Please list all the benefits that only a religion can provide. I would like to know what I can get out of it that I can’t get elsewhere.
Moving the goalposts. Nobody’s claiming that the benefits that religious believers find in religion can’t ever be found except in religion. Nor are most religious believers approaching the issue in that consciously selective way. Most people don’t rigorously comparison-shop all aspects of life to find the best deal on spiritual/social benefits at the lowest cost in compromised rationality or historical baggage.
I agree. But people do lots of things that are unnecessary.
And while churches aren’t necessary for people, people are necessary for churches, and institutions usually put self-preservation above moral principles.
Excuse me for interrupting but, -sociologically- how do actual churches overcome [del]bronze age[/del] iron age admonitions against homosexuality thereby welcoming gay couples or even performing gay marriages? Give examples.
The clue is in the title. As a Christian I have to realise that something writen hundreds of years ago was writen with the knowledge that they had at the time, our understanding of homosexuality now is far greater now then hundreds of years ago. We now understand that Homosexuality is not a disease nor is it a mental illness, we now understand that it is natural within nature and therefore a part of Gods creation. one of the other pit falls for Christians is the use of the word sin, they always understand it to mean against God, it does not, it can also mean to break the law (a crime) of a country. The Bible was writen by man and therefore is falable, we must not let any predudis of the auther to mislead us.
It is not just Christians that have to be careful on how they translate scripture other religions such as Islam make the mistake of trying to apply ancient thinking to modern life, like the Bible the Quran was writen by man, men of faith must always be guarded against Dogma again the word of man and sometimes very biased to one mans predudis
Try this angle. If homosexuality is a sin, then so is Sabbath-breaking, as both are supposedly condemned in the Torah. And mind you, Sabbath-breaking is a pretty big sin, considering that keeping the Sabbath is expressly enjoined in the Ten Commandments. That’s right from God’s desk, folks.
So here comes Jesus, the Son of God. The gospels seem to take positive delight in giving many instances of his Sabbath-breaking activities. When the religious authorities call him on it, his response is twofold: 1. If you think about it, rationally, using your mind, you will see that what you say I did wrong is only wrong insofar as you derive the wrong from your rigid, limiting, literal and intolerant reading of the scriptures (see John 7:22-24, where Jesus says this in so many words). 2. You’re looking in the wrong direction, if you’re looking at the law. You need to be looking at people, instead. John 5:39-40: “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
So who is this “me”? “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).
In making these moral judgments about others, it’s always good to take a good look at them, first. I think Jesus did.
Also, some scholars will tell you that when it comes to Paul’s letters he was giving different directions to different churches. Rome had a different culture than Corinth, Greece. He was writing letters to address issues going on in different places, and thousands of years later these have been taken as official orders and word of law. Do you really think Paul knew his letters were going to become sacred text?
(I have family who would disagree with you on that “failable” part :rolleyes:)
Some people see the word “sin” not as violating a rule of God, but as doing something to distance yourself from God. They emphasize a personal relationship with God over one with a church, bible, or rules.
The Old Testament gave plenty of laws for people to follow, but as Totenfeier said, Jesus himself broke some of them to care for other people. Jesus told us flat out that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord, and to love your neighbors. He was a rabble-rouser, but he focused on a strong relationship with God and the people.
A consensual homosexual relationship wouldn’t be a sin by this definition.
Others may say that as Christians our role in life not to follow the Old Testament Mosaic Law but rather the New Commandment, “love one another.” It shows up thirteen times in the New Testament. (Homosexuality shows up zero there)
A consensual homosexual relationship wouldn’t be breaking the New Commandment.
People don’t need any more reminders about what not to do. Not only are all the rules laid out in the Bible, but they are embedded in our social mores. No one needs Pastor to tell them to not lie, cheat, steal, or murder. The people who engage in these behaviors know it is wrong. And you will find them in church the same as any other sinner.
People go to church so they can find out what they need to do. How to love, how to forgive, how to be kind and generous. Any ole mindless robot can follow a bunch of prohibitions for fear of going to hell. But not everyone can be a good person.
I used to go to church because I loved the music. I would tune out whenever the preacher got to sermonizing about how I was going to hell.
Socialization, structure, ritualism.
Those who say no have missed several points where science and archaeology prove that the Bible is wrong not because the original author was wrong but because we have access to information that was not available to them, we also have to consider the politics of the day, was the New Testament Romanised to make it acceptable to Rome? only 25% of the Gospels made it into the New Testament why? Why up until the sixties was Mary Magdalena portrayed as a prostitute, was this to cover up the fact that she was of great influence in the early church, in fact a true apostle of Jesus?
Cite?
Here’s one suggesting they’re still not particularly progressive
Swedish church not so gay-friendly
The decision from 2005 that the church shall “actively work against” discrimination based on sexual orientation. Also stating that it is forbidden to condemn or try to make people feel guilty about their sexual orientation.
https://www.svenskakyrkan.se/karlstadsstift/homosexuella-och-svenska-kyrkan
Short time line for the churches position on homosexuality. In 1951 the bishops were against the criminalization of homosexuality, and in 1972 they had a committee work on the issue which resulted in a book that was very progressive/radical at its time. Unlike the government they did no longer think of homosexuality as a disease and did not think being homosexual would preclude you from working for the church.
https://www.svenskakyrkan.se/omoss/samkonade-aktenskap
Your cite did not seem very serious, there were no links or references that allowed you to find any source, so it basically amounted to a weak editorial piece. As far as I can tell he is only expressing his own opinion. If his point is that some christians still are anti-gay, well, yeah I bet. This thread was about how the actual churches overcome the admonitions against gays though, not whether all of Swedens christians suddenly became gay-friendly.
Considering the nature of the article and the fact it contains some remarkable inaccuracies (for example while the Social Democrats do well in rural northern Sweden it doesn’t do all that well in southern rural Sweden), its not particularly reliable.
Of course, that was the same St. Paul who wrote, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
But the OT says, “It is not good for man to live alone.”
Soooo . . . . 
So Will and Grace is a model Biblical household? 
Neglecting the inerrancy parts, regular religions do the same thing, though the prejudices are more to our liking.
The answer to the OP is simple - if those holding power in the church are not bigots, they vote that the Bible says homosexuality is okay. If they are bigots they vote that the Bible says it is wrong. Both have equally good arguments.
And neither God nor Jesus is likely to come down to give the “correct” answer.
You raise a good point with the diatry laws. Before the invention of refrigeration following the diatry laws made good sense but now with modern tech. they can be relaxed. I say relaxed because modern warfare uses technology that causes electrical equipment to fail therefore the diatry laws would come back into their own.
This raises the question, how much of our religious life is bound by dogma that has no relevance to our relationship with God