It does my heart good to know that my recent comments on homosexuality have provided Daily reader G.A. Settle with a few chuckles. It has inspired me to provide a few more anecdotes for his amusement.
As stated, Settle and his ilk have a perfect right to their views on homosexuality. However, one must question their authenticity by examining the source, in this case the Bible. The question is whether the Bible is the inerrant word of an all-knowing deity or is it an entirely human product and therefore cannot be used as the ultimate authority to judge one's morality?
It should be noted that since there is no hard evidence to support the former case, it must be based on blind faith, which was described by Mark Twain as "believing in what you know ain't so."
On the other hand, the humanist view of morality is based on reason and compassion, which I will take over blind faith any day. Once one acknowledges the Bible's human origins, it can no longer be used to dictate human behavior. It should be treated no differently than other works of great philosophers of the past such as Plato, Spinosa or Epicurus.
This is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong, rather it is a matter of the readers' right to accept or reject the opinions of one or both sides and use the brain that nature gave them to form their own conclusions on how to treat their fellow human beings.
Should the theistic God's existence ever become a more rationally plausible explanation for the universe than scientifically established explanations, I undoubtedly would revert to my former theism. My mind is open and intellectual integrity would compel me to do so. Until then, I will continue to speak out, not against religion but in support of humanism for those who find their religion unfulfilling.
Gene Rigelon, Front Royal