Wayne, I like what you said about uncertainty. The way I see it, the less we know about a proposition, the more staunchly we tend to defend it. It happens in science too much. But it happens in religion, even more. In the end, we can know with some certainty what we feel at the moment. And with a great deal of reasoning we can be pretty sure of the proposition "I think I think; therefore I think I am." Further afield, we actually know very little. So I tend to think that the truth of a religious proposition lies not in some essence of fact, but in how we would feel about living in a group, a society, a world that embraces the same proposition. For example "all people are equal before the law." When religious ideas and practices help us to be more kind, reflective, and open to other people, I think they can help us feel better about our place in society. And they can help us be part of a happier society. It is my opinion, however, that a great deal of theolog...
Comments
There are both plays and films that in various ways advocate "menages a trois" or even more "open" relationships. My own reaction to all I've seen is that they gloss over an essential selfishness that motivates the "openness." And they also fail to treat their subject realistically. Certainly some would accuse me of approaching the issue with my own biases, and of course we all do that. Nevertheless, I still think I may be seeing something people who'd suggest monogamy may be too rigid are missing.
Getting back to the larger point, however, I agree that the "freedom" rhetoric is permissive rather than liberating, and that the erosion of social absolutes has the negative effect of "everything is okay" - when we can see that, in effect, it is not, or open relationships would have swept the world by now.