You clearly don't understand Catholicism. That's ok. Neither does our President, apparently. But just because something is broadly accepted by society (or even just by you) does not, in and of itself, make it morally acceptable.
I'm not a Catholic, but I have a general understanding of it. I was raised Southern Baptist, though. I recognize that societal acceptance of a specific behavior doesn't mean that Christians or Catholics will accept it. There's no difference between fundamentalist Evangelicals and Catholics on that point. What I'm saying is that the unwillingness to see the gray when it comes to these issues is to their own detriment. This is, in part, why Christianity is in decline. The morality of the Hebrew Bible or the Christian New Testament (granted, at times and in the Book of Revelation) is often, but not always, questionable.
The whole point of Christianity is that truth is objective not relative. Churches, at least the ones that are thriving, don’t bend the truth to win popularity contests. Ironically, those churches trying to be the most “inclusive” by conforming to popular fashion are the ones shrinking the fastest.
Over 2,000 years, from its beginning as a sect of Judaism to today, Christianity has been different things. Doctrinal beliefs didn't become set in stone until the 4th century. Truth simply was not objective. If you want objective truth, please do learn about the Canaanite pantheon and the henotheism of the Israelites. I'm happy to point you to the passages in the Hebrew Bible that show it. Also, there are few who would say that the Southern Baptist Convention has gone super out of its way to be inclusive. It's membership declines are well documented.
If truth is not objective, then you have no rights except those the government decides to give you. The Declaration of Independence proclaims, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Moreover, “To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The truths described in the Declaration deal with the inherent dignity of each person and the purpose of government, which is to protect that dignity.
Truth is also discoverable, which may make it seem to change, but in reality, our understanding just gets clearer. The church did make its beliefs clearer at Nicea, but most of that was a response to various heresies, not a change in their doctrine.
Yes, some people leave churches with a strong set of beliefs. As Chesterton said, Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been tried and found difficult. In the generation obsessed with self, the idea that it is not all about you" conflicts with lifestyle. They have a God, and it is in the mirror.
If we're talking about the Declaration of Independence, the subject has to be a general belief in God rather than a general acceptance of Christianity. The question, then, becomes, "Which God?" Certainly, many of founding fathers were Christians, but not all of them. The primary author of the Declaration was at best a rational theist or deist. He rejected the notion that Jesus of Nazareth was divine. Others were also rational theists or deists. Thomas Paine even went to great lengths to reject Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
But the argument you're making doesn't really hold much water because, for example, we have written laws that pre-date even the Hebrew Bible (which, again, I'll note is exceedingly violent and not that worried about individual liberty and, often, life) by centuries. The Code of Hammurabi established laws that protected Babylonians in the 18th century BCE. You may say that there was still polytheistic underpinning. I'll concede that; however, it wasn't Christianity. The laws of reason and common sense tell me that my fellow citizens have the same dignity and rights to life and liberty that you or I have. No faith or theological view is necessary to tell me that fact.
Early Christianity is fascinating. Sure, the Council of Nicaea did begin to make Catholic doctrine and theology clearer. I also wasn't referring to ecumenical councils. I was referring to the early Christian councils and the beliefs of some early Christians, including beliefs represented by Arianism and Ebionism, both of which rejected the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. The Council of Nicaea put those issues to rest in the early church.
I'm not so much arguing theology because I reject the underpinnings of belief. I don't believe in a god of any kind because there's no evidence that I've seen to show a god exists. I also believe the core basis of both Judaism and Christianity is rooted in ancient Canaanite religion that has been misrepresented and misunderstood. The Hebrew god was just one of the gods of the Canaanite pantheon. The evidence for this is in the Hebrew Bible itself. You just have to know where to look. This is why pre-exilic Israelites were henothestic or monolatrist rather than monotheistic.
You clearly don't understand Catholicism. That's ok. Neither does our President, apparently. But just because something is broadly accepted by society (or even just by you) does not, in and of itself, make it morally acceptable.
I'm not a Catholic, but I have a general understanding of it. I was raised Southern Baptist, though. I recognize that societal acceptance of a specific behavior doesn't mean that Christians or Catholics will accept it. There's no difference between fundamentalist Evangelicals and Catholics on that point. What I'm saying is that the unwillingness to see the gray when it comes to these issues is to their own detriment. This is, in part, why Christianity is in decline. The morality of the Hebrew Bible or the Christian New Testament (granted, at times and in the Book of Revelation) is often, but not always, questionable.
The whole point of Christianity is that truth is objective not relative. Churches, at least the ones that are thriving, don’t bend the truth to win popularity contests. Ironically, those churches trying to be the most “inclusive” by conforming to popular fashion are the ones shrinking the fastest.
Over 2,000 years, from its beginning as a sect of Judaism to today, Christianity has been different things. Doctrinal beliefs didn't become set in stone until the 4th century. Truth simply was not objective. If you want objective truth, please do learn about the Canaanite pantheon and the henotheism of the Israelites. I'm happy to point you to the passages in the Hebrew Bible that show it. Also, there are few who would say that the Southern Baptist Convention has gone super out of its way to be inclusive. It's membership declines are well documented.
If truth is not objective, then you have no rights except those the government decides to give you. The Declaration of Independence proclaims, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Moreover, “To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The truths described in the Declaration deal with the inherent dignity of each person and the purpose of government, which is to protect that dignity.
Truth is also discoverable, which may make it seem to change, but in reality, our understanding just gets clearer. The church did make its beliefs clearer at Nicea, but most of that was a response to various heresies, not a change in their doctrine.
Yes, some people leave churches with a strong set of beliefs. As Chesterton said, Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been tried and found difficult. In the generation obsessed with self, the idea that it is not all about you" conflicts with lifestyle. They have a God, and it is in the mirror.
If we're talking about the Declaration of Independence, the subject has to be a general belief in God rather than a general acceptance of Christianity. The question, then, becomes, "Which God?" Certainly, many of founding fathers were Christians, but not all of them. The primary author of the Declaration was at best a rational theist or deist. He rejected the notion that Jesus of Nazareth was divine. Others were also rational theists or deists. Thomas Paine even went to great lengths to reject Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
But the argument you're making doesn't really hold much water because, for example, we have written laws that pre-date even the Hebrew Bible (which, again, I'll note is exceedingly violent and not that worried about individual liberty and, often, life) by centuries. The Code of Hammurabi established laws that protected Babylonians in the 18th century BCE. You may say that there was still polytheistic underpinning. I'll concede that; however, it wasn't Christianity. The laws of reason and common sense tell me that my fellow citizens have the same dignity and rights to life and liberty that you or I have. No faith or theological view is necessary to tell me that fact.
Early Christianity is fascinating. Sure, the Council of Nicaea did begin to make Catholic doctrine and theology clearer. I also wasn't referring to ecumenical councils. I was referring to the early Christian councils and the beliefs of some early Christians, including beliefs represented by Arianism and Ebionism, both of which rejected the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. The Council of Nicaea put those issues to rest in the early church.
I'm not so much arguing theology because I reject the underpinnings of belief. I don't believe in a god of any kind because there's no evidence that I've seen to show a god exists. I also believe the core basis of both Judaism and Christianity is rooted in ancient Canaanite religion that has been misrepresented and misunderstood. The Hebrew god was just one of the gods of the Canaanite pantheon. The evidence for this is in the Hebrew Bible itself. You just have to know where to look. This is why pre-exilic Israelites were henothestic or monolatrist rather than monotheistic.
In any event, I hope you're doing well, Mark.