Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

The "smug" comment was not meant to be directed at you, actually, but religion in general (and if anything, the conservative southern church I grew up in, in particular). So many churches tend to pride themselves on maintaining bright, hard lines (and we know what pride goeth before) when Jesus's message was exactly the opposite: break through those lines, get rid of the distinctions, love ALL of your neighbors, ALL have sinned, ALL can be forgiven. No categories, no lines. That's clearly NOT the message that people get from the rest of society, and would actually be a way for the church to distinguish itself.

I have no idea what data you're using to come to the conclusion that the church has thrived when it has kept to its beliefs. Care to elaborate?

One thing I've found with religion is in their method of dictating lives. Obviously if there are people who feel they need that sort of direction, then that's fine. When you're forcing conversion onto people or "purifying" the disbelieving population is where there gets to be a problem. Like I've said before, the Romans took Christianity and screwed it up by throwing their previous empirical beliefs into it. I also wonder if King James translated the Bible in a manner that it was not all that dissimilar from his rule of law.

Have you ever noticed how a number of the "out of control" people in this world were, at one point or another, catholic schoolchildren?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

The "smug" comment was not meant to be directed at you, actually, but religion in general (and if anything, the conservative southern church I grew up in, in particular). So many churches tend to pride themselves on maintaining bright, hard lines (and we know what pride goeth before) when Jesus's message was exactly the opposite: break through those lines, get rid of the distinctions, love ALL of your neighbors, ALL have sinned, ALL can be forgiven. No categories, no lines. That's clearly NOT the message that people get from the rest of society, and would actually be a way for the church to distinguish itself.

I have no idea what data you're using to come to the conclusion that the church has thrived when it has kept to its beliefs. Care to elaborate?

It's an observation I and many others have made after studying church history. Unfortunately the early church didn't keep good records on attendance. Not really surprising, given the level of persecution back then as well as the less formal structures of the day.

If you're talking about the mainline denominations, there's data out there on their declining membership. Such as the Episcopaleans having a 23 percent decline in attendance from 2000 to 2010.

There is a time for bright hard lines and a time for blurry or no lines. I agree with your ALLs. But none of those mean there aren't certain things/ways that are consistent with what the Bible says. Truth and love aren't mutually exclusive spheres. You can believe there are absolute truths, yet love and respect those who don't see those absolute truths or even mock them. I do agree that many churches and Christians don't send a message to society that is very appealing.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

It's an observation I and many others have made after studying church history. Unfortunately the early church didn't keep good records on attendance. Not really surprising, given the level of persecution back then as well as the less formal structures of the day.

If you're talking about the mainline denominations, there's data out there on their declining membership. Such as the Episcopaleans having a 23 percent decline in attendance from 2000 to 2010.

There is a time for bright hard lines and a time for blurry or no lines. I agree with your ALLs. But none of those mean there aren't certain things/ways that are consistent with what the Bible says. Truth and love aren't mutually exclusive spheres. You can believe there are absolute truths, yet love and respect those who don't see those absolute truths or even mock them. I do agree that many churches and Christians don't send a message to society that is very appealing.

Given the Episcopalians were the first ones to come up with the whole homosexual fiasco, I'm not shocked. I remember in my town (a family member is the organist), a number of the parishioners went to a different church simply because of these beliefs about homosexuality. Actually, I also remember that a minister was basically run out of town for anti-war preaching.

Is it any wonder why I see myself as a spiritual person? The last sentence of the service is the only one that truly makes sense: "Go in peace to love and serve the Lord." It doesn't matter who or what you call "Lord".

[burd]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

to me it's clear that when you stray from what (to me again) is clear Biblical teaching, it's not surprising that people go elsewhere.

"Clear Biblical teaching" is anything but clear to me.

[Priceless]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

"Clear Biblical teaching" is anything but clear to me.

Clear Biblical Teaching...you know, eating shellfish is a sin, working on the Sabbath is a sin, wearing clothes of two different fibers is a sin, having sex outside of marriage is a sin...

I commit sins on a regular basis.

[FreshFish]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I commit sins on a regular basis.

yes, but you seem proud of it and view it as a mark of distinction.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

yes, but you seem proud of it and view it as a mark of distinction.

I suppose it depends on the sin.

I am quite proud to consume shellfish....

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

"Clear Biblical teaching" is anything but clear to me.

WWBRD

Enough said.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Lynah Fan,

Thanks for your reasonable discussion. Appreciate it.

[Priceless]

yes, but you seem proud of it and view it as a mark of distinction.

I do. Especially with drawn butter. Mmmmmmm.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Lynah Fan,

Thanks for your reasonable discussion. Appreciate it.

Bob, I really want to know your definition of gender because you believe marriage is between a man and a woman. In order to have that viewpoint, I believe you need to have a fairly solid idea on what constitutes a specific gender.

For me, I do not have a good enough definition of gender to base gender specific rules on who you can or cannot marry. What is more important? Genotype (XX, XY, XXY, XO etc)? Phenotype (observable characteristics like genitalia)? Is it the gender the person best identifies? Is it based on what the doctor and parents decide for their child when born with ambiguous genitalia?

I do not think these questions have absolute answers. Biology informs us that gender (like sexuality) is a diverse spectrum instead of a rigid dichotomy. There are women out there who are XY. Should they not be allowed to marry a man because they share too similar genotypes? (Not talking close cousins here but sex chromosome makeup).

For me, there is too much uncertainty out there to continue to make rigid distinctions. If you believe God created this wonderful experiment, I think you have to believe that God created the tremendous diversity we see. With that, he also must have created pretty darn ambiguous gender lines. What is the difference between a clitori s and a peni s? Not much actually. A dash of hormones at the right time. Lacking that, you have a problem on your hands if you want to put that person in a rigid category.

[mookie1995]

Bob, I really want to know your definition of gender because you believe marriage is between a man and a woman. In order to have that viewpoint, I believe you need to have a fairly solid idea on what constitutes a specific gender.

For me, I do not have a good enough definition of gender to base gender specific rules on who you can or cannot marry. What is more important? Genotype (XX, XY, XXY, XO etc)? Phenotype (observable characteristics like genitalia)? Is it the gender the person best identifies? Is it based on what the doctor and parents decide for their child when born with ambiguous genitalia?

I do not think these questions have absolute answers. Biology informs us that gender (like sexuality) is a diverse spectrum instead of a rigid dichotomy. There are women out there who are XY. Should they not be allowed to marry a man because they share too similar genotypes? (Not talking close cousins here but sex chromosome makeup).

For me, there is too much uncertainty out there to continue to make rigid distinctions. If you believe God created this wonderful experiment, I think you have to believe that God created the tremendous diversity we see. With that, he also must have created pretty darn ambiguous gender lines. What is the difference between a clitori s and a peni s? Not much actually. A dash of hormones at the right time. Lacking that, you have a problem on your hands if you want to put that person in a rigid category.

TPIWWP!!!

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

TPIWWP!!!

Step 1. Turn off google safe search. Step 2. Type in nearly anything.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Bob, I really want to know your definition of gender.

.........................

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

If you're talking about the mainline denominations, there's data out there on their declining membership. Such as the Episcopaleans having a 23 percent decline in attendance from 2000 to 2010.

Agree - but the way I read that is that "only" ~23% of the congregation was conservative (as understood within the context of this discussion) to begin with, and they've gone off to other, more conservative denominations or independent churches. I just don't see how a denomination would grow by aligning its beliefs with something that only 23% of its members really feel that strongly about. If only 23% of members feel that way, what percentage of the population can they hope to appeal to? So while only the conservative denominations may be growing (when compared to their own sizes in previous years), it may simply be because they're siphoning off the conservative members from a shrinking pool of people who are interested in organized religion at all. The conservative denominations who go around saying, "see, there's more water in our section of the pool than there used to be" are ignoring the fact that the overall pool is drying up.

It seems very analogous to the quandry the Republican party is in - losing members on both its left and right wings. Sure, the Tea Party movement has been "growing" (since it recently started from nothing!), but if the Rebuplican party suddenly shifted and aligned its platform 100% with the Tea Party, they would lose millions of moderate conservatives and would end up being about the size of the sum of the current Tea Party factions - well, okay, a bit bigger, of course, but certainly not as large as the current sum of the Tea Parties PLUS the current Republican party.

(and I appreciate the good discussion, too - thanks!)