Painful Parent- Adult Child Religious Conflict more widespread today?

[justasque]

Well, no, the RCC does not permit one to disagree with the Magisterium and official teaching and still call yourself a Catholic in good standing.   You can do whatever you want, but you can't defy Church teaching and stay in good standing. 

 

So at some point, as a Catholic at least, you have to decide when there is an established position.  On some things there are not established positions, and then you have freedom. 

 

While there may be earthly consequences to acting according to one's conscience in some cases, the Catechism seems pretty clear to me.  

 

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.

[LucyStoner]

Yep. And even with the comparison to right vs left handedness, most parents would agree that forcing a child who is showing strong inclination to be a lefty to use their right hand is not productive or in the child's best interest.

Yeah, but let's not forget this is the WTM board. I recall a couple of left handed/right handed conversations where a person or two defended trying to get lefties to write with their right hand. Both of my lefty parents were forced to use their right hands in school, one was literally restrained so that was the only arm available to him, and fat lot of good it did them. ;)

 

I scratch my head here sometimes. Because really? Still can't take anything for granted here.

[Pam in CT]

The right- and left-handedness analogy does give me hope that we're stumbling with fits and starts towards a better world.

 

Because there really was a time when left-handedness was associated not just with relative statistical rareness but with evil; when social norms really did exert coercive pressure on left-handed individuals to change; and when those coercive pressures really were justified by references to selected passages in sacred texts.

 

Those biblical passages are still there.  Yet as a society we've moved, to a place where left-handedness is now accepted as part of "normal" human variance and there is no longer debate about how left-handed "behavior" poses any kind of threat to the surrounding right-handed majority.  

 

 

 

 

[Rosie_0801]

I do think that sexual things should be delayed until adulthood and would not encourage a child who wished to experiment this way or any way.  Children and teens are not ready for that, period.  To say a child is too young is not at all out of line. 

 

 

How do you suppose sexual topics can be delayed until adulthood when kids commonly begin puberty aged 9?

[Bluegoat]

It is interesting to me to compare statements like, "They shouldn't decide one way or the other at such a young age," with "It's a fad/phase/experiment".  That is, if children should keep themselves open rather than fixing on a label when they are young, doesn't that then mean labels might be tried on and discarded?  Is "fad/phase/experiment" then a positive trend in keeping with the idea of not making a firm decision one way or the other when young?  Not validating or arguing pro or con for either of these things, just thinking aloud about the implications of things some posters have advocated for...

 

Kids in their teen years do typically try on all kinds of different identites.  Some are pretty unimpportant, but other are more serious.

 

Most adults I think reasonably take this sort of thing with a grain of salt - they know it may or may not last.  When teens realize this they of course find it annoying, I'm not sure that is a bad thing as long as adults are not actually being dismissive.  It's not bad to get a sense from your elders that your preoccupations may be temporary, it can give some perspective especially if that turns out to be the case.

 

On the other hand, more serious things might require some more direct talk.  As far as sexuality goes, it can probably go either way.  I think it's reasonable not to try and identify as anything in particular while there is still a lot of crazy hormonal stuff going on.  But then I don't generally think adults need to either in many cases.

[Bluegoat]

I live in an absurdly liberal bubble. Many of my parent friends - like me - use gender neutral language when referring to any future romantic figures in our younger kids' lives - as in, well, one day when you fall in love then he or she will blah blah blah - that sort of thing. My kids have always known gay couples, gay people, gay parents, kids with gay parents. I once had to have the hilarious conversation with my kids that, sorry, no, biologically speaking, two men cannot have a baby together, because they were under the mistaken conception that was something that could happen (which makes sense given observations, just is not how that works).

 

And yet! Even in that sort of liberal bubble, I do not know a single 8 yo who has come out. Which is not to say that it could never have happened, but even in the context of growing up in a very LGBTQ positive environment, most younger kids simply do not think about their sexual preferences much. Or think of them as "cool" or "not cool." Most kids don't think of romance of any kind as being "cool" when they're younger, at least in our crowd.

 

Similarly, most of the parents in my liberal bubble were careful to raise their kids as gender neutral as possible - toys, clothes, etc. Several families i know had kids who had phases of being gender non-conforming - as in, girls who insisted on short hair and boy clothes, boys who wanted long hair and liked to wear dresses. One of my ds was gender non-conforming for a long time - he has long hair and used to wear pink tutus out all the time. But in every case I personally know, the kids never strayed from also identifying with the gender that matched the sex they were born with. And they're all growing up happy and well-adjusted and fine. In our case, ds eventually shed the tutus, kept the long hair, and stuck with ballet. In other words, while it may have been "cool" among the 4 yo set to dress in princess dress up, that's really different from a child who says repeatedly and clearly that they are a different gender. It doesn't encourage it - it only opens it up as a possibility for the kids that actually applies to.

 

I think this may be more difficult to differentiate than that. (Although I agree with the pre-pubery set cool doesn't seem to have much to do with anything.)  Many young kids are not very well able to express themselves, so what they say can be misleading.

 

But my personal experience was that I insisted to my mother for about two year that I was, in fact, a boy.  I had a theory, the details of which I know longer remember, about why I did not appear to be a boy.  And then I decided that no, that wasn't really the case.

 

So I am not convinced that it is all that cut and dried.

[*Lulu*]

She's probably one of the few that really thinks she has "just read" the book -- and not actively and personally done that crazy thing called 'interpreting it' (a human skill that varies from person to person) which is how "reading" turns into "understanding"... People who think that books require no interpretation usually interpret poorly because they don't pay attention to how they use a skill that they honestly don't think exists.

 

There are many people (hopefully few here) who really think that "whatever thought first crossed my mind while I was reading is the pure truth of the text" and that anyone who works harder with an important text is doing "revisionist rhetoric".

 

Which, if true, would mean that centuries worth of scholars were just goldbricking instead of doing real work.

 

By that logic we do not need literature courses; just provide the books and make sure they get read. And prepare to flunk any student that compares the plot of The Crucible to McCarthyism or dares to say Animal Farm is not about life on the farm.

[Tanaqui]

But my personal experience was that I insisted to my mother for about two year that I was, in fact, a boy.  I had a theory, the details of which I know longer remember, about why I did not appear to be a boy.  And then I decided that no, that wasn't really the case.

 

We know that most trans people know when they're children, however, I don't believe we do have accurate statistics on how many go through a genuine phase.

 

I'm not convinced it matters, though. As I see it, there are two options, and those options are not "your child is trans" and "your child is cis". Those aren't anything you have control over. Instead, your options are "your child learns that you love and support them, and accept them however they are" and "your child learns that you don't".

 

If it's a stage, then your kid will grow out of it, and if it isn't they won't, but in the end what they'll remember is how you made them feel. And that's something children never grow out of and never forget. That's the part that matters.

[Bluegoat]

We know that most trans people know when they're children, however, I don't believe we do have accurate statistics on how many go through a genuine phase.

 

I'm not convinced it matters, though. As I see it, there are two options, and those options are not "your child is trans" and "your child is cis". Those aren't anything you have control over. Instead, your options are "your child learns that you love and support them, and accept them however they are" and "your child learns that you don't".

 

If it's a stage, then your kid will grow out of it, and if it isn't they won't, but in the end what they'll remember is how you made them feel. And that's something children never grow out of and never forget. That's the part that matters.

 

 

I think the question though is, what does it look like to support your child?  Do you tell them not to worry about it?  Point out their anatomy is female?  Start talking about hormones?  Just let them wear what they want?  Change their public gender?

[ktgrok]

While there may be earthly consequences to acting according to one's conscience in some cases, the Catechism seems pretty clear to me.  

 

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.

 

exactly. Now, this needs to be a "well formed" conscience...you can't just say "no, I don't like that". You have to pray, study, and think on it. Talk to a priest, read relevant material from the Church, etc. But, if after doing all your conscience goes against Church teaching you are morally obligated to follow your conscience. 

[Bluegoat]

exactly. Now, this needs to be a "well formed" conscience...you can't just say "no, I don't like that". You have to pray, study, and think on it. Talk to a priest, read relevant material from the Church, etc. But, if after doing all your conscience goes against Church teaching you are morally obligated to follow your conscience. 

 

Although I think what people often miss from this is concepts like submission to rightful authority, or just intelelctually humility, are also meant to have an important place in that kind of evaluation. 

[TranquilMind]

How do you suppose sexual topics can be delayed until adulthood when kids commonly begin puberty aged 9?

Not in my world. 12 and up is pretty typical. Sexual topics should be addressed at appropriate times, as they arise. Sexual activity should occur in adulthood.

[TranquilMind]

The right- and left-handedness analogy does give me hope that we're stumbling with fits and starts towards a better world.

 

Because there really was a time when left-handedness was associated not just with relative statistical rareness but with evil; when social norms really did exert coercive pressure on left-handed individuals to change; and when those coercive pressures really were justified by references to selected passages in sacred texts.

 

Those biblical passages are still there. Yet as a society we've moved, to a place where left-handedness is now accepted as part of "normal" human variance and there is no longer debate about how left-handed "behavior" poses any kind of threat to the surrounding right-handed majority.

Please identify the passages of scripture that declare writing with one's left hand a sin or abomination.

[TranquilMind]

I don't understand the concept of "disagreeing" with someone else's "behaviour". Behaviour is a fact (an event in the past) not an opinion. It can't be disagreed with. If it happened it's true. There aren't other logical positions to hold about events/facts.

 

Children will grow to have their own values, interpretations, and ideas around sin. Their values will govern their behaviour. It's basic cause and effect... Any two people can disagree on a theoretical level (the interpretations) and when they do, that means that their respective behaviour will probably differ. In that way, I suppose you could say that one's behaviour disagrees (differs) from the other... But I I don't think anyone is suggesting that use of language in this conversation.

 

I think you are using "disagree with behaviour" as a code for "disapprove of behaviour" -- and to "disapprove" as a parent-of-an-adult is a presumption to power, which is a violation of the basic peer respect that people expect among equals. It's best avoided if people want to try for unconditional love and continuing in healthy relationships.

You are right. I should have worded that differently. We love our kids, for example, but sometimes we disagree with what they do, their behavior, the decisions they make. I meant it like that. Yes, I have disapproved of kids' behavior at times, because it was wrong and not in their best interest. Who hasn't? If you think you have no right to ever disapprove of something your kid does because he passed some birthday, well, that is unrealistic.

 

Can you stop them when they have reached adulthood? Rarely. Can you disagree/disapprove of their behavior and decisions and be honest about that? Yes, and you owe them honesty.

 

Are you invariably right as the parent, and the kid only recognizes it years in the future? Frequently.

[*Lulu*]

Please identify the passages of scripture that declare writing with one's left hand a sin or abomination.

 

I know that you and I have gone around this dead horse before...

 

 

Just because you (specifically) do not read certain Biblical passages as supportive of X does not negate the fact that X was a position held by Christians and justified by their interpretation of scripture.

 

This is the historically verifiable case with a myriad of issues:

 

slavery

divorce

women in the workplace

interracial marriage

left-handed-ness

mental illness as spiritual deficiency

epilepsy as demonic possession

abuse of children

abuse of women

persecution of those with differing religious beliefs

 

To say that because you (specifically) in a post-modern reading of the Bible do not hold the above to be justified does not change that they once were not only held, but to some degree accepted across Christendom. 

[Tanaqui]

Tranquilmind, this is from Landover Baptist, which is very much a parody site, but like all good parody, they and their posters do their research.

 

The fact is that every time the left or right hand is mentioned in the Bible, the good stuff goes to the right and the bad stuff to the left. This is part of where people got the idea that using the left hand is evil and should be beaten out of children.

[TranquilMind]

I know that you and I have gone around this dead horse before...

 

 

Just because you (specifically) do not read certain Biblical passages as supportive of X does not negate the fact that X was a position held by Christians and justified by their interpretation of scripture.

 

This is the historically verifiable case with a myriad of issues:

 

slavery

divorce

women in the workplace

interracial marriage

left-handed-ness

mental illness as spiritual deficiency

epilepsy as demonic possession

abuse of children

abuse of women

persecution of those with differing religious beliefs

 

To say that because you (specifically) in a post-modern reading of the Bible do not hold the above to be justified does not change that they once were not only held, but to some degree accepted across Christendom.

So, with all those words, there isn't even one cite supporting that assertion. Ok. Edited April 30, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

Tranquilmind, this is from Landover Baptist, which is very much a parody site, but like all good parody, they and their posters do their research.

 

The fact is that every time the left or right hand is mentioned in the Bible, the good stuff goes to the right and the bad stuff to the left. This is part of where people got the idea that using the left hand is evil and should be beaten out of children.

That assertion is a huge leap in assumption, unsupported scripturally. That's like arguing that God must mean turning left at the stop sign is a sin, but making a right turn is fine.

 

It's just not there. This sexual stuff is prohibited clearly.

[Paige]

That assertion is a huge leap in assumption, unsupported scripturally. That's like arguing that God must mean turning left at the stop sign is a sin, but making a right turn is fine.

 

It's just not there. This sexual stuff is prohibited clearly.

 

Well, it's obvious to us now. That doesn't change what was taught in the past and not so obvious to others in that time. It's not like people back then were universally stupid. 

[*Lulu*]

Which item would you argue has not been held by the Christian community at some point in history or justified by the scriptural interpretation of that time?

[Tanaqui]

We've had this conversation before, Tranquilmind. It's not as "clear" as you think. It's really inappropriate of you to continue to claim that your understanding is THE correct one. I thought this was supposed to be a discussion - not 500 iterations of you asserting that you're right and everybody else is wrong.

[Tanaqui]

So, with all those words, there isn't even one cite supporting that assertion. Ok.

 

You can, and should, review past conversations where these citations have been provided. Frankly, I'm a little tired of providing citations for you to ignore them and assert that everybody who held those views or holds them today is stupid, but the irrational prejudices YOU consider God's will are clearly attested.

 

[elegantlion]

They never were able to do that.  Except maybe during the Crusades.  They were able to teach a standard, and people did what they wanted; some followed and some resisted.  Same as today, though we no longer share a common standard of morality and sexuality. 

 

This statement doesn't really make sense. If we're trying to be precise, do you believe in the generalist, traditionalist, or pluralist viewpoint of the what counts as a crusade? Which crusade did you mean in particular? The Albigensians? When Frederick II negotiated with al-Kamil? To just throw out "The Crusades" is a pretty ambiguous term and to avoid equivocation, it should be defined. 

[bolt.]

You are right. I should have worded that differently. We love our kids, for example, but sometimes we disagree with what they do, their behavior, the decisions they make. I meant it like that. Yes, I have disapproved of kids' behavior at times, because it was wrong and not in their best interest. Who hasn't? If you think you have no right to ever disapprove of something your kid does because he passed some birthday, well, that is unrealistic.

 

Can you stop them when they have reached adulthood? Rarely. Can you disagree/disapprove of their behavior and decisions and be honest about that? Yes, and you owe them honesty.

 

Are you invariably right as the parent, and the kid only recognizes it years in the future? Frequently.

Any person "has a right" to disapprove of any other person, any time, for any reason. That's simply the freedom to have an opinion. So, I agree that parents have 'a right' to disapprove of their adult children for anything.

 

What I am saying has nothing to do with rights, and very little to do with birthdays. I'm saying that it is unwise, unkind, unnessusary, inappropriate, and incredibly presumptuous to openly disapprove of people -- particularly if we are also trying to treat them with respect as peers (once they are no longer children), or as 'better than ourselves', or to show them unconditional love, or to abide by the golden rule (all of which are non-optional commandments for Christians in all their relationships).

 

We don't try to "stop" people (that we respect) from following their own faith in their own way. Nor do we regret the unfortunate (?) reality that we don't have the power to stop them from doing so. (I wouldn't want that power, so I don't regret not having it.)

 

We *definitely* don't "owe people honesty" whenever we disapprove of them. Usually it's very important not to let such a pointlessly judgemental and presumptuous emotion dictate any of our actions -- but it certainly should not be allowed to lead us astray from the clear commandments I was just mentioning, about love, especially towards our loved ones. They have to be followed whether we approve of people's actions or not.

 

And, finally,

 

I expect my children to be significantly wiser than I am... Eventually. How else could I have hope for humanity or the future? Am I (by wild co-incidence) supposed to be a member of the 'as wise as its ever gonna get' generation? Certainly not. It's so unlikely as to be rendered logically impossible. What hubris that would be: to think my children will never surpass me.

Edited April 30, 2016 by bolt.

[TranquilMind]

Any person "has a right" to disapprove of any other person, any time, for any reason. That's simply the freedom to have an opinion. So, I agree that parents have 'a right' to disapprove of their adult children for anything.

 

What I am saying has nothing to do with rights, and very little to do with birthdays. I'm saying that it is unwise, unkind, unnessusary, inappropriate, and incredibly presumptuous to openly disapprove of people -- particularly if we are also trying to treat them with respect as peers (once they are no longer children), or as 'better than ourselves', or to show them unconditional love, or to abide by the golden rule (all of which are non-optional commandments for Christians in all their relationships).

 

We don't try to "stop" people (that we respect) from following their own faith in their own way. Nor do we regret the unfortunate (?) reality that we don't have the power to stop them from doing so. (I wouldn't want that power, so I don't regret not having it.)

 

We *definitely* don't "owe people honesty" whenever we disapprove of them. Usually it's very important not to let such a pointlessly judgemental and presumptuous emotion dictate any of our actions -- but it certainly should not be allowed to lead us astray from the clear commandments I was just mentioning, about love, especially towards our loved ones. They have to be followed whether we approve of people's actions or not.

 

And, finally,

 

I expect my children to be significantly wiser than I am... Eventually. How else could I have hope for humanity or the future? Am I (by wild co-incidence) supposed to be a member of the 'as wise as its ever gonna get' generation? Certainly not. It's so unlikely as to be rendered logically impossible. What hubris that would be: to think my children will never surpass me.

Oh, they will come alongside you and eventually surpass you in wisdom perhaps. Just not anytime soon.

 

Like Sophia said in Golden Girls: "Your kids hit sixty and they think they know everything"

[TranquilMind]

We've had this conversation before, Tranquilmind. It's not as "clear" as you think. It's really inappropriate of you to continue to claim that your understanding is THE correct one. I thought this was supposed to be a discussion - not 500 iterations of you asserting that you're right and everybody else is wrong.

It is very clear and in plain language. Even biology makes it clear how things are supposed to work.

 

I am allowed to say so, and believe me, I know it's a rare and violently opposed perspective today. You can bow out if you can't handle someone stating a viewpoint in a way you don't like.

 

It would be so much easier to jump on the popular bandwagon. That's more or less what the neighbor said to me, actually. Frankly, she states the pressure and vitriolic response (from her kid, some other family, and the partner) is so high, she may be compelled to do it but doesn't know how well she can handle the internal conflict. On the other hand, she knows she isn't responsible for what her kid chose to do.

 

I've seen this conflict arise in several different venues. It would not have been a conflict in the same way a few decades ago, because there was basic agreement on what was right and wrong, so even if it was happening, as in this situation, it would not have been defiantly in her face with the kid and partner demanding approval or else threatening her with the loss of the kid and grandkids.

 

Hence, the thread, as I continued to ruminate about that over a period of time.

Edited April 30, 2016 by TranquilMind

[bolt.]

It is impossible for something to be "very clear in plain language" in an ancient text, in a dead language, in a collection of goal-specific documents, embedded in a foreign culture, filled with rhetoric, figures of speech, and even *made up words* (yet free of word spaces and punctuation), transmitted by human beings for thousands of years, translated by human beings multiple ways, and interpreted by every reader.

 

Honey, that's a complicated task even if it turns out that the sentence is, "Put on a sweater, it's cold out." -- When the literature is the backbone of religion, faith, worldview, and metaphysics... Well, if anyone doesn't recognize that that's a "skills required" task, it's absolutely clear that that person doesn't have the skills required. (Or the humility and self-awareness that the religion is supposed to produce.)

 

---

 

You are right that a few decades ago there was basic agreement in western society about the opinion that homosexuality is wrong... So there was not a lot of open conflict over homosexuality. There was plenty of conflict over the 'issues if the day' (civil rights, pacifism, feminism, Vietnam, politics, interracial dating, domestic violence, reproduction, etc.)

 

It's a new topic, but not a new experience.

 

Your neighbour's child is not "defiant" because your neighbour is not in any position of authority.

 

Your neighbours child is not demanding anything: setting conditions for the way they will or won't parent the grandkids may feel like a demand, but it's just a boundary. Your neighbour has a free choice (with high stakes). High stakes doesn't make a choice into a demand.

[Carrie12345]

Do we ask straight kids to 'keep their options open' before they identify as interested in the opposite sex ? We do not. Do we request our straight children just 'try on' their heterosexuality - "sure, babe, date that nice boy at school, but don't forget you actually might be gay and this might just be your straight phase ?" Ludicrous. 

 

Telling kids 'not to label themselves' and to 'keep their options open' presupposes there is something wrong with identifying as LBGTIQ as a teen. Something harmful. Something they need to avoid. 

 

It's not like, say, identifying as a lesbian at age 14 puts you in lesbian prison for the rest of your life either.

 

I'm confident I have a child who is bi.  Said child has not declared a label, and I haven't proposed one, despite feeling like it's crystal clear.  I share this just to point out that it's possible to have reasons to ignore labels that don't involve shame or dismissal, or promote "trying" anything.  My kid is working through things and coming to terms with things at a pace and through a process that I cannot dictate, and don't want to.  I'm here to love and support, and that's what I do.  What *I* think is irrelevant to my child's emerging sexuality.

 

If/when my child feels comfortable claiming a socially constructed label, I'll use that one.

 

ETA for clarity - I'm not claiming that's the way it *should* be, just how it is in my house at this time.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Carrie12345

[TranquilMind]

It would, actually, but the societal pressure would have been in the opposite direction. The adult child would have to pretend to agree with the parent in order not to lose out on family relationships. That might let the parent remain ignorant of the conflict, but it doesn't mean the conflict isn't there.

 

True enough. It just shifts the conflict onto the person engaging in it, not the parent who remains unaware. 

 

[TranquilMind]

I'm confident I have a child who is bi.  Said child has not declared a label, and I haven't proposed one, despite feeling like it's crystal clear.  I share this just to point out that it's possible to have reasons to ignore labels that don't involve shame or dismissal, or promote "trying" anything.  My kid is working through things and coming to terms with things at a pace and through a process that I cannot dictate, and don't want to.  I'm here to love and support, and that's what I do.  What *I* think is irrelevant to my child's emerging sexuality.

 

If/when my child feels comfortable claiming a socially constructed label, I'll use that one.

 

How could you know and hazard a guess unless the child told you of various attractions? (Maybe said child did). 

 

[Carrie12345]

How could you know and hazard a guess unless the child told you of various attractions? (Maybe said child did). 

 

 

There have been attractions to both sexes.  I couldn't tell you whether or not the opposite attraction was genuine, or a part of the tweeny-teen "Who do you like-like" conversation that the overwhelming majority of kids have.  And I really don't care one way or the other, so I haven't pressed for an explanation on either end of the equation. 

[TranquilMind]

It is impossible for something to be "very clear in plain language" in an ancient text, in a dead language, in a collection of goal-specific documents, embedded in a foreign culture, filled with rhetoric, figures of speech, and even *made up words* (yet free of word spaces and punctuation), transmitted by human beings for thousands of years, translated by human beings multiple ways, and interpreted by every reader.

 

Honey, that's a complicated task even if it turns out that the sentence is, "Put on a sweater, it's cold out." -- When the literature is the backbone of religion, faith, worldview, and metaphysics... Well, if anyone doesn't recognize that that's a "skills required" task, it's absolutely clear that that person doesn't have the skills required. (Or the humility and self-awareness that the religion is supposed to produce.)

 

---

 

You are right that a few decades ago there was basic agreement in western society about the opinion that homosexuality is wrong... So there was not a lot of open conflict over homosexuality. There was plenty of conflict over the 'issues if the day' (civil rights, pacifism, feminism, Vietnam, politics, interracial dating, domestic violence, reproduction, etc.)

 

It's a new topic, but not a new experience.

 

Your neighbour's child is not "defiant" because your neighbour is not in any position of authority.

 

Your neighbours child is not demanding anything: setting conditions for the way they will or won't parent the grandkids may feel like a demand, but it's just a boundary. Your neighbour has a free choice (with high stakes). High stakes doesn't make a choice into a demand.

 

You understand that your perspective is clearly from outside of the perspective that the scriptures are living moral truth for all time, speaking to us today on moral issues, and that as Jesus said in Matthew 11:25:

 

At that time Jesus prayed this prayer: "O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike.

 

Everything in scripture and faith works exactly opposite of what you just said, which is why sometimes the most spiritually astonishingly mature people are those of low academic achievement.  Ever met the little old lady with a 6th grade education that could move spiritual mountains in faith?  I have. 

 

If one begins with the premise that the Bible is merely another ancient book that demands learned academic skill to decipher, then yes, what you say is true.  But I reject that premise and contend that Jesus says it works the opposite way, as it did in his day, though obviously without prejudice, as Paul was extremely educated. 

 

[Greta]

It would be so much easier to jump on the popular bandwagon. That's more or less what the neighbor said to me, actually. Frankly, she states the pressure and vitriolic response (from her kid, some other family, and the partner) is so high, she may be compelled to do it but doesn't know how well she can handle the internal conflict. On the other hand, she knows she isn't responsible for what her kid chose to do.

 

 

 

Perhaps you posted this earlier and I missed it, but may I ask, what exactly is it she's being asked to do that goes against her conscience?  What, specifically, is this pressure she's under?

[TranquilMind]

Perhaps you posted this earlier and I missed it, but may I ask, what exactly is it she's being asked to do that goes against her conscience?  What, specifically, is this pressure she's under?

It sounds like verbally approve it and treat it as the status quo, as if nothing has changed.  There are grandchildren involved. so it sounds as if an explicit threat was made that "happiness (or well-faked happiness)" was required to see the grandkids, was kind of the gist, I think.  Some people don't hide their feelings well, even if they say nothing, so maybe she is one; I don't know all the facts about that. 

 

There was a husband, and now there is this person in the husband's place and I think it all happened pretty fast and she's shocked, I guess.  I feel for her.   That's all.  You may think she should just get over it, but I think it is kind of hard after a long marriage and a son-in-law she loved. 

 

[*Lulu*]

You understand that your perspective is clearly from outside of the perspective that the scriptures are living moral truth for all time, speaking to us today on moral issues, and that as Jesus said in Matthew 11:25:

 

At that time Jesus prayed this prayer: "O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike.

 

Everything in scripture and faith works exactly opposite of what you just said, which is why sometimes the most spiritually astonishingly mature people are those of low academic achievement.  Ever met the little old lady with a 6th grade education that could move spiritual mountains in faith?  I have. 

 

If one begins with the premise that the Bible is merely another ancient book that demands learned academic skill to decipher, then yes, what you say is true.  But I reject that premise and contend that Jesus says it works the opposite way, as it did in his day, though obviously without prejudice, as Paul was extremely educated. 

 

 

 

Holy High Horse Batman!

 

Are you seriously saying that for a couple millennia of church history the Christians were wrongheaded in engaging in scholarly interpretation, in listening to the voices of those whose vocation was the study of scripture? Are you aware of the arrogance of saying that your current denomination/body of worshipers has a superior grasp on Biblical matters than the millions of faithful who have gone before?

[TranquilMind]

Holy High Horse Batman!

 

Are you seriously saying that for a couple millennia of church history the Christians were wrongheaded in engaging in scholarly interpretation, in listening to the voices of those whose vocation was the study of scripture? Are you aware of the arrogance of saying that your current denomination/body of worshipers has a superior grasp on Biblical matters than the millions of faithful who have gone before?

 

You might want to reread what I actually said; nothing of the kind was stated.  In no way did I say "my current denomination/body of worshippers has a superior grasp".  That superior grasp is available to whomsoever will, so long as they come to it as Jesus states, and not from an arrogant, scholarly view alone.   The final line should be clearer, I suppose. 

 

It isn't wrong, but it isn't sufficient.  Paul was a person who walked that line. 

 

[Ravin]

You might want to reread what I actually said; nothing of the kind was stated. In no way did I say "my current denomination/body of worshippers has a superior grasp". That superior grasp is available to whomsoever will, so long as they come to it as Jesus states, and not from an arrogant, scholarly view alone. The final line should be clearer, I suppose.

 

It isn't wrong, but it isn't sufficient. Paul was a person who walked that line.

 

If you think scholarship = arrogance and humility is a virtue, why do you hang out on a classical education board?

[TranquilMind]

If you think scholarship = arrogance and humility is a virtue, why do you hang out on a classical education board?

 

I don't think that, obviously, nor do I think scholarship is in opposition to humility.  I do think it can be a barrier to faith, as was so clear to Jesus, which is why he said what he said about thanking the Father for revealing the way the kingdom works not to the "wise and learned" but to the childlike (in terms of believing and receiving, not impugning their mental abilities). 

 

Paul was a highly educated man, and he was still able to do this, but it took that Damascus road experience to get it.  But it does seem less common.

 

I'm married to one too, and we highly value education. It is very likely our kids will obtain advanced degrees, but I pray it isn't at the cost of their faith. 

 

[bolt.]

You understand that your perspective is clearly from outside of the perspective that the scriptures are living moral truth for all time, speaking to us today on moral issues, and that as Jesus said in Matthew 11:25:

 

At that time Jesus prayed this prayer: "O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike.

 

Everything in scripture and faith works exactly opposite of what you just said, which is why sometimes the most spiritually astonishingly mature people are those of low academic achievement. Ever met the little old lady with a 6th grade education that could move spiritual mountains in faith? I have.

 

If one begins with the premise that the Bible is merely another ancient book that demands learned academic skill to decipher, then yes, what you say is true. But I reject that premise and contend that Jesus says it works the opposite way, as it did in his day, though obviously without prejudice, as Paul was extremely educated.

 

So, basically, "I have a prooftext that proves that prooftexing (jumping to 'obvious' conclusions without analysis) spiritually superior to respectful exegesis."

 

(And also, "I can work from translations with ease and absolute confidence, while pretending that translating is not a learned academic skill that contributes to my instant conclusions.")

[Valley Girl]

That is sad. It's true in any divorce - the extended family doesn't get a vote and it's hard when someone you considered family suddenly isn't anymore because their marriage ended.

 

That's true. Extended family doesn't get a vote--nor should they.

 

However, even in a typical divorce (unless the spouse did something horrendous), I think it's unrealistic to expect extended family to feel that same warmth and affection for any new person immediately. There's going to be some grieving. New relationships within the extended family take time to grow. As long as everyone is genuinely polite to and respectful of each other, it behooves BOTH sides to be patient and allow that time. I'll probably get slammed for saying this, but I think that's even more important when the situation involves relationships that are new to the family in terms of experience or faith or upbringing. I could well be mistaken, but I get the impression that Tranquil's neighbor hasn't had that time. It's a tough situation all around.

[Greta]

It sounds like verbally approve it and treat it as the status quo, as if nothing has changed.  There are grandchildren involved. so it sounds as if an explicit threat was made that "happiness (or well-faked happiness)" was required to see the grandkids, was kind of the gist, I think.  Some people don't hide their feelings well, even if they say nothing, so maybe she is one; I don't know all the facts about that. 

 

 

 

 

Well, I certainly respect the fact that we can't know all the facts of the situation.  Putting myself in her daughter's shoes, if I felt that waves of disapproval were radiating from my mother in front of my children, I'd do something to try to put an end to that as well.  It would have to be VERY bad before I would threaten to cut off contact, but as you so rightfully pointed out, not knowing details, I can't evaluate their situation.

 

 

There was a husband, and now there is this person in the husband's place and I think it all happened pretty fast and she's shocked, I guess.  I feel for her.   That's all.  You may think she should just get over it, but I think it is kind of hard after a long marriage and a son-in-law she loved.

 

That is very hard.  An aunt of mine died a few years ago, and my grandmother (her mother) was devastated when my uncle started seriously dating another woman, and wanted to introduce them.  At first, my grandmother refused to meet her, because it was so painful to her to think of her daughter being "replaced" in that way.  My Mom and another aunt had a heart to heart with her and told her that for the sake of the relationship with a son-in-law that she loves very much, she needed to put her feelings aside and accept the situation.  So she did.  I can only imagine how hard it must have been for her to do so, but she did it.  The loss of a spouse, whether through death or divorce, is painful for the entire family.  So I have no trouble imagining that your friend/neighbor is still reeling.  I just hope that she won't let her pain over losing a son-in-law cause her to lose a daughter too.  My heart goes out to her, truly, and the whole family.  I hope they find peace.

[justasque]

It is very clear and in plain language. Even biology makes it clear how things are supposed to work.

 

I am allowed to say so, and believe me, I know it's a rare and violently opposed perspective today. You can bow out if you can't handle someone stating a viewpoint in a way you don't like.

 

It would be so much easier to jump on the popular bandwagon. That's more or less what the neighbor said to me, actually. Frankly, she states the pressure and vitriolic response (from her kid, some other family, and the partner) is so high, she may be compelled to do it but doesn't know how well she can handle the internal conflict. On the other hand, she knows she isn't responsible for what her kid chose to do.

 

I've seen this conflict arise in several different venues. It would not have been a conflict in the same way a few decades ago, because there was basic agreement on what was right and wrong, so even if it was happening, as in this situation, it would not have been defiantly in her face with the kid and partner demanding approval or else threatening her with the loss of the kid and grandkids.

 

Hence, the thread, as I continued to ruminate about that over a period of time.

 

I am sorry that your neighbor's daughter may be being less than sensitive to the fact that her mother needs time to process the breakup of the daughter's family, and the introduction of a new partner.  Vitriol is usually best dealt with by gently finding the root of the feelings behind it, ideally through active listening while putting aside one's own feelings.  That's not always easy to do, especially during a time of rapid unexpected change.  Sometimes it helps to remind oneself that you can never truly know what goes on inside a marriage, and it's not appropriate to feel entitled to a full explanation of the situation (for any number of reasons, particularly around concerns gossip about one parent or the other getting back to the children).  It may help your friend to realize that divorce and re-partnering happens fairly often (sadly) and it could be helpful to tease out her feelings about that, to separate them from the feelings surrounding the gender of the new partner, as a way to help process things.  It may also help her to think through how she would have handled the new partner had they been of the opposite gender, as a way to frame her behavior towards the new relationship.

 

I don't think vitriol and "defiant", "in her face" behavior is particularly conducive to building relationships.  (And I don't know if this approach has been one-sided or if the mom has done her share of provoking the behavior.  Clearly there has been some indication of disapproval from mom, otherwise there would be no conflict.)  However, looking at it from the other side, I don't think it's unreasonable for the daughter to expect to be treated with courtesy and respect regardless of mom's feelings about her relationship, just as the daughter should be respectful even if she feels she must limit contact with her mom.  

 

BOTH parties are more likely to come to a better understanding and a working relationship if they are able to discuss their feelings and concerns thoughtfully, rather than with anger, trying to understand the other's perspective. But of course that can be hard if feelings have already been hurt and the mother/daughter relationship damaged.  If your neighbor has modeled this kind of gentle conflict resolution to her children as she brought them up, they both will be more likely to have a framework to use to repair the relationship once the initial shock wears off and things settle down.  Generous helpings of love and grace on both sides will go a long way.

[TranquilMind]

 

 

That is very hard.  An aunt of mine died a few years ago, and my grandmother (her mother) was devastated when my uncle started seriously dating another woman, and wanted to introduce them.  At first, my grandmother refused to meet her, because it was so painful to her to think of her daughter being "replaced" in that way.  My Mom and another aunt had a heart to heart with her and told her that for the sake of the relationship with a son-in-law that she loves very much, she needed to put her feelings aside and accept the situation.  So she did.  I can only imagine how hard it must have been for her to do so, but she did it.  The loss of a spouse, whether through death or divorce, is painful for the entire family.  So I have no trouble imagining that your friend/neighbor is still reeling.  I just hope that she won't let her pain over losing a son-in-law cause her to lose a daughter too.  My heart goes out to her, truly, and the whole family.  I hope they find peace.

 

Surely you are not equating this situation with one in which the husband died.  That situation is normal and expected, if it did seem a bit fast and difficult to the mother whose daughter died.  

 

[*Lulu*]

Surely you are not equating this situation with one in which the husband died. That situation is normal and expected, if it did seem a bit fast and difficult to the mother whose daughter died.

 

But it is very much the same.

 

At the root both death and divorce involve grieving for the extended family.

[TranquilMind]

I am sorry that your neighbor's daughter may be being less than sensitive to the fact that her mother needs time to process the breakup of the daughter's family, and the introduction of a new partner.  Vitriol is usually best dealt with by gently finding the root of the feelings behind it, ideally through active listening while putting aside one's own feelings.  That's not always easy to do, especially during a time of rapid unexpected change.  Sometimes it helps to remind oneself that you can never truly know what goes on inside a marriage, and it's not appropriate to feel entitled to a full explanation of the situation (for any number of reasons, particularly around concerns gossip about one parent or the other getting back to the children).  It may help your friend to realize that divorce and re-partnering happens fairly often (sadly) and it could be helpful to tease out her feelings about that, to separate them from the feelings surrounding the gender of the new partner, as a way to help process things.  It may also help her to think through how she would have handled the new partner had they been of the opposite gender, as a way to frame her behavior towards the new relationship.

 

I don't think vitriol and "defiant", "in her face" behavior is particularly conducive to building relationships.  (And I don't know if this approach has been one-sided or if the mom has done her share of provoking the behavior.  Clearly there has been some indication of disapproval from mom, otherwise there would be no conflict.)  However, looking at it from the other side, I don't think it's unreasonable for the daughter to expect to be treated with courtesy and respect regardless of mom's feelings about her relationship, just as the daughter should be respectful even if she feels she must limit contact with her mom.  

 

BOTH parties are more likely to come to a better understanding and a working relationship if they are able to discuss their feelings and concerns thoughtfully, rather than with anger, trying to understand the other's perspective. But of course that can be hard if feelings have already been hurt and the mother/daughter relationship damaged.  If your neighbor has modeled this kind of gentle conflict resolution to her children as she brought them up, they both will be more likely to have a framework to use to repair the relationship once the initial shock wears off and things settle down.  Generous helpings of love and grace on both sides will go a long way.

 

I have no way of knowing any of the background and upbringing, of course. 

 

If it were a new man, I think she would still be shocked and upset, but this was just seriously unexpected, adding to the blow. 

 

[SporkUK]

Any English verse you want to use is a translation. Any and all translations have a margin of error because of the differences in languages and choices made by the translators. All uses of the text to support or deny a point of view has to be seen through the lenses of those choices. Within the last decade or so, most modern English translation have chosen or corrected depending on ones point of view so many things that were once considered gospel up to and including the line that has been used for centuries to support the virgin birth. 

 

One word in Hebrew that is elsewhere translated as young woman has been translated as virgin for literally centuries to back public opinion has been changed by many translations within living memory because they could no longer support its use. A lot of the translations in the Bible against homosexuality has a lot of raised eyebrows and question marks around the linguistic support - many view it as weak in comparison to other usages, but as the change to virgin took so long and is really no longer really a hot topic item, I suspect any real push for linguistic discussion on the verses on homosexuality may take some time -- and then there is the entire issue of using English translations of the Written Torah/OT without the appropriate Oral Torah/Midrash/Talmud. One literally cannot perform basic mitzvahs, like kosher slaughter or circumcision, without the additional information, but we're meant to believe that we're meant to condemn people on a line or so of Leviticus with little other support? There are far more verses on how to sell enslaved people, more verses on the forced marriages of captured virgins... Seriously, there are more verses on giving everything to poor and the care of unfortunate, but I'm not seeing people concerned with religious family conflict because their rich child doesn't give enough. 

 

 

The Written Torah - as stated in text - was never meant to be taken by itself. It says repeatedly 'as you have been taught' to reference the Oral Torah tradition which, by many scholars, is the 'living text' often referred to because of how it works  but the early Roman/European Christian church decided that they didn't like it and discarded it [and actively tried to destroy it]. The entire understanding of a text by Christians arguably hobbled because of that choice by a small circle of power. Living text or not, the power held by those who controlled the early form of the standardization of the texts has weight to consider and its usage by those in power to give sway to a whole number of what to us would likely seem odd opinions is easily researchable and continues to this day. The Bible has recently been used as reason to kidnap children of those who go away from the Christian faith as well as any children of LGBT+ people [i myself was threatened with this before I even had kids - and my grandfather and two uncles are in ministry so I spent far too long in my youth studying this usage, there are entire Christian networks dedicated to this within very large denominations]. 

 

We don't even have all the books - so many were discarded or included by popular opinion of a small group, some version cut parts of books out and add others in, and very few will include the information of why some parts are there and not others or the cultural references of those times that can easily go over the heads of modern people. All texts can be considered living, but ignoring its roots and you kill it and can use it to beat anyone. 

 

And then there is the issue of being so focused on 'fear' with homophobia when, as a word, it was specifically created by psychiatrists to fight their own institutions that considered homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality mental disorders [and did and still does torture people in the name of 'curing']. Using the language of the system to fight them is a common tactic - and using its meaning in Greek is no more relevant than using the original meaning of the word terrific. They may both have fear in their etymology, but as part of living languages it doesn't work that way. 

[Scarlett]

It sounds like verbally approve it and treat it as the status quo, as if nothing has changed. There are grandchildren involved. so it sounds as if an explicit threat was made that "happiness (or well-faked happiness)" was required to see the grandkids, was kind of the gist, I think. Some people don't hide their feelings well, even if they say nothing, so maybe she is one; I don't know all the facts about that.

 

There was a husband, and now there is this person in the husband's place and I think it all happened pretty fast and she's shocked, I guess. I feel for her. That's all. You may think she should just get over it, but I think it is kind of hard after a long marriage and a son-in-law she loved.

And there is that no small issue of destroying the children's FOO. And casting the husband aside. Ugh.

[Paige]

Assuming that the daughter is unwilling to give up her relationship with a new partner, what would you have her do? Should she bring her kids around her grandmother expecting the grandmother to repeatedly express in nonverbal or perhaps verbal ways that their new family is not ok? It's probably hard on the kids as well, and it will be harder for them if the mother and grandmother cannot send the kids the same message. Should the mother allow her partner or herself to be disrespected in front of the children? I do understand that it is difficult- but as adults we need to suck it up unless there are real concerns- like the partner is a registered sex offender or has been convicted of domestic violence- not that the partner is not of the preferred race, gender, ethnicity, or religion. 

 

IMO, a parent should be able to say, "I don't believe this is right for me (homosexuality. or whatever), but my child does, and I will support my child." Nobody is asking the parent to become homosexual, and there is no sin in recognizing that your child disagrees with what you have taught and recognizing that you have no right to force them to agree with you. Treating the relationship as normal and ok is simply recognizing that the child has freedom of thought. If you've taught them what you believe when they were children, then you've done your job; your best. They know what you think and have simply decided it is wrong. That's ok. Move on and focus on the relationship and love and leave the rest up to them to figure out with their idea of God. 

Edited April 30, 2016 by Paige

[TranquilMind]

But it is very much the same.

 

At the root both death and divorce involve grieving for the extended family.

 

No, it is not the same at all, when parents separate and one leaves you, and is replaced.  That is gut-wrenching. 

If one dies, sometimes it is even easier.  At least it wasn't intentional. 

 

[Greta]

Surely you are not equating this situation with one in which the husband died.  That situation is normal and expected, if it did seem a bit fast and difficult to the mother whose daughter died.  

 

 

 

No, I'm not "equating" the two, but I was trying to RELATE to your neighbor's pain by sharing my grandmother's similar (not exactly the same) pain.  I was offering empathy!  I realize the two situations aren't precisely the same, but they are similar.  I fully realize your neighbor had the *additional* shock of learning that her daughter is bisexual (or gay?).  I just hope she won't let her shock ruin their relationship.  That would be a needless waste.