Philo, I do not hold a body of doctrine.
I simply never, throughout my life, believed in a God- it seemed all so far-fetched to me. I neither saw the logic nor the light. A doctrine is just a teaching or theory or principle that some people need or want in their lives, but a doctrine is not ‘proof’ that some theory is true.
For me ‘atheism’ is not a conscious choice, I just don’t believe there’s a God, so I can’t believe in a bible, in a religion or their doctrines.

Holding a body of doctrine for me means that I’d have to follow someone else’s teachings or principles.
I do not deny that I like some principles in some religions, and I like some things that some people say. But if I like some ideas or principles of a religion, that doesn’t guarantee that I’d automatically have to like ALL of their ideas.
I like theories that can quite easily be updated or replaced as soon as a better idea comes along and outdates the original theory or principle. Religions are too dogmatic.

Most religious people agree to and defend everything that their chosen religion stands for, because they ‘belong’ to that religion and decide think the same thoughts.
That’s why I could never fit into a certain religion, or could not hold a body of doctrine. Not because it’s my principle not to hold a doctrine, but because it naturally doesn’t agree with me.
I’d like to decide on every issue for myself. And I am not saying that I always make the right decisions- but neither do people who do hold a doctrine.

A tough issue addressed by this article, no doubt.

As a sinner who needs Christ as much as anyone may I tread lightly on this one.

Firstly, note the RCC regards the words of the church as equal with scripture. I am not a RCatholic so I cannot speak from this perspective re: the article.

Homosexuality is fairly clearly outlined within scripture as sin (leviticus, romans). If one reads the sermon on the mount(Matt) so is lying, looking lustfully etc. Rather than discuss the sinfulness of homosexuality comparatively..draw to the fore that we are ALL sinners and fall short of the glory of God. We need Jesus!

The church faces some huge issues here, and it will always be a fine line to walk. (Ain't the narrow road for nothing!) Prayerfully, we must be discerning about each person's case. May I remember that I am a sinner who hopes to one day be a parent.

But we can't dilute gospel either.

God help us to walk the fine line of love, without compromising His word, but to not shun those that need our help either. I pray that we can love all those who come, seeking, to the church whatever their history, and let God minister to their hearts... rather than supplying our condemnation and self-righteousness instead.

Jars of clay indeed. We have a gospel of grace to share!

Perhaps it comes down to loving honesty rather than a hard line either way?

PS. To the person who leaves the church because it has offended them... God is a personal God who seeks a relationship with us.. and desires that we have fulfilling relationships with others. Churches are full of people, and people are flawed. We learn by dealing with people. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. God loves you!

PPS. As for the RCC & the establishment of the Lord's day over the Jewish Sabbath.. there is more to it theologically and historically. We are not under the law to keep either, we have a new covenant in Christ.

Living in community means we observe and resprect boundaries of behaviour. These boundaries of behaviour can be formulated in a body of doctrine we call community standards, laws and principles of good neighbourliness. A community where everyone does what he feels right in his / her own own feeling is a conflicting society. People get hurt because of offending behaviour by inconsiderate anarchists. Western society is mostly built upon a morality based in the Judeau-Christian social world view.

"laws and principles of good neighbourliness" - and central to that is to keep your nose out of your neighbours bedroom {or if you must look at least don't intefere ;) }.

Philo we have moved on a long way from Jerusalem AD27 (or thereabouts), social mores are in constant change so continuing to focus on the historical context as though it were some kind of ideal set in stone really does not cut it. There are a lot of things we have moved on from of our historical and cultural past, most have been resisted by some at the time but few would return to them willingly once they are gone.

Despite your desperate worries about sperm wastage (have you talked to an RC priest about that topic?) and your apparent concerns that the world may be underpopulated homosexuals do not do you harm. The harm comes from the other direction with you trying hard to have their freedoms and opportunities to live full lives limited and forced to a pattern which you are more comfortable with.

Time to move on, the world and people don't have to be a certain way just because you think they should.

R0bert

Philo, you said: “People get hurt because of offending behaviour by inconsiderate anarchists.”

You have a good sense of humour. What was this article and the comments about again? Offending language in churches? Inconsiderable religious groups? Bad behaviour by church leaders? So let’s restate this and say that people get hurt because of offending behaviour by inconsiderate PEOPLE. Not just anarchists.
Or do you deny that people/children never got hurt by religion/religious people?

Anarchist are not necessarily the enemy. They generally just don’t agree with common standard principles that were decided upon and set up by a certain group. There is no reason to think that anarchists have second-rate or no morals. Anarchism is not a synonym for immorality.
Anarchists can be either immoral, just as moral, or have stronger morals than non-anarchists (and vice versa).
Community standards can be different in different communities and different cultures and that does not mean that one community is superior to another, just different. If groups can be different and equal in morality, then so can individuals.

If God, for the theist, means ‘all love’, then why do theists hate so much out of love for their God? (I use ‘hate’ in the larger sense of the meaning including dislike, disrespect, rejection). If the theists’ reason why they hate atheism and anarchism is ‘because atheists do not love and respect God like theists do’, then doesn’t that mean that the believe in God actually causes them to hate, reject, disrespect etc?

And does that mean that atheists and anarchists can have a just as strong love, or even stronger love, respect. tolerance and acceptance for humankind than theists? Atheists have no God or religious group to blindly protect, and anarchists usually don’t think it’s their business what other people believe, as long as these others do not hurt people.

Celivia,

Some cultures ARE superior to others.

The Aztecs were wrong to sacrifice virgins and prisoners of neighbouring Nations – and will always be even if they thought they were placating a fertility god.

Hindus were wrong when they practiced Sati - the immolation of the wife when the husband died. And will always be. Even if there were allusions to it in the Mahabharata.

Nazi's were wrong when they equated Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc with vermin and exterminated them. And will always be. Even if they thought Aryans and Europe would be better off without them.

Southern US Democrats were wrong when they argued that the institution of slavery was justified in their states and fought to maintain it. Even if Southerners would have benefited with a slave empire that stretched down to Brazil.

How can we make sense of female suffrage, universal human rights, abolition of slavery etc as an attempt to reach a standard unless an objective standard exists, independent of when or where someone was born?

I'll admit a cultures ability to perceive the moral law can vary, and there can be extenuating circumstances, but most certainly cultures and individuals are not equally good irrespective of their actions.

The moral relativism you espouse is particularly dangerous, it seems to contain the tolerance that is so highly valued today but in actual fact is a particularly nasty lie, that is effective as a lie because it seems on the surface so good.

Why has it gained so much currency in this age?

Read Charles Taylor "The Malaise of Modernity" (on the net?)

Briefly – No one ought to be a mere conformist, authenticity should be strived for, therefore no one has a right to tell an individual exactly how to go about living the good life. This principle has metastasized into " therefore no one is able to talk about what CONSTITUTES the good life". So ppl have come to the mistaken conclusion that eating chips and watching Oprah is as good as any other pursuit and saying otherwise is being 'judgmental' and intolerant.