Painful Parent- Adult Child Religious Conflict more widespread today?

[Greta]

    

I think I am in a better position to say what is going on in my religion than you guys. But believe what you will. I can't keep being here with people who feel that way. So this will be my last post on this topic.

 

 

Well, I honestly am sorry to see you go, Scarlett.  You stuck with the conversation longer than I expected, and I really appreciate that.  I know this conversation had to be difficult for you, and believe it or not, it was difficult and painful for me.  I am sorry for the pain that I know I must have caused you.  I hope you can imagine, even though you don't agree, that I spoke because my conscience compelled me to.  I don't hate Jehovah's Witnesses.  I love them very much.  My mother is still a Witness, and she's very near the top of the list of people I admire most in this world.  But the organization as a whole has some very serious problems.  The practice of disfellowshipping is harsh and extreme by its very nature, and because of the way it is carried out it is rife with the potential for abuse.  You said that you had no delusions of the people in your religion being perfect.  Well, these policies are made by those imperfect people, and the procedures are carried out by imperfect people, so I hope you will consider the possibility that the results haven't always been as perfect for others as they have been in your experience.

 

I wish you well.

[kitten18]

Greta, you've been extremely gently and honest in this thread. I really appreciate your posts.

[LucyStoner]

Scarlett, with all due respect. That's messed-up.

 

Kindness isn't a stamp of approval. Kindness is validation that he's a human being, made in God's image just like the Pope was. Kindness is looking at him and seeing God, which is what we are commanded to do. It's amazing, really - we see God in "the least of these" (which is all sinners, not any particular kind of sinner) and treat them accordingly and they, in turn, see God in our actions. It's quite remarkable.

+1

 

My son is a born atheist (he concluded this after being accustomed to church at a very young age.) He's strident in his beliefs about evolution. We have some very religious friends. I have worked tirelessly to teach him tolerance of those with different beliefs. He hangs out now regularly with a child from a very devout evangelical family. They are kind to him, he is kind to them. If CHILDREN can wrap their heads around this concept, including one with ASD prone to rigid black and white thinking, I am struggling to see why it is so hard for adults.

Edited May 2, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Pam in CT]

I didn't expect you to believe me, Scarlett.  But for anyone else reading this, please know that I spent 17 years in that religion, I'm intimately familiar with the teachings, practices, publications, etc., I have had close family and friends who were disfellowshipped, and my father used to be an elder (pastor).  I'm not making this stuff up.  Honestly, I'm nowhere near creative enough to make this stuff up.  

 

:grouphug: I believe you as well.  And you have been both courageous and compassionate throughout this discussion.

 

 

FWIW, and not that this makes it any better at all, JW is not alone among faith traditions that have institutionally protected sexual predators, effectively shunned sexual victims for speaking out, and holding an entirely different standard to homosexuality than for other conduct deemed wrong within the tradition.  There are sub-communities within Judaism that have done (still do?) the same.

[Joules]

Think about it this way: how long would you put up with a family member if they made it a point to tell your kids that, according to their beliefs, being a Christian is wrong and immoral?

 

I like this.  Here's what comes to mind to me:

 

Aunt: Uncle and I are going to the church picnic this weekend.  Would you like to go?

Niece: I can't believe you would ask me.  You know I consider Christianity and organized religion as a scourge on mankind.  I refuse to support that horrific institution in any way!

 

Niece: Girlfriend and I are going throwing a house warming party.  Would you like to come?

Aunt: I can't believe you would ask me.  You know I consider homosexuality as one of the worst sins against God.  I refuse to support any semblance of such a relationship!

 

More appropriate responses to both:

"No, but thanks for asking."

"Sorry, I can't make it."

"We've got plans that weekend."

 

Very accepting response:

"Sure, I'll be there."

And support the relative in their interests or life.  (I could see this being less appropriate or acceptable if the events were a revival or a gay pride parade.  Those might garner the "No Thanks" above.)

 

Maybe it's being raising in the uber-polite South, but this doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

[TranquilMind]

Yes, He met with sinners deliberately, and we are told why:

 

"And Levi gave a big reception for Him [Jesus] in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, 'Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?' And Jesus answered and said to them, 'It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.'"

One cannot overlook this, in good faith.

Jesus was the one saying ,"Go and sin no more".

 

He was not saying, "Well, all that instruction on appropriate relationships is a suggestion.  Do what you want; it's all cool with me." 

[TranquilMind]

I like this.  Here's what comes to mind to me:

 

Aunt: Uncle and I are going to the church picnic this weekend.  Would you like to go?

Niece: I can't believe you would ask me.  You know I consider Christianity and organized religion as a scourge on mankind.  I refuse to support that horrific institution in any way!

 

Niece: Girlfriend and I are going throwing a house warming party.  Would you like to come?

Aunt: I can't believe you would ask me.  You know I consider homosexuality as one of the worst sins against God.  I refuse to support any semblance of such a relationship!

 

More appropriate responses to both:

"No, but thanks for asking."

"Sorry, I can't make it."

"We've got plans that weekend."

 

Very accepting response:

"Sure, I'll be there."

And support the relative in their interests or life.  (I could see this being less appropriate or acceptable if the events were a revival or a gay pride parade.  Those might garner the "No Thanks" above.)

 

Maybe it's being raising in the uber-polite South, but this doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

 

And I think that the polite response is pretty much what usually happens. 

 

[*Lulu*]

One cannot overlook this, in good faith.

Jesus was the one saying ,"Go and sin no more".

 

He was not saying, "Well, all that instruction on appropriate relationships is a suggestion. Do what you want; it's all cool with me."

And of all the relationship dynamics Jesus addressed homosexuality is nowhere to be found.

[TranquilMind]

And of all the relationship dynamics Jesus addressed homosexuality is nowhere to be found.

 

It wasn't necessary.  It was such a well known proscription in His culture and in their scriptures that it was obvious. 

 

He did address what marriage was, a faithful lifelong relationship between one man and one woman, quite clearly.  That's the only legitimate sexual relationship. 

 

Paul addressed it afterward quite clearly. 

[*Lulu*]

It wasn't necessary. It was such a well known proscription in His culture and in their scriptures that it was obvious.

 

He did address what marriage was, a faithful lifelong relationship between one man and one woman, quite clearly. That's the only legitimate sexual relationship.

 

Paul addressed it afterward quite clearly.

And, dispite any insistence otherwise, is you interpreting what you've read.

[ktgrok]

In the case of the Pope....who is the head of a religion that claims to believe homosexuality is wrong...it seems to be putting a stamp of approval on the relationship of his friend.

 

No, and that's what I'm trying to say. That being friends with someone doesn't mean you approve of everything they do. You can be friends, and disagree on things. This friend of the Pope knows the Pope's views on homosexuality. They are out in the public. They both know where each other stands, and disagree. But the Pope acknowledges that this man, this friend of his, is made in the image of God and has much good in him, and they love each other as friends do, despite that. 

 

Being friends with someone, or having dinner with them, or spending time with them, or loving them, doesn't mean you approve of every single choice they make. Again, that's why Jesus could eat with sinners. Hello, he even ate at the same table as Judas, KNOWING what he was going to do. That doesn't mean he approved of Judas's actions. 

[ktgrok]

I dont know. My close friends are not people who are actively involved in conduct that is considered sin.

 

You don't think the Pope very deliberately made that a public meeting? It seems political to me. But what do I know. I am not Catholic.

 

It actually wasn't very public. Later it was brought up, but at the time, no, it wasn't. 

 

Also, the Pope has VERY clearly stated his beliefs/opinions about homosexual marriage/relationships. He agrees with Catholic teaching on this. But that doesn't mean he treats people who do it with anything less than love and friendship. You know, like Jesus. 

[ktgrok]

One cannot overlook this, in good faith.

Jesus was the one saying ,"Go and sin no more".

 

He was not saying, "Well, all that instruction on appropriate relationships is a suggestion.  Do what you want; it's all cool with me." 

 

How does being friends with someone mean you are saying "do what you want?" The Pope has made his views on homosexual activity clear, and spoken publicly on it. His friend knows how the Pope feels about it. There is no need to keep saying it, and they remain friends. As can I with people i disagree with. 

 

Also, Jesus ate with and was friendly with Judas, knowing Judas was going to betray him. Pretty big sin. One judas had NOT repented of, and was planning on doing. 

 

I also don't see Jesus refusing to eat with the tax collectors until they stopped sinning. He didn't cut these people out of his life until they cleaned up their act. Yes, he wanted them to change their ways, but didn't withold his friendship until they did. 

 

As a matter of fact, Jesus loves me right now, with all my sins. He doesn't make me "sin no more" before he will be my friend and savior. He died for all of us, even as we were sinning. He didn't make us change before he would do that for us. By the logic of some people that would mean he is approving or condoning of our sin, I guess?

[TranquilMind]

How does being friends with someone mean you are saying "do what you want?" The Pope has made his views on homosexual activity clear, and spoken publicly on it. His friend knows how the Pope feels about it. There is no need to keep saying it, and they remain friends. As can I with people i disagree with. 

 

Also, Jesus ate with and was friendly with Judas, knowing Judas was going to betray him. Pretty big sin. One judas had NOT repented of, and was planning on doing. 

 

I also don't see Jesus refusing to eat with the tax collectors until they stopped sinning. He didn't cut these people out of his life until they cleaned up their act. Yes, he wanted them to change their ways, but didn't withold his friendship until they did. 

 

As a matter of fact, Jesus loves me right now, with all my sins. He doesn't make me "sin no more" before he will be my friend and savior. He died for all of us, even as we were sinning. He didn't make us change before he would do that for us. By the logic of some people that would mean he is approving or condoning of our sin, I guess?

 

You are addressing the wrong person about the Pope.  That was another poster with whom you were speaking about that friend visit.  I didn't address that at all. 

 

No argument regarding friendliness in disagreement here. 

 

Surely you aren't using Judas to support your argument, though.  ;)  He and Jesus weren't exactly besties.  He was just along for a purpose. 

 

[chiguirre]

Who on earth supports child-molesting?  Is there a politician doing this who got out of punishment?

 

Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House, was convicted of violations of the banking laws as a result of trying to avoid detection of a private financial settlement he had reached with one of his victims. He has been  credibly accused of molesting several boys on his wrestling team when he was a coach and teacher at Yorkville High before he began his political career. Several prominent republicans wrote letters of support or editorials stating that his sentence for the financial crimes was unjustly harsh and that it was unfair to consider the molestation allegations because the statute of limitations had elapsed on those charges.

[MercyA]

As a matter of fact, Jesus loves me right now, with all my sins. He doesn't make me "sin no more" before he will be my friend and savior. He died for all of us, even as we were sinning. He didn't make us change before he would do that for us. By the logic of some people that would mean he is approving or condoning of our sin, I guess?

 

Yes, thank God, "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). However, Paul goes on to write in the very next chapter, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?"

 

It was Jesus who said, "You are My friends if you do what I command you" (John 15:14) and "whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother" (Matthew 12:50). As John wrote, "The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:4

 

My comments aren't personally directed at you, Katie, but at the seemingly commonly accepted idea that Jesus doesn't require radical change and obedience as conditions of a continuing relationship with Him. 

[Greta]

Greta, you've been extremely gently and honest in this thread. I really appreciate your posts.

 

 

:grouphug: I believe you as well.  And you have been both courageous and compassionate throughout this discussion.

 

 

FWIW, and not that this makes it any better at all, JW is not alone among faith traditions that have institutionally protected sexual predators, effectively shunned sexual victims for speaking out, and holding an entirely different standard to homosexuality than for other conduct deemed wrong within the tradition.  There are sub-communities within Judaism that have done (still do?) the same.

 

 

I'm not deserving of such compliments, but this is a huge comfort to me.  Thank you both.

 

:grouphug:

 

Though it's been difficult for me personally, I think this conversation as a whole has been very beneficial.  I've enjoyed everyone's wisdom and insights, and I'm glad it's still going.

[MercyA]

I also don't see Jesus refusing to eat with the tax collectors until they stopped sinning. He didn't cut these people out of his life until they cleaned up their act. Yes, he wanted them to change their ways, but didn't withhold his friendship until they did. 

 

You bring up an interesting point, Katie. There is and should be a difference between how we relate to non-Christians and how we relate to fellow believers. Consider:

 

"I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).

 

Church discipline obviously is not to be applied to those who don't profess faith in the first place. I think in our relationships with those who are not Christians, we are just called to be kind and speak truth when necessary.

[8circles]

Yes, thank God, "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). However, Paul goes on to write in the very next chapter, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?"

 

It was Jesus who said, "You are My friends if you do what I command you" (John 15:14) and "whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother" (Matthew 12:50). As John wrote, "The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:4

 

My comments aren't personally directed at you, Katie, but at the seemingly commonly accepted idea that Jesus doesn't require radical change and obedience as conditions of a continuing relationship with Him.

Nobody has said that Jesus doesn't require radical change. He does, but that is completely different from what we're talking about. Besides the fact that change comes *through* a relationship, the relationship isn't conditional on our choices. I'm not even on the same planet as being able to say that I don't sin - yet I still have a relationship with Jesus. Some people disagree with the choices I make and would say I haven't radically changed, yet my relationship with Jesus remains.

 

The question here is what would you have had the Pope do instead of what was done? How would you have had him treat his friend?

[ktgrok]

And we need to remember we have a splintering of church groups. So if one group has different beliefs than another, are they to be treated as Paul says, as a brother who has fallen away, or as an unbeliever, if on that issue they believe differently? 

[MercyA]

The question here is what would you have had the Pope do instead of what was done? How would you have had him treat his friend?

 

I don't know anything about the Pope's meeting with his friend other than what has been shared here. I can't say what the Pope should have done or said, because I don't know if his friend is a professing Christian or not. See my post above.

[MercyA]

And we need to remember we have a splintering of church groups. So if one group has different beliefs than another, are they to be treated as Paul says, as a brother who has fallen away, or as an unbeliever, if on that issue they believe differently? 

 

I would think that anyone who professes faith in Christ should be treated as a believer and should be subject to familial exhortation and correction. The form that takes (ranging from a frank conversation to official church discipline) would probably depend on the individual situation. 

[TranquilMind]

Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House, was convicted of violations of the banking laws as a result of trying to avoid detection of a private financial settlement he had reached with one of his victims. He has been  credibly accused of molesting several boys on his wrestling team when he was a coach and teacher at Yorkville High before he began his political career. Several prominent republicans wrote letters of support or editorials stating that his sentence for the financial crimes was unjustly harsh and that it was unfair to consider the molestation allegations because the statute of limitations had elapsed on those charges.

I heard about Hastert on the news, though not the letters of support you mention.

 

This has nothing to do with religious conflicts, which is the subject here, but yes, there are sucky, evil people out there and they are even in high level positions (which makes me wonder how good our due diligence is before allowing these people high level jobs and access to children, but I digress).   

 

Finally it came out, and we can all be glad for that, at least.   

 

I can't imagine anyone who is thinking clearly supporting this, but I have not read those letters.   

Edited May 2, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

I would think that anyone who professes faith in Christ should be treated as a believer and should be subject to familial exhortation and correction. The form that takes (ranging from a frank conversation to official church discipline) would probably depend on the individual situation. 

Yeah. 1 Corinthians 5.  Food for thought indeed, but the point is that they are simultaneously claiming to be believers while continuing in unrepentant sin for the long haul, whatever that sin is.   Not at all addressed to the guy who says that he knows he is sinning and he's going to get free of this sin, whatever it is.  As Jesus said, it was the proud man who proclaimed all his deeds he had done for God, such as tithing who was at fault, not the guy saying, "Forgive me, Lord. I am a sinner."  

 

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister^c but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.â€^d

 

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Paige]

One cannot overlook this, in good faith.

Jesus was the one saying ,"Go and sin no more".

 

He was not saying, "Well, all that instruction on appropriate relationships is a suggestion.  Do what you want; it's all cool with me." 

 

I think the context is important here. Jesus told a woman he had just forgiven, and who presumably wanted forgiveness, although I'd argue she was under duress, to "go and sin no more." He did not say that to the tax collectors and prostitutes he was eating with. I think the difference is that the woman had in some way acknowledged Jesus as having authority and wanted his forgiveness. The tax collectors and others did not. His instructions and laws are for those who consent to follow them, kwim? For the others, I'd guess the Christian hope would be that they would eventually learn from his example that they want to follow Jesus, and then- not before- perhaps they can be told to sin no more.

 

Go and sin no more has no meaning unless you have a shared understanding of sin. 

 

As for homosexuality- it was so much a wide and accepted practice in Roman times that I have a hard time believing that Jesus didn't address it because it was assumed to be bad. Perhaps the Jewish people were still against it, but with something so prevalent in the dominant culture, it would be surprising if more than a few people did not know about it or question whether it was right or embrace it.

[Joker]

Some of you are continuing to talk of Christians who know they are sinning and continue to willfully do so. You seem to be missing the point that some Christians truly believe it is not a sin. They aren't choosing to sin. They have studied, received counsel, have prayed, and have come to a different conclusion than you. So, they really don't need you to continue to preach at them. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that.

[TranquilMind]

I think the context is important here. Jesus told a woman he had just forgiven, and who presumably wanted forgiveness, although I'd argue she was under duress, to "go and sin no more." He did not say that to the tax collectors and prostitutes he was eating with. I think the difference is that the woman had in some way acknowledged Jesus as having authority and wanted his forgiveness. The tax collectors and others did not. His instructions and laws are for those who consent to follow them, kwim? For the others, I'd guess the Christian hope would be that they would eventually learn from his example that they want to follow Jesus, and then- not before- perhaps they can be told to sin no more.

 

Go and sin no more has no meaning unless you have a shared understanding of sin. 

 

As for homosexuality- it was so much a wide and accepted practice in Roman times that I have a hard time believing that Jesus didn't address it because it was assumed to be bad. Perhaps the Jewish people were still against it, but with something so prevalent in the dominant culture, it would be surprising if more than a few people did not know about it or question whether it was right or embrace it.

Right. Forgiveness is for whomsoever will consent to follow, but not He does not intrude. 

 

You are right that not only what Jesus said, but any discussion about it has to begin from the presumption that there is a shared understanding of sin. 

 

How was she under duress?

 

He said himself that he came to the lost sheep of Israel.  Of course He didn't bother addressing Rome.

 

[TranquilMind]

Some of you are continuing to talk of Christians who know they are sinning and continue to willfully do so. You seem to be missing the point that some Christians truly believe it is not a sin. They aren't choosing to sin. They have studied, received counsel, have prayed, and have come to a different conclusion than you. So, they really don't need you to continue to preach at them. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that.

 

Who is preaching at anyone?

 

We are having a discussion. 

 

Does your reasoning apply to anything else that is specifically declared to be sin?  It seems odd that on this one, some feel we are free to simply disregard explicit instruction, but on other sins, we wouldn't dream of this.  What if one says he has prayed and received counsel and come to the conclusion that adultery is acceptable?  Or insert another sin specifically addressed.

Why is one fine and the other is not?

 

[Paige]

Who is preaching at anyone?

 

We are having a discussion. 

 

Does your reasoning apply to anything else that is specifically declared to be sin?  It seems odd that on this one, some feel we are free to simply disregard explicit instruction, but on other sins, we wouldn't dream of this.  What if one says he has prayed and received counsel and come to the conclusion that adultery is acceptable?  Or insert another sin specifically addressed.

Why is one fine and the other is not?

 

 

I believe the disconnect is that while you believe it is specifically declared to be sin, others do not. Others believe that the passages relating to this have been translated and interpreted today in ways that it was not historically meant to say and that the passages refer to temple prostitution and forced sex with unequal partners. The word "homosexual" or any word that means exactly that is not used in the Greek- I'm not even sure there was a word at the time that means what we mean when we say it today. I think part of the reason that there was no word is because homosexual attraction and activity among Greek men was so normal that the thought that it was unusual or wrong or needed a different word than regular sex would seem weird. They weren't used in English translations until somewhat recently. 

 

You can disagree with people's interpretation of the meaning of the text, but it isn't so clear that it says exactly one thing. 

[MercyA]

Some of you are continuing to talk of Christians who know they are sinning and continue to willfully do so. You seem to be missing the point that some Christians truly believe it is not a sin. They aren't choosing to sin. They have studied, received counsel, have prayed, and have come to a different conclusion than you. So, they really don't need you to continue to preach at them. I don't know why it's so hard to accept that.

 

If someone said to me, "Well, I've studied, received counsel, and prayed about the issue of adultery, and I've come to the conclusion that it's not a sin," it would be wrong for me to say, "Well, okay, that must be true for you," when Scripture clearly says otherwise. It's not that I miss their point, or that I can't accept that they think differently. It's that the Scripture on the subject is plainly written and unequivocal, and I fear for their soul when it says:

 

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

It's an incredibly serious thing, wouldn't you say? 

 

Obviously they are free to reject Scriptural warnings. I wouldn't continue to badger someone who's been told the truth and refuses to listen. 

[TranquilMind]

I believe the disconnect is that while you believe it is specifically declared to be sin, others do not. Others believe that the passages relating to this have been translated and interpreted today in ways that it was not historically meant to say and that the passages refer to temple prostitution and forced sex with unequal partners. The word "homosexual" or any word that means exactly that is not used in the Greek- I'm not even sure there was a word at the time that means what we mean when we say it today. I think part of the reason that there was no word is because homosexual attraction and activity among Greek men was so normal that the thought that it was unusual or wrong or needed a different word than regular sex would seem weird. They weren't used in English translations until somewhat recently. 

 

You can disagree with people's interpretation of the meaning of the text, but it isn't so clear that it says exactly one thing. 

 

 

This is simply not true.   Jesus asked the Pharisees if they had not read what God had said in the beginning, the clear implication being that this was an ongoing moral law,  about having made the originals male and female, that they were from then on instructed then to "leave your mother and father, cling unto your wife, and the two shall be one flesh".  Hard to argue that this isn't limited when Jesus states that it has been true since the beginning.

 

That bit about it being culturally bound to that time strains incredulity, given the above, but that is generally the go-to argument to contradict the plain meaning, that it must really have been about some limited circumstance going on then, having no relevance today if one is in a "committed relationship".  I can't get there from scripture.    It seems unfathomable that God would create all these homosexuals throughout time, if you buy that born-this-way argument, and then leave them without any sort of affirmation and guidance for appropriate homosexual relationships in scripture, as every other sort of relationship was addressed. 

Edited May 2, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Joker]

I think the 10 Commandments is pretty much accepted as truth by all Christian denominations. Adultery made the top 10 but nowhere on that list does it say to not be gay. 

 

The various Christian denominations have varying beliefs and some within those denominations come to a different conclusion. Some churches say no drinking. Some churches say no dancing. Some say no birth control. They all feel they back these things up with scripture and some in those churches come to a different conclusion. It doesn't make them less of a Christian.

 

Churches once used scripture to say all sorts of things were okay that we are disgusted by now. Many look back and wonder how anyone believed those things, but many did. I think my grandchildren are going to look back at what's going on now and have those same feelings. At least, I hope they do.

 

[Paige]

This is simply not true.   

 

What isn't true? That there was no word used in the Greek that directly meant what we think of when we say homosexual? That other people don't believe that those passages mean something else? 

 

How can we have a discussion? Smart, kind, reasonable people can look at the same facts and the same text and come to different conclusions, but for a discussion to be fair, we have to have an open mind to other people's claims. I don't know how to have a conversation if you can't agree with that. I don't know how to have a discussion if you disregard all evidence for the opposing side without looking at it or considering it. Have you looked at the words used in the original language and seen the explanations for why there is ambiguity in translation? Have you looked into the scientific evidence for why people are likely born with their sexual orientation? 

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I am extremely familiar with the traditional "homosexuality is a sin" evidence and belief system. I used to share it myself and have a very thorough traditional Christian education. It's not fair to say that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand. It's not fair to say that we only disagree because it is easy since we never believed differently anyway. Some of us felt like you, looked at the evidence, and changed our minds. It's fair if you look at the same evidence and don't feel it is compelling, but it's not fair to say that there's no evidence for an alternative position.

[FaithManor]

What isn't true? That there was no word used in the Greek that directly meant what we think of when we say homosexual? That other people don't believe that those passages mean something else?

 

How can we have a discussion? Smart, kind, reasonable people can look at the same facts and the same text and come to different conclusions, but for a discussion to be fair, we have to have an open mind to other people's claims. I don't know how to have a conversation if you can't agree with that. I don't know how to have a discussion if you disregard all evidence for the opposing side without looking at it or considering it. Have you looked at the words used in the original language and seen the explanations for why there is ambiguity in translation? Have you looked into the scientific evidence for why people are likely born with their sexual orientation?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I am extremely familiar with the traditional "homosexuality is a sin" evidence and belief system. I used to share it myself and have a very thorough traditional Christian education. It's not fair to say that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand. It's not fair to say that we only disagree because it is easy since we never believed differently anyway. Some of us felt like you, looked at the evidence, and changed our minds. It's fair if you look at the same evidence and don't feel it is compelling, but it's not fair to say that there's no evidence for an alternative position.

Paige, thank you so much for stating this so well.

[ktgrok]

 

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

It's an incredibly serious thing, wouldn't you say? 

 

Obviously they are free to reject Scriptural warnings. I wouldn't continue to badger someone who's been told the truth and refuses to listen. 

 

You know it isn't written in English, with the word homosexual, right?

[justasque]

... Some of us felt like you, looked at the evidence, and changed our minds. It's fair if you look at the same evidence and don't feel it is compelling, but it's not fair to say that there's no evidence for an alternative position.

 

I think this is a really important point.  I sometimes hear folks expressing shock by the rapid change in public opinion on these issues; for some it seems to have come out of nowhere, defying both Scripture and common sense.  However, it has actually been a gradual process, driven by individuals who for one reason or another have been led to examine the issue, and who have thoughtfully and prayerfully changed their minds.  They were taught one thing, their community believed it, their clergy preached it, but they felt called to study and reflect and pray, and came to a different conclusion.  As these individuals have gradually become comfortable with being more open, their stories have touched others who themselves have begun a journey of study and reflection.

 

Sometimes such trends turn out to be a good thing.  Modern beliefs around slavery, inter-racial marriage, treatment of aboriginal peoples, and so on also came gradually, with much debate and study about what the Scriptures tell us about these issues.  Looking back, for example, we wonder how people could ever have justified holding other people in forced labor against their will, much less creating a legal structure that supported this practice.  It seems so clearly WRONG to us now, but then we have generally been raised in families and communities with this point of view from birth.

 

It's easy to assume that people who come to a "new" interpretation of an issue are rejecting the traditional beliefs out of selfishness, or are throwing morality out the window, or are "bad people" in general.  But in my experience most people are "good people", who try their hardest to do the right thing and live a moral life in keeping with the teachings of their religious community.  When good people differ on an issue, I find it's usually worthwhile to listen carefully to their reasoning, as even if I don't agree with their conclusion, there is usually much wisdom to be gleaned in the process.

[TranquilMind]

What isn't true? That there was no word used in the Greek that directly meant what we think of when we say homosexual? That other people don't believe that those passages mean something else? 

 

How can we have a discussion? Smart, kind, reasonable people can look at the same facts and the same text and come to different conclusions, but for a discussion to be fair, we have to have an open mind to other people's claims. I don't know how to have a conversation if you can't agree with that. I don't know how to have a discussion if you disregard all evidence for the opposing side without looking at it or considering it. Have you looked at the words used in the original language and seen the explanations for why there is ambiguity in translation? Have you looked into the scientific evidence for why people are likely born with their sexual orientation? 

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I am extremely familiar with the traditional "homosexuality is a sin" evidence and belief system. I used to share it myself and have a very thorough traditional Christian education. It's not fair to say that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand. It's not fair to say that we only disagree because it is easy since we never believed differently anyway. Some of us felt like you, looked at the evidence, and changed our minds. It's fair if you look at the same evidence and don't feel it is compelling, but it's not fair to say that there's no evidence for an alternative position.

I answered you, but you merely lopped off my answer and restated your question.   At least quote me accurately regarding the point you are discussing, if I am intended to respond to it.

 

Again, it defies logic that Jesus could have intended that loving and committed gay relationships were entirely equivalent to what He restated to the Pharisees that God created in the beginning, having created them male and female and having told man and woman to cleave together and become one flesh.

 

Jesus somehow really supports homosexuality yet never bothers to correct all of the scriptures to the contrary nor does any other subsequent writer in scripture, despite virtually every kind of relationship being addressed. That strains credulity. 

 

Yes, I am familiar with the Matthew Vines et. al. arguments.  They are entirely self-serving and not convincing at all as he contorts scripture to say what he wants it to say and condemns those who adhere to the traditional understanding.  Vines actually argues at one point that since his father changed his mind on the authority of scripture so the rest of us should too.  

 

I have seen no convincing, unbiased evidence undermining scripture on this point, when pretty much all relationships are addressed scripturally (Husband, wife, mother, father, son, daughter, parents, neighbors, those in authority, etc). 

[Paige]

I answered you, but you merely lopped off my answer and restated your question.   At least quote me accurately regarding the point you are discussing, if I am intended to respond to it.

 

 

 

I'm sorry. I genuinely couldn't tell what you were referring to when you said, "That isn't true." I was confused about what I could have said that was untrue. I understand now that your "that" is referring to other people's interpretations of the translations. So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that it isn't true that the passages relating to homosexuality in the Bible are referring to something else? I think it is fair to have that opinion and there is support for that. My only point was that other people do not read it that way, and that their interpretation is just as valid and has support as well. 

 

FWIW, I never said that one interpretation is true or not true- only that different people see the same thing and believe it means different things. 

[*Lulu*]

I answered you, but you merely lopped off my answer and restated your question.   At least quote me accurately regarding the point you are discussing, if I am intended to respond to it.

 

Again, it defies logic that Jesus could have intended that loving and committed gay relationships were entirely equivalent to what He restated to the Pharisees that God created in the beginning, having created them male and female and having told man and woman to cleave together and become one flesh.

 

Jesus somehow really supports homosexuality yet never bothers to correct all of the scriptures to the contrary nor does any other subsequent writer in scripture, despite virtually every kind of relationship being addressed. That strains credulity. 

 

Yes, I am familiar with the Matthew Vines et. al. arguments.  They are entirely self-serving and not convincing at all as he contorts scripture to say what he wants it to say and condemns those who adhere to the traditional understanding.  Vines actually argues at one point that since his father changed his mind on the authority of scripture so the rest of us should too.  

 

I have seen no convincing, unbiased evidence undermining scripture on this point, when pretty much all relationships are addressed scripturally (Husband, wife, mother, father, son, daughter, parents, neighbors, those in authority, etc). 

 

 

So than you also agree that birth control pills are not prohibited and that a case can be made that early term abortions are okay with Jesus, yes?

 

Because there is no single place in the gospels where we find Jesus addressing the idea of abortion. Does that mean we are meant to follow the teaching already in place and he did not address it because it was such a common cultural understanding? Or was it because it was of no eternal significance and we are left to follow our conscience?

 

If it is the latter, than why is it not also acceptable for variance of choices in other matters, such as homosexuality?

 

If it is the former, do the Old Testament instructions about how to treat a person causing the death of an unborn child render the evangelical church's position on abortion and birth control unscriptural?

[MercyA]

You know it isn't written in English, with the word homosexual, right?

 

Yes, Katie, I am aware that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. ;)

 

I'm waiting for you all to start arguing that the thieves doesn't actually mean thieves, fornicators doesn't actually mean fornicators, adulterers doesn't actually mean adulterers, etc. Somehow people only seem to start reaching when they disagree with the text.  :)

[TranquilMind]

I'm sorry. I genuinely couldn't tell what you were referring to when you said, "That isn't true." I was confused about what I could have said that was untrue. I understand now that your "that" is referring to other people's interpretations of the translations. So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that it isn't true that the passages relating to homosexuality in the Bible are referring to something else? I think it is fair to have that opinion and there is support for that. My only point was that other people do not read it that way, and that their interpretation is just as valid and has support as well. 

 

FWIW, I never said that one interpretation is true or not true- only that different people see the same thing and believe it means different things. 

 

I'm sorry too for my lack of clarity. 

[Bluegoat]

:grouphug: I believe you as well.  And you have been both courageous and compassionate throughout this discussion.

 

 

FWIW, and not that this makes it any better at all, JW is not alone among faith traditions that have institutionally protected sexual predators, effectively shunned sexual victims for speaking out, and holding an entirely different standard to homosexuality than for other conduct deemed wrong within the tradition.  There are sub-communities within Judaism that have done (still do?) the same.

 

A little OT - I think this is typical institutional behavior, unless there are specific safeguards put in place to prevent it.  Institutions are useful because they leverage power, but it also makes them dangerous when used by individuals for their own ends or even if internal elements become disordered. 

[TranquilMind]

So than you also agree that birth control pills are not prohibited and that a case can be made that early term abortions are okay with Jesus, yes?

 

Because there is no single place in the gospels where we find Jesus addressing the idea of abortion. Does that mean we are meant to follow the teaching already in place and he did not address it because it was such a common cultural understanding? Or was it because it was of no eternal significance and we are left to follow our conscience?

 

If it is the latter, than why is it not also acceptable for variance of choices in other matters, such as homosexuality?

 

If it is the former, do the Old Testament instructions about how to treat a person causing the death of an unborn child render the evangelical church's position on abortion and birth control unscriptural?

 

Well, that is some interesting maneuvering to an entirely different topic there, especially  given that there are probably a dozen scriptures speaking  in various ways of how God knit together a baby in his mother's womb.   Yes, of course not killing your baby was a common cultural understanding. 

 

No, while the modern word "abortion" is not used, of course, the concept of protecting the weak and those unable to protect themselves is certainly there.  The concept of a baby being a gift from the Lord and highly valued is throughout scripture. 

 

Modern situational ethics say a baby is a baby only if you want it (as criminal law attests), as we do when someone asks when you are having the baby, not if. 

 

"Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward" (Psalm 127:3)

 

For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earths (Psalm 139:13-16)

 

We are told not to murder, not to shed innocent blood, to take care of the little ones. 

Matthew 18:10  See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

 

If you believe those admonitions of scripture are consistent with killing babies, then just as with the authority of scripture, we have no starting place for discussion on this issue.

 

(double posting appeared)

Edited May 2, 2016 by TranquilMind

[*Lulu*]

I didn't really want to "go there" with abortion because it is the only thing surer than gay cake to get people frothing. I went there though because the corollary is this:

 

All throughout the scriptures we see Jesus saying that his love is for everyone. It is for those that the religious insiders despise. If in all those passages we are supposed to accept the cultural understanding of that place and time as the last word from God on sexual relations, why does that same cultural understanding not apply to the scripture you quoted? Why do we reject the understanding of the time that an unborn child's life was not the same as a child passed from their mother's womb, but embrace the cultural understanding you attribute to human sexuality? 

[bolt.]

Yes, Katie, I am aware that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. ;)

 

I'm waiting for you all to start arguing that the thieves doesn't actually mean thieves, fornicators doesn't actually mean fornicators, adulterers doesn't actually mean adulterers, etc. Somehow people only seem to start reaching when they disagree with the text. :)

As a point of curiosity, you happen to have randomly selected a few words that have implications in Greek and English that actually *are* significantly nuanced (though not quite to the point that they actually 'don't mean' their translation).

 

Thieves: the implication in Greek is 'one who makes their living through crime and violence'. That is someone we might call 'a thief' but we would tend to be more specific if we could. Something like, "A career criminal' might carry it, but even that does not imply violence the way the Greek word does. Perhaps 'an outlaw'?

 

Fornicators: in Greek this is 'any sexual immorality' and has a vast semantic range, well beyond the English limitation of 'fornication'. (In fact, it's so vague that it's unclear what it does and doesn't include). In English we tend only to use 'formication' for intercourse outside of marriage, by unmarried people.

 

Adulterers: in Greek this means a married woman in a relationship with any man, or any man in a relationship with a married woman. However, a married man in a relationship with an unmarried woman, a slave or a sex trade worker would not be considered 'an adulterer' by Greek speakers, but we use it that way in English.

 

So, as you see, I have (by happenstance) accumulated an awareness of all those words, and have (apparently) "started reaching" (worked to fully understand foregon language words in their natural setting) in spite of the fact that there is nothing I "disagree with" about any of them.

 

(Nor do I "disagree with" anything in the Bible, yet I frequently go to the trouble of interpreting it carefully and with diligence.)

Edited May 2, 2016 by bolt.

[Greta]

As a point of curiosity, you happen to have randomly selected a few words that have implications in Greek and English that actually *are* significantly nuanced (though not quite to the point that they actually 'don't mean' their translation).

 

Thieves: the implication in Greek is 'one who makes their living through crime and violence'. That is someone we might call 'a thief' but we would tend to be more specific if we could. Something like, "A career criminal' might carry it, but even that does not imply violence the way the Greek word does. Perhaps 'an outlaw'?

 

Fornicators: in Greek this is 'any sexual immorality' and has a vast semantic range, well beyond the English limitation of 'fornication'. (In fact, it's so vague that it's unclear what it does and doesn't include). In English we tend only to use 'formication' for intercourse outside of marriage, by unmarried people.

 

Adulterers: in agrees this means a married woman in a relationship with any man, or any man in a relationship with a married woman. A married man in a relationship with an unmarried woman, a slave or a sex trade worker. Would not be considered 'an adulterer' by Greek speakers, but we use it that way in English.

 

So, as you see, I have (by happenstance) accumulated an awareness of all those words, and have (apparently) "started reaching" (worked to fully understand foregon language words in their natural setting) in spite of the fact that there is nothing I "disagree with" about any of them.

 

(Nor do I "disagree with" anything in the Bible, yet I frequently go to the trouble of interpreting it carefully and with diligence.)

 

 

Very interesting stuff, bolt, thanks for sharing this!  

[Ravin]

What I always come back to though is how to have a relationship with someone who is living their life in a way you believe to be morally wrong. Let's assume I wouldn't be mean. But I can't for the life of me see how the relationship could ever survive beyond plesantries.

 

My brother isn't gay but everything about how he has lived his life since I left home at age 17 is shocking to me. And in the last few years he has spent a lot of effort attacking my faith. There is very little room for a relationship there. I love him. I am kind to him. But we don't hang out and I never see him. We text every few weeks and the conversation doesn't flow well because we have such extremely opposite lives and values.

 

So sometimes relationships are just lost. I can even say it doesn't matter who is right or wrong....it just is.

 

This made me ponder my own family relationships. I have one sister in particular with whom I am not particularly close, because we have NOTHING in common, pretty much, other than being in the same family. I have no doubt I have done things she finds shocking, and the way I live my life is most definitely not in keeping with her religious values.

 

But she knows what forgiveness means (at a deeper level than I will probably ever fathom), and what's more I have never done anything to harm her, her children, or our shared parents, and she 

1. does not try to impose her beliefs on me or preach to/at me;

2. is the person who keeps me (and all the siblings, even the one who HAS done jerk things to family members) in the loop when stuff is going on (like my mom's surgery last week);

3. invited me to her wedding a couple of years ago, is kind to my children, does not try to preach to them against me, either, and just generally behaves like a civil and reasonable human being towards me and my family

4. would not skip a family event because I (or even jerk sibling) am in attendance

5. agrees to disagree with me in a civil way on a wide range of topics from political to parenting to religion without our relationship as siblings being "lost". 

 

Are we close? No. We never have been, dating back to being kids with the dilemma of what to do because Star Trek: TNG and Beverly Hills 90210 came on at the same time. But she's still my sister and acts like it, in the positive sense.

[Ravin]

It's interesting and surprising to me that that's even possible.  In all my years of church attendance, so many of the sermons, classes, and discussions were about contemplating morality.  That implied, to me, that individual beliefs and perceptions *within our church* varied.  I would think it would be difficult to find perfect matches within the congregation, let alone the greater community.

 

I think sharing morals without sharing the underlying justification for those morals is very common, particularly in societies such as ours with multiple cultural forces helping shape those morals.

[TranquilMind]

I didn't really want to "go there" with abortion because it is the only thing surer than gay cake to get people frothing. I went there though because the corollary is this:

 

All throughout the scriptures we see Jesus saying that his love is for everyone. It is for those that the religious insiders despise. If in all those passages we are supposed to accept the cultural understanding of that place and time as the last word from God on sexual relations, why does that same cultural understanding not apply to the scripture you quoted? Why do we reject the understanding of the time that an unborn child's life was not the same as a child passed from their mother's womb, but embrace the cultural understanding you attribute to human sexuality? 

 

You clearly did want to go there.  You did go there.

 

He does say that, no question  You are only responsible for what you know, so you are not sinning until you become aware you are.  Then you are sinning.

 

Not sure why you are trying to mix two principles.  It is clear that those pregnant women who are mentioned in scripture know and are told God has a plan for the babies they were  carrying, even when Judaism under the law said that the baby has to technically be more than halfway out before it is considered a baby.  Jesus also said from the beginning, divorce wasn't the plan but it was permitted because of their hard hearts.

 

There was never and still is not any change on what Jesus and the law considered viable sexual relationships.  Homosexual behavior has always been forbidden in the Torah and still is.

[Ravin]

 

As for homosexuality- it was so much a wide and accepted practice in Roman times that I have a hard time believing that Jesus didn't address it because it was assumed to be bad. Perhaps the Jewish people were still against it, but with something so prevalent in the dominant culture, it would be surprising if more than a few people did not know about it or question whether it was right or embrace it.

 

This statement is very questionable, because the modern conception of homosexuality and what is is and means did not exist in that era. The basis for marriage was completely different as well. Really, anything with a sexual-social context was quite alien when you compare the ancient Romans and Greeks to the 21st century Western world. It's apples and oranges.

 

All the way up through the medieval and early modern period, the prohibitions you'll find in canonical law (and in various periods, reflecting it in secular law) are of specific prohibited acts, such as sodomy (regardless of who was on the receiving end of the act and whether or not that person consented to the act). Marriage had little or nothing to do with affection or attraction or romance, either. The modern concept of romance, for that matter, also didn't exist yet at that time. When it comes down to it, some of those prohibitions also existed in Roman and Hellenistic societies before the Christian era (sodomy, in particular, was often not among the better accepted same-sex sexual practices).