What’s the logic behind that? It seems it completely blows away the claim that marriage is only about having children or the possibility of it.
we’re not talking only about the Roman Catholic Church.
Again, we’re not talking about just those churches. The entire protestant movement demonstrates that Christianity has changed it’s beliefs and continues to do so.
Of course there is, but when the leading officials of the church approve of and engage in certain acts, justifying them as approved of by divine autrhority it essentially becomes doctrine IMHO, but I’m not interested in quibbling over semantics. Call them church approved practices rather than doctrine if you like. It still serves my point that Christianity does indeed change with the times.
That’s a fundamental problem with religion. If it doesn’t change with the times, it gets left behind. If it does, then what’s the point of religion in the first place? What else is religion wrong about, and why must we wait until it catches up?
That’s not what I said. I’m saying religion, in this case , Christianity, reacts and evolves alonmg with society. Traditions change as society changes, especially in areas where holding ontop an old tradition makes the church appear in a negative light. People used the Bible to deny interracial marriage. Christians justified slavery and inequality of women. As people became more educated and new generations rejected old false stereotypes and injustice, religion has had to evolve as well.
More and more people are aware of the fact that our gay brothers and sisters are born that way rather than choosing sin, and becoming aware that they are still good intelligent people, good citizens, good neighbors, good parents.
Do you know of many churches who refuse interracial couples the right to marry? Not long ago there were many.
As generations pass more people, and because of that, more churches, will accept that our gay citizens are just another of God’s creations, just as other races are. A church cannot continue to thrive and teach love for our fellow man “with a couple of exceptions” in a society where that is seen as bigotry and unjust.
Sure, organized religion lags society, because it’s essentially a conservative structure. And it may lag more than you’d like it to. But it doesn’t stand still; lag or no, religions continue to change along with society.
Acceptance of homosexuals and other marginalized groups is really recent across the board, religion or no. In the broad sense, a lag of 20, 30, even 100 years isn’t all that much. 100 years ago all of Western culture pretty much hated gays, blacks, and women. We’re changing as a society and we’re dragging our religious institutions along with us. Again, obviously more slowly than you’d like. But hell, you might as well ask “What else is wrong with society, and why must we wait until it catches up?”
Yes. But the fact that it does contradicts its conservatism. It undermines its authority. If a church says “homosexuality is BAD!” and then later says “never mind, gays are okay,” what’s the point? What else will that church change its mind about later? Why should we listen to it insist on something it’s subject to change?
Yes. My point is why should we even care about dragging our religious institutions along? What use are they if they are being dragged in the first place?
I don’t see religion changing as a negative. If individuals can change and grow as people, then religion can to. Some poeple will claim, “God doesn’t change” but surely , for those who believe, the goal is for their understanding of God to grow , not stagnate. I’m sure religion serves different needs for different people. As an agnostic I can still go to a service and appreciate a message of “we are one” and how we can have a positive effect on the people we encounter.
AS far as “why must we wait” goes, Who do you think is waiting? Nobody has to.
two things; 1 I’m not convinced all religious institutions are being dragged along. I think some of the people in those institutions are the very ones helping to bring some changes.
- One issue is not all of society and a clear negative sum. If people opppose SSM but volunteer in soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc etc are they doing more harm than good or vice versa, and who gets to judge?
Sure, but then once they have an improved understanding of God, they turn around and insist that they finally got it right and now they speak with the authority of God and you better not violate His will now.
What’s the point? If the rules keep changing, and we know they can keep changing in the future, why should we care? Why wait for a church to tell us what we should be doing if we know already, and we know its probably going to change its mind to catch up with us?
What’s the difference?
If church doctrine is A, and then its B, who cares how it happened? The point is that the church wants to speak with authority, but then change its mind. Well, either you’re right, right now, or you aren’t.
This isn’t about judging people, it’s about why people bother to follow church doctrine.
Nobody is telling you you should care. You can care or not care, I don’t care.
Who gets to decide?
I guess you’ll have to ask people who follow church doctrine. I’m not one of those.
btw; for some, the same church doctrine that told them SSM is wrong, told them to help the poor and the sick.
But that’s what I’m discussing–why a church would think I should care.
Huh?
And why not? Perhaps I’m helping explain why.
No, that’s different doctrine, same church. But whatever.
Sounds like a new thread to me.
Who gets to decide if you’re right now or not?
because I choose not to. However I don’t fault anyone who feels that is is the right path for them.
the point being that someone choosing religion as a path isn’t usually an all good or all bad proposition, and like we do with real people, governments, our place of work etc, we sometimes have to take the good with the bad for now, as we try to improve things.
I don’t think you get my point. The church decides whether the church is right. The question is should the rest of us believe it, given that it keeps changing its mind.
Why?
For me, one reason is what I’m discussing - anyone who claims to speak with authority about the truth can’t just turn around and change it.
Okay, I think I got your drift now. Not all Christians or religious people think they have all the answers and thier doctrine is absolute truth, but I get seriously annoyed when people point to thier personal interpretation of the Bible and claim it’s God’s word not thiers, as if they speak for God.
We all operate on what we believe is right , right now, and sometimes we find out we need to adjust our thinking. I think all believers ought to realize they and thier preachers are still fallible, still have plenty to learn and understand. It’s okay to have your beliefs and opinions but be humble enough to consider that you may be wrong. Choose for yourself and allow others the same privilage , and be open to new facts and perspectves.
Some churches have changed their doctrines. Other’s haven’t. I’m not sure what you think was ‘unique’ about Protestantism, it was never the case that Christians were unified under the aegis of the Catholic Church, but you’re right that Protestants typically don’t share the view of church infallibility that the Catholics and Orthodox do.
I think you’re wrong about whether churches in general will adapt their doctrines to
accommodate gay marriage. Mostly because it would be a drastic change to the meaning of what marriage is (more so than polygamy, for example). The biggest single church in the world (Catholicism) mostly has the same view of marriage today it had in the first century.