Being rather secure in my own views, I see that in the case of religion as a phenomenon There is a great portion of belief that is in the category of “Because I said so.” It is kind of post hoc ergo proper hoc. That is why I have a concern about habitual faith, while having no illusion about the fact that as a race we are believers. The question is always “believers in and of what?”
Given the parameters of physical existence, we operate in a very narrow spectral range and are oriented early on to a perspective that we question to some degree or other. But it usually takes a shock to put us in a different position of evaluation than what we usually live by. So automatically the great majority of folks are all at odds to some kind and degree just because they were no all born on Mulberry Street in Flatland, Anywhere. So we kind of play with the cards we are dealt, and because of the nature of the mind, we have to believe that we are right, or go bonkers.
There are very few who can receive a shock and go into a place that is belief neutral. There are fewer still who can get to that state on their own. Sometimes we call these Saints or Sages if their outcome is in the direction of Unity with a higher Ideal, or we call them monsters if they break and perpetrate evil on their fellows. I distinguish the difference by the idea of egoism based on fear, greed, and a need to control the outside world as person “above” others, as distinct from Love, charity, and a desire to elevate the outside world as a participant “with” others.
One has to ask, if left to one’s own devices–ie not having a particular religion, and having heterosexual orientation, what would be our reaction/response to encountering another orientation? And if our reaction is revulsion, then is it attributable to an inherent morality, or to the natural xenophobia that most of us hide well until in a situation that outs it? And what of the reciprocal revulsion another orientation might have for ours? I used to think there were two: hetero- and homo- sexuals, but find this b/w distinct on too simplistic, if for no other reason than that it leaves out about one per cent of the population who are hermaphroditic. Since I have come to conclude that without that one per cent, the rest is still divided into roughly 12 categories, 6 each ascribed to the tow genders. So it is not so simple if you look below the superficial and consider a bigger picture. Even with four choices, would there not be a continuum? And if so, who is going to cast the first…I mean decide what’s acceptable. And who, moreover, would do that in the name of God?
Interpreting a Bible text is one thing. Applying it as law, as we find even in civil courts, is another. For my part it is too easy to have black and white dictums that apply universally. I say this because one of the major themes of Creation is uniqueness. even among things operantly identical. How does a penguin distinguish its mate from among tens of thousands in their rookery? And what about finger prints? Those are simplistic examples, but given the phenomenal diversity in just those two, why would there not be a phenomenal diversity in the natural tendency of psyches?
I know that apart from condemning the homosexual act, usually understood to be among men, it does not condemn homosexual tendencies as such but compares it to alcoholism, maintaining that it is an acquired trait. Nevertheless, the “because I said so” tendency of belief seems to have the upper hand in this matter, because the studies appear to be inconclusive. And we have to remember that we assess our world through the filters we choose, habituate, or normalize to. For me, since it appears that the jury is still out, and the references we use as rules are two and a half millenia old, there may be some leeway in this matter if we stop being so polar about it.
