to them is not an academic exercise. The question poses a challenge to their fundamental faith. And many would not want that possibility of doubt to creep in.
There are certain things one gets out of having absolute faith. Of course I can argue that one may also lose some intellectual objectivity, which has it’s own risks and problems. But it is really not possible for many of the people here to address this issue the way you would want.
The answer, just one would feel pain for the innocent who was executed, one would feel a certain level of sadness for any potential pain your theoretical homosexual couple may have experienced, one would not feel they had done something wrong because their actions were based on the best information and beliefs available to them at the time.
However it is just very difficult for some religious people the really address this kind of question, and you really can not expect them to.
I see what you are saying. If a juror is presented all kinds of evidence saying that a man is guilty, and is going to vote that way…its like someone coming up to him and saying “but what if you’re wrong?” The juror can review the evidence again, and weigh his decision. Then the same questioner says, “but what if you’re wrong?”
These kinds of doubts don’t have a place in this situation. The evidence has been gathered, and a decision has to be made. Constant nagging questions won’t get the juror anywhere in this case. In the case of this thread, the evidence has also been gathered and decided upon long, long ago. Thousands of years ago even. Asking “but what if they’re wrong?” at this point is really silly.
But what if they
are wrong? Well then I guess active homosexuals can go to heaven and those that spoke out against them go to hell. Is that the answer that was being sought?
What if we are wrong about murder? What if it is really right to kill one another, and we’ve had it all backwards? How would you feel when you’ve discovered this, and learned about all the murderer’s we’ve put behind bars all these years, ruining thier lives for doing what’s right? I’m not saying that murder is the same as homosexuality. I’m saying that you can ask this same question about any moral or legal issue. If the answer is
clearly available to us, it’s really silly…to me at least. There is no reason for it.
I can truly appreciate critical analysis, and the quest for intellectual objectivity in discerning what is moral or not. But really, I don’t think discussions like this are important. Those with faith know the answer, and trust in it. For those without faith, the die has been cast. They are the ones that have to worry about making a “good” or “bad” bet.
You’ll have to look it up.