Painful Parent- Adult Child Religious Conflict more widespread today?

[marbel]

I have a question.  It is possibly very dumb. 

 

Is it a sin (or no no) to point out other people's sinful behavior?  Isn't that kind of like playing god? 

I do agree people have a right to their beliefs, etc. I don't believe they always have the right to act on them in any way they want though.  But in terms of how they feel yes absolutely.  It's hard to know where one person's rights and freedoms begin and end with relation to other people's rights. 

 

I don't think there is an easy answer.  A lot depends on the relationship.

 

If my kid was lying, or shoplifting, or having casual sex, it would be very easy for me to point out their sinful behavior.  It's not as if it would be news to them.  (Of course the shoplifting is illegal too.)  

 

If a fellow Christian engaged in, say, adultery, I would point it out.  Because they would know it was wrong.  (Let's assume for the sake of the question that all Christians believe extra-marital sex is wrong.)   But if a friend who is an atheist or otherwise doesn't believe that extra-marital sex is sinful engaged in an affair, I wouldn't point it out as sin, unless they asked.  If I distanced myself from them, they might ask why, and I'd tell them.

 

I do to a church that has a specific procedure for church discipline that is followed if a person is found to be engaging in sinful behavior and is unrepentant.  I have seen a couple of men excommunicated for being abusive to their wives.   I was involved in trying to help a couple with marriage problems in which we (pastor and a couple of other people) had to point out the sins that both parties had committed against each other.   It was a sad mess and we couldn't help them reconcile. But they both saw what they had done to each other and at least were able to seek and grant forgiveness.

 

Some things are not so easy.  Is a person who enjoys a daily glass of wine or beer getting drunk?  Is a person who enjoys good food being a glutton?  

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm not quite sure anymore where this conversation is going. 

 

I don't agree that parents have the right to mistreat their kids for any reason.  This includes being cruel towards them for stuff like their sexual orientation.  On the other hand I do think parents are often now told they have no right at all to parent their kids in the way that makes sense to them.  Again, I don't mean that they act abusively.  But, for example, I heard a woman who is some sort of social worker for a parent/child clinic in my area that a parent was in denial about their kid's sex/gender because the parent wouldn't call their girl a boy and use male pronouns.  The school and the clinic put pressure on the parent to not only accept these things, but to acknowledge it in whatever way the kid wants.  That strikes me as a bit much. 

[Ravin]

Of course being bi to you is not an issue because you don't believe in God or that God sets the standard.

 

You know, Scarlett, plenty of people do believe in God and that God sets the standard...and that you are wrong.

 

If there had been more of the sort of thinking others on here have expressed and less of your kind of theology dominating my understanding of what it means to be Christian back when I was a teenager struggling with this stuff, I might still be Christian.

[luuknam]

Huh? I divorced my Xh because of his adultery....that frees me to remarry. If I believed I was not free to remarry I would not have. And if someone thinks it was wrong for me to remarry I would not expect them to support me in said marriage.

 

Okay, so if your son came to believe your remarriage was a sin, would you expect him to denounce your wickedness and not support you in said marriage? E.g. refuse to come to your wedding anniversary, or possibly to even have dinner with you and your husband? I know there is the thing about honoring your elders, but surely his relationship with god is more important than that.

 

Do you know the story of the high priest Eli and his good for nothing sons? He failed to correct his son's sins and it turned out bad for everyone.

 

We have an obligation to uphold righteousness. And to denounce wickedness.

 

Is there an age at which you think you can stop correcting your kids? Beyond maybe a single reference (once, not every time you see them), and then just leaving it at that? Would a high priest be different than a regular parent, given that a high priest probably is supposed to be a spiritual leader for the entire community, of any age?

[KungFuPanda]

I get your attempt at irony but it doesn't work for me. We all need food to exist. We don't all need sex to exist.

We literally would not exist without sex.

[Mergath]

That's nice that you think your youthful moral compass is superior to those of older people who hang on to their Biblical faith. I guess we will all find out eventually whether you are superior or not, won't we?

 

Not really. I don't believe in a carrot/stick afterlife. I've already seen now, in this life, that having love and acceptance as my moral compass is superior to judgement and veiled threats. I might be "youthful" (thanks for the compliment, by the way!) but the religious beliefs I base much of this on predate even Christianity. 

[Scarlett]

You know, Scarlett, plenty of people do believe in God and that God sets the standard...and that you are wrong.

 

If there had been more of the sort of thinking others on here have expressed and less of your kind of theology dominating my understanding of what it means to be Christian back when I was a teenager struggling with this stuff, I might still be Christian.

You have the right to believe I am wrong. I have no desire to try to convince you otherwise.

 

But please accept responsibility for your own choices.

[MaeFlowers]

I'm not quite sure anymore where this conversation is going.

 

I don't agree that parents have the right to mistreat their kids for any reason. This includes being cruel towards them for stuff like their sexual orientation. On the other hand I do think parents are often now told they have no right at all to parent their kids in the way that makes sense to them. Again, I don't mean that they act abusively. But, for example, I heard a woman who is some sort of social worker for a parent/child clinic in my area that a parent was in denial about their kid's sex/gender because the parent wouldn't call their girl a boy and use male pronouns. The school and the clinic put pressure on the parent to not only accept these things, but to acknowledge it in whatever way the kid wants. That strikes me as a bit much.

I have to agree with you. We have become a society without boundaries and the whole "live and let live" notion seems to be dying.

 

But, that is a different thread.

[Scarlett]

Okay, so if your son came to believe your remarriage was a sin, would you expect him to denounce your wickedness and not support you in said marriage? E.g. refuse to come to your wedding anniversary, or possibly to even have dinner with you and your husband? I know there is the thing about honoring your elders, but surely his relationship with god is more important than that.

 

 

Is there an age at which you think you can stop correcting your kids? Beyond maybe a single reference (once, not every time you see them), and then just leaving it at that? Would a high priest be different than a regular parent, given that a high priest probably is supposed to be a spiritual leader for the entire community, of any age?

I expect everyone to do what they feel is right.

 

And yes I won't continue correcting my son when he is grown.

[Scarlett]

We literally would not exist without sex.

 

Very different statement than what I said. People live celibate lives all of the time.

[Bluegoat]

So God isn't omniscient and omnipotent? Or he just sits back and lets some other agency He created cause the bad things?

 

The general theological answer to this is that bad things are a result, one way or another, of free will.  By crating beings that can in fact have real moral choice, there is space created for bad things, both in people and even in nature.  It's in this sense that theologians have said, for example, that cancer is a result of sin.  Not because being bad makes your cells start going crazy, but more like a kind of programming corruption at the level of the laws of nature.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Bluegoat

[luuknam]

And yes I won't continue correcting my son when he is grown.

 

Okay, that clarifies things. So, if in a couple of years, he got married to a man, you'd skip the wedding, still visit him/let him visit you, and just silently pray that he'd change his ways?

[Scarlett]

Okay, that clarifies things. So, if in a couple of years, he got married to a man, you'd skip the wedding, still visit him/let him visit you, and just silently pray that he'd change his ways?

I think the relationship would suffer greatly. Doesn't mean I wouldn't still love him.

[catz]

I'm not quite sure anymore where this conversation is going. 

 

I don't agree that parents have the right to mistreat their kids for any reason.  This includes being cruel towards them for stuff like their sexual orientation.  On the other hand I do think parents are often now told they have no right at all to parent their kids in the way that makes sense to them.  Again, I don't mean that they act abusively.  But, for example, I heard a woman who is some sort of social worker for a parent/child clinic in my area that a parent was in denial about their kid's sex/gender because the parent wouldn't call their girl a boy and use male pronouns.  The school and the clinic put pressure on the parent to not only accept these things, but to acknowledge it in whatever way the kid wants.  That strikes me as a bit much. 

 

Well, it's pretty standard recommendation by the established mental health community to respect a child's wishes when they come out as transgender.  This is generally not something jumped at suddenly.  I personally know a family with a young transgender child and to say this isn't an easy path for anyone is an extreme understatement.  Families should know that the depression and suicide rate in this population of kids is much higher than the general population.  41% of those who ID as transgender attempt suicide is the current statistic.  10-20% of those IDing as lesbian, gay, or bisexual attempt suicide.  Our community lost a transgender teen not long ago to suicide and we're in a more liberal community than many.  He was still bullied relentlessly in a public high school.

 

No one can force a parent to do anything.  But I think it's also important to know what's at stake when you reject a child questioning their gender identity.  Some would say not accepting your child as they are IS abusive.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/16/transgender-individuals-face-high-rates--suicide-attempts/31626633/

Edited April 27, 2016 by WoolySocks

[Lady Florida.]

Thankfully, most of the people in my generation and the younger generations have much better compasses. I look forward to the time when the remaining vestiges of anti-gay sentiment have faded away for good.

 

 

Your generation, and those younger than you make me feel good about the direction we are heading, i.e. towards acceptance of people and away from condemnation. I am confident the moral compass of yours and younger generations will lead to good things.

 

That's nice that you think your youthful moral compass is superior to those of older people who hang on to their Biblical faith. I guess we will all find out eventually whether you are superior or not, won't we?

 

Actually younger generations are able to see the mistakes of those before them and if they can pull together are also able to correct (or at least not repeat) those mistakes.

 

Also who are these older people? I don't know Mergath's exact age but I'm pretty sure I'm old enough to be her mother, based on her post history that gives me a general idea of her age. I didn't hang on to my biblical faith. You would be surprised at the number of older people who either publicly let go of their faith, or hide the fact that their beliefs are more in line with younger generations than they're able to admit. I didn't know about it myself until I came out as atheist. My 84 yo aunt recently came out to me as atheist too.  Please don't assume older people are all religious. We're not. And there are more of us than people realize.

[Jane in NC]

This thread has given me pause to reflect on the hurt felt by people I have known who were rejected by their parents. 

 

Within the families of various inlaws, there was the woman whose father refused to allow her admittance into the family house after the daughter became pregnant as a teen.  Would it have been different if the baby's father had been the same race?  I don't know.  But a self professed Christian exercised tyranny in banning his daughter from the home.

 

The second case is odder though.  Here the daughter left her family's church.  Her family was ordered by the church hierarchy to ostracize the girl, to disown her. I had never heard of a church demanding this sort of compliance from members. In this case, the shunned woman is gay. 

 

The former happened in the '70', the latter in the '90's.  Going back to the original post, the parents here experienced pain because of their child's behavior.  Yet I cannot help but believe that the pain was greater for the ostracized teen and young adult who are suddenly orphaned.

[KungFuPanda]

There really isn't any comparison at all, in a faith context.

The comparison is that the same "It's against God and nature!" argument is used for both. People have a nasty tendency to use religion as an excuse to treat their fellow human beings like they're unequal in God's eyes.

[luuknam]

I think the relationship would suffer greatly. Doesn't mean I wouldn't still love him.

 

So, how exactly would the relationship suffer, aside from you refusing to go to the wedding?

[justasque]

Well I hope I never find myself there. I take my vows to God very seriously. He does not tell me rules apply except to my children.

Here's the thing, though.  There are many, many families who thought this way *until* they found they had a gay child.  They then had to do a significant amount of listening, researching, praying, and reflecting, to decide how to reconcile what they had been taught about sin vs. what their child was going through.  Different parents have come to different understandings, and taken different approaches.  Those of us who have not walked this path have a responsibility to listen carefully to the testimony of those parents (and their children) who have, to try to understand their experience, and learn from it.  We should be careful not to talk over them when they share their testimony; some of them are sharing in this thread.  

 

There is a certain amount of arrogance in a mom who says "I would never homeschool," when we know she may very well find herself one day in a situation where homeschooling is the best thing she can do for her child.  (Circumstances like illness, bullying, learning disabilities, location due to employment changes, and so on - we've all heard these stories and some of us have lived them.)  Similarly, I think it is rather arrogant to state with absolute certainty that you (general you) would miss your child's wedding, or otherwise shun them, due to sexual orientation or choice of a same-sex partner, when you haven't walked that path. A better approach, I think, is to have some humility about it - to say "I would like to think that, if forced to choose between my religion and my child, I'd chose <whichever one>, but I don't know for sure, as I haven't been in that position."  

 

Let's give some credit to the moms in this thread who have actual, real-life experience in these situations, respect that they and their children are not "anything goes" reckless parents, and try to come to a deeper understanding of the issues and struggles they have faced, and how they have and are still working to overcome them.

[FaithManor]

This thread has given me pause to reflect on the hurt felt by people I have known who were rejected by their parents. 

 

Within the families of various inlaws, there was the woman whose father refused to allow her admittance into the family house after the daughter became pregnant as a teen.  Would it have been different if the baby's father had been the same race?  I don't know.  But a self professed Christian exercised tyranny in banning his daughter from the home.

 

The second case is odder though.  Here the daughter left her family's church.  Her family was ordered by the church hierarchy to ostracize the girl, to disown her. I had never heard of a church demanding this sort of compliance from members. In this case, the shunned woman is gay. 

 

The former happened in the '70', the latter in the '90's.  Going back to the original post, the parents here experienced pain because of their child's behavior.  Yet I cannot help but believe that the pain was greater for the ostracized teen and young adult who are suddenly orphaned.

I agree. Sadly, I think that in some faith based communities since they believe that the pain is deserved, punishment or natural consequence or whatever, the parents are not supposed to give that a second thought. They are supposed to embrace that the pain is good. I've seen that before. I've seen it locally. The pain and anguish is supposed to be "refining fire", and heaped upon the transgressor as a means of "bringing them back into the fold" except that I can't think of a single instance personally in which this has been effective. I have seen nothing but permanent estrangement.

 

I've seen it extended to the "innocent" as well. The shunning of grandchildren for the "sin" of their parents. Not allowed into grandma and grandpa's house because the parents are gay, or had an affair, or alcoholics, or whatever. I've seen a lot of this, but its rather random except for the local Amish who very, very consistently practice shunning. Otherwise while one family from one type of church may punish the adult who goes against mom and dad and by extension the kids, another family from that same church would not. Usually, in terms of fundamentalism and evangelicalism, I haven't seen too many that consistently practice it. Seems to be more of a family culture thing.

 

Now that said, I'm pretty certain from the wild things that my parents' pastor says, he is moving what was once a fairly loving evangelical congregation towards a shunning/excommunication type practice, and will likely toss members who refuse to practice it within their own families. He seems to be very controlling and out spoken about this. Sigh.....

[Tsuga]

That's nice that you think your youthful moral compass is superior to those of older people who hang on to their Biblical faith. I guess we will all find out eventually whether you are superior or not, won't we?

 

You started this thread. Why?

 

You're asking why there are religious disagreements, but I think your attitude right here about sums it up.

 

 

You brought it up.

 

Then you continued to state a religious point of view that you know, and I know you know this unless you have short- and long-term memory issues that need treatment because you've participated on threads like this before, is unpopular but also very hurtful. Again and again people have told you how hurtful, painful, unkind, and even damaging your statements are. But you state them again.

 

And now you're using sarcasm to ridicule Megrath's assertion that your doing this is not okay.

 

And seriously, you are confused about why you are seeing more conflict regarding your religion?

 

Here's the short answer: it's because you are acting like a jerk being rude, unkind, hateful, bullying, intentionally provoking anger, thoughtless, cruel, and just plain mean about it. That's why you're experiencing more conflict. Because people fight hate and unkindness.

 

Edited April 27, 2016 by Tsuga

[TranquilMind]

Okay, that clarifies things. So, if in a couple of years, he got married to a man, you'd skip the wedding, still visit him/let him visit you, and just silently pray that he'd change his ways?

 

In reality, what would probably happen is that the son would refuse to visit mom/dad at all until mom/dad were compelled to articulate that this ss relationship was God's perfect plan for the son's life and they couldn't be happier, and what on earth were they thinking with all that old-fashioned Biblical stuff about relationships?  Their eyes have been opened!   Anything less that this, and blackmail typically ensues..."Agree with my perspective  or get out of my life". 

 

That's a long way from tolerance, which is that mom gets to do mom, and the son gets to do himself and both respect the other's right to have a variant viewpoint and they "pass the bean dip", as is commonly said around here. 

[Katy]

Tsuga, take that down.  Personal insults aren't allowed.

[Bluegoat]

So, how exactly would the relationship suffer, aside from you refusing to go to the wedding?

 

Don't you think that many significant differences in values could cause that - even when there are no practical issues created.

 

I said something earlier, a little tongue in cheek, about a child becoming a Monsanto exec.  But I can easily imagine that if my child took up a position that was really against my values, including that one,  that it could cause all kinds of tensions.  I've had in my extended family seen cases where a child, no longer living with the parents, was making money illegally selling drugs.  Now, the family chose to stay out of the legal side of it, but there was significant tension and angst within the family over that.  When people are thinking about things differently in that way it is going to affect their sense of closeness and common values, there will probably be whole areas about their thoughts and life they don't discuss for the sake of family harmony..

 

And if there were regularly questions coming up like - how do we handle things like staying over for the holidays - it could be difficult too, harder to let things go without hurt feelings.

[Bluegoat]

In reality, what would probably happen is that the son would refuse to visit mom/dad at all until mom/dad were compelled to articulate that this ss relationship was God's perfect plan for the son's life and they couldn't be happier, and what on earth were they thinking with all that old-fashioned Biblical stuff about relationships?  Their eyes have been opened!   Anything less that this, and blackmail typically ensues..."Agree with my perspective  or get out of my life". 

 

That's a long way from tolerance, which is that mom gets to do mom, and the son gets to do himself and both respect the other's right to have a variant viewpoint and they "pass the bean dip", as is commonly said around here. 

 

Lots of people manage many difficult issues, including this one, without demanding change on either side.

[livetoread]

It's interesting to me (and I mean that, not in a snarky *interesting* way, but I'm genuinely interested) that it's this particular "sin" that some parents feel is so threatening to their relationship with their kid.

 

Why not other sins like gluttony? Why aren't some denominations applauding their parishioners for refusing to go to a restaurant with their overweight young adult kid?

 

The fact that some religious folk not only think same sex relationships are a sin (like, say, pride), but also think it is a bad enough sin that their and their kid's relationship would be badly strained because of the parent's disapproval is the source of much musing for me. Why that one? I'm assuming that having an overweight kid would not strain the relationship in the same way. I haven't heard any religious parent worry about what would happen if their kid ended up overweight and how it would be such a strain that they wouldn't know if they could maintain a relationship.

 

Usually the disapproval of a sin is comparable to the amount of harm it causes. For example, pretty much everyone would find it a strain to the relationship if their kid engaged in a pattern of severely harmful behavior to other people. But the disconnect with being gay is that it isn't harmful except in the context of certain religious beliefs. There are so many more sins that actually do cause harm that parents are able to navigate with their teens and young adults without straining their relationship. So many sins are taken in stride as something between the kid and God. I find it heart-breaking that this particular sin, which could so easily fall in the "yes, it's a sin but not one that has to be a big deal" is the one that causes so much pain.

 

(I should add that I say sin using the language of those who think it is one - I do not.)

[Tsuga]

Tsuga, take that down.  Personal insults aren't allowed.

 

I did not say she was a jerk all around but that she is experiencing conflict because she is acting like it.

 

"I don't understand, when I continue to insult an entire group of people, I am seeing so much conflict" is just so incredibly immature I do not even know where to start.

 

it is blatantly obvious when you go through life--"Hey, that thing about you makes you go to hell and unloveable" "Please stop!" "but it's really bad" "Please, that really hurts" that you are going to experience conflict.

 

It is acting like a jerk.

 

However, I can sum up the other ways in which it is awful:

 

It is hateful, unkind, uncivilized, rude, baiting, bullying, rude, low, impolite, unacceptable, provoking behavior. It is causing others pain on purpose with the added insult that you insist repeatedly that you don't understand why telling them that you know better than they do, that they're doing it on purpose and in addition, that God hates it.

 

 

This entire thread is a huge joke.

 

"Excuse me, when I tell people they suck, they seem to get so UPSET about it. I don't GET it."

 

Well, I'm going to call a spade a spade and if this thread or my posts get taken down, or I get banned forever, it will not be a loss to me.

[TranquilMind]

You started this thread. Why?

 

You're asking why there are religious disagreements, but I think your attitude right here about sums it up.

 

 

You brought it up.

 

Then you continued to state a religious point of view that you know, and I know you know this unless you have short- and long-term memory issues that need treatment because you've participated on threads like this before, is unpopular but also very hurtful. Again and again people have told you how hurtful, painful, unkind, and even damaging your statements are. But you state them again.

 

And now you're using sarcasm to ridicule Megrath's assertion that your doing this is not okay.

 

And seriously, you are confused about why you are seeing more conflict regarding your religion?

 

Here's the short answer: it's because you are acting like a jerk about it. That's why you're experiencing more conflict. Because people fight hate and unkindness.

Well, actually, I did post the thread but perhaps you misread -  I'm not the one who sarcastically indicated that MY moral compass was superior to those "older people" who retained other (unpopular) values. 

 

But feel free to call me names.  It really doesn't matter to me. 

 

I'm not experiencing conflict.  I'm merely commenting on conflict I see. 

 

The irony of this post you have made is not missed.  I might have expressed "unpopular" views  but I did not assert blanket moral superiority.  I merely said that we will all find out in the end what God meant, and that is absolutely dead seriously true, not sarcastic.   

 

Edited April 27, 2016 by TranquilMind

[SparklyUnicorn]

How is this helpful?  You are behaving in the way you are slamming.  Yet those you are slamming, as far as I can tell, aren't behaving this way.  Yes they have views you don't agree with. 

 

You are basically saying that the only way a person can be kind is if they share your views. 

 

 

I did not say she was a jerk all around but that she is experiencing conflict because she is acting like it.

 

"I don't understand, when I continue to insult an entire group of people, I am seeing so much conflict" is just so incredibly immature I do not even know where to start.

 

it is blatantly obvious when you go through life--"Hey, that thing about you makes you go to hell and unloveable" "Please stop!" "but it's really bad" "Please, that really hurts" that you are going to experience conflict.

 

It is acting like a jerk.

 

However, I can sum up the other ways in which it is awful:

 

It is hateful, unkind, uncivilized, rude, baiting, bullying, rude, low, impolite, unacceptable, provoking behavior. It is causing others pain on purpose with the added insult that you insist repeatedly that you don't understand why telling them that you know better than they do, that they're doing it on purpose and in addition, that God hates it.

 

 

This entire thread is a huge joke.

 

"Excuse me, when I tell people they suck, they seem to get so UPSET about it. I don't GET it."

 

Well, I'm going to call a spade a spade and if this thread or my posts get taken down, or I get banned forever, it will not be a loss to me.

 

[FaithManor]

 

 

Is there an age at which you think you can stop correcting your kids? Beyond maybe a single reference (once, not every time you see them), and then just leaving it at that? Would a high priest be different than a regular parent, given that a high priest probably is supposed to be a spiritual leader for the entire community, of any age?

I think this is a very good question to ask. At one point is the child his or her own agent, and fully responsible, ie. not the parents' business to get involved, though obviously where civil law is concerned one does not simply look the other way on a felony because it has innocent victims, and it has civil penalties for doing so.

 

Assuming we are talking about perfectly legal, lifestyle choices here and not crimes.

 

So do faith based communities kind of establish an age at which the parent is so supposed to back off and let the adult child figure it out or not? I've seen this kind of at work around the age of 18 - sort of, well if you can vote for president and have full legal responsibility for yourself, then we need to get out of the business of your choices - the older tradition of 21? I've seen it in super conservative groups where the adult child has no agency outside of mom and dad until marriage, or younger at 17 if the child enters the military or college.

 

It seems to vary. I think it is an excellent question.

[Bluegoat]

It's interesting to me (and I mean that, not in a snarky *interesting* way, but I'm genuinely interested) that it's this particular "sin" that some parents feel is so threatening to their relationship with their kid.

 

Why not other sins like gluttony? Why aren't some denominations applauding their parishioners for refusing to go to a restaurant with their overweight young adult kid?

 

The fact that some religious folk not only think same sex relationships are a sin (like, say, pride), but also think it is a bad enough sin that their and their kid's relationship would be badly strained because of the parent's disapproval is the source of much musing for me. Why that one? I'm assuming that having an overweight kid would not strain the relationship in the same way. I haven't heard any religious parent worry about what would happen if their kid ended up overweight and how it would be such a strain that they wouldn't know if they could maintain a relationship.

 

Usually the disapproval of a sin is comparable to the amount of harm it causes. For example, pretty much everyone would find it a strain to the relationship if their kid engaged in a pattern of severely harmful behavior to other people. But the disconnect with being gay is that it isn't harmful except in the context of certain religious beliefs. There are so many more sins that actually do cause harm that parents are able to navigate with their teens and young adults without straining their relationship. So many sins are taken in stride as something between the kid and God. I find it heart-breaking that this particular sin, which could so easily fall in the "yes, it's a sin but not one that has to be a big deal" is the one that causes so much pain.

 

(I should add that I say sin using the language of those who think it is one - I do not.)

 

 

I'd say this is a real issue - it's overblown, often, compared to issues that are equally or more serious.  Part of that is just because it is a current issue and so controversial.  Some other serious, ignored issues are so approved by our culture that no one questions them regularly. (Sins with money, for example.)  Some are just harder to see.

 

Being overweight might not be the best example though to compare.  Sometimes it is a medical issue, and in many other cases it is something that people realize is not healthy or try, and fail, to control.  It might be they are poor and so can't afford a heathier diet.  So it isn't a great comparison for something where the disagreement is about whether the thing is in fact immoral or unhealthy. 

 

A better example that I would still consider a kind of gluttony might be factory farming.  So - say your child was arguing that the problems of factory farming didn't matter, that it was good, eating food you thought was produced unethically, or going around buying cattle feed lots.  (And even here, few people are able to be perfectly moral about such things even if they want to.)

 

I would personally consider factory farming to be a much more serious issue, because it is systematic and involves serious consequences, than most sexual issues.  If you are getting into things like marriage, the question becomes a bit different because it is by nature social, not individual.  As for why churches don't talk about these things as much, I think the reasons I gave above, mostly.  Though in some cases they do, but no one outside cares all that much so it doesn't get reported on.

[luuknam]

In reality, what would probably happen is that the son would refuse to visit mom/dad at all until mom/dad were compelled to articulate that this ss relationship was God's perfect plan for the son's life and they couldn't be happier, and what on earth were they thinking with all that old-fashioned Biblical stuff about relationships?  Their eyes have been opened!   Anything less that this, and blackmail typically ensues..."Agree with my perspective  or get out of my life". 

 

That's a long way from tolerance, which is that mom gets to do mom, and the son gets to do himself and both respect the other's right to have a variant viewpoint and they "pass the bean dip", as is commonly said around here. 

 

Really, that's not my experience. If the parents insist on preaching homosexuality is a sin every single time they see their LGBT kids, then yeah, but otherwise, most people I know are like, w/e. My wife has gotten to a point where she'll hang up on her mom when her mom 'accidentally' gets the pronoun wrong (she gets them right most of the time, tends to slip up when she's mad at my wife about something else), but it's been 8 years (and I got the pronouns consistently right within days - it's not rocket science).

[justasque]

In reality, what would probably happen is that the son would refuse to visit mom/dad at all until mom/dad were compelled to articulate that this ss relationship was God's perfect plan for the son's life and they couldn't be happier, and what on earth were they thinking with all that old-fashioned Biblical stuff about relationships?  Their eyes have been opened!   Anything less that this, and blackmail typically ensues..."Agree with my perspective  or get out of my life". 

 

That's a long way from tolerance, which is that mom gets to do mom, and the son gets to do himself and both respect the other's right to have a variant viewpoint and they "pass the bean dip", as is commonly said around here. 

 

This is not at all how I've seen it play out in real-life Christian families where kids and parents have been thoughtful and respectful to each other all along.  Not even close.  There's been no "blackmail" in the loving extended families I know.  There's been no "my way or the highway" on either side.  

 

Perhaps that's why I don't agree with shunning children, either completely or in an "I won't go to your wedding" type of way; it is not modeling the behavior you want to see from the child.  That doesn't mean you have to agree with everything your child does, but loving families can "pass the bean dip", and teach their children to do the same.

[TranquilMind]

I did not say she was a jerk all around but that she is experiencing conflict because she is acting like it.

 

"I don't understand, when I continue to insult an entire group of people, I am seeing so much conflict" is just so incredibly immature I do not even know where to start.

 

it is blatantly obvious when you go through life--"Hey, that thing about you makes you go to hell and unloveable" "Please stop!" "but it's really bad" "Please, that really hurts" that you are going to experience conflict.

 

It is acting like a jerk.

 

However, I can sum up the other ways in which it is awful:

 

It is hateful, unkind, uncivilized, rude, baiting, bullying, rude, low, impolite, unacceptable, provoking behavior. It is causing others pain on purpose with the added insult that you insist repeatedly that you don't understand why telling them that you know better than they do, that they're doing it on purpose and in addition, that God hates it.

 

 

This entire thread is a huge joke.

 

"Excuse me, when I tell people they suck, they seem to get so UPSET about it. I don't GET it."

 

Well, I'm going to call a spade a spade and if this thread or my posts get taken down, or I get banned forever, it will not be a loss to me.

Well, you are misstating me vastly in your indignation, but you know that.  I never said any of that, and I didn't name call.  The bolded never happened.  You did name call though.. 

 

 

I don't and did not insult any people whatsoever; I merely called someone on flat-out declaring her values "superior", which you are free to read upthread.

 

 

I do believe that people can and should be free to choose to believe what the scriptures say for themselves despite the heavy pressure to silence that

viewpoint today.  Religiophobia is clearly alive and well.

  

 

I do see that conflict arises where old and  (the superior ) new values collide, and it is too bad that the people involved cannot sometimes maintain the common ground.  One side generally has to demand the other conform or be cut off.  There is something vastly wrong with that intolerance. 

Edited April 27, 2016 by TranquilMind

[marbel]

Nm.

 

[Ravin]

You have the right to believe I am wrong. I have no desire to try to convince you otherwise.

 

But please accept responsibility for your own choices.

 

Let me be perfectly clear.

 

I am not a Christian. I mentioned earlier in the thread that I renounced Christianity (formally, albeit privately) at the age of 16. I turned my back on everything I understood Christianity to be. Much of what you express as far as beliefs about sin (and homosexuality as sin in particular) came across to me as rejection of me as a human being. 

 

I take full responsibility for rejecting the religion in which I was raised. I found a path that was and is, for me, more fulfilling and meaningful. It does not change the fact that the overwhelming reason I did so was that I was rejected by the Christian communities of which I was a part until then (though not, as previously mentioned, by my parents). I shook the dirt of their judgment (not any God's, but the followers') from my shoes and walked away.

 

That is what happens when you reject/shun/judge someone, especially a young and vulnerable person. And telling them it means they cannot have the fulfillment of marriage and family without either 1. living a lie or 2. living in sin is rejection. Of course, back then option 2 wasn't really in the cards. It was live a lie (enter a straight marriage), live in sin by engaging in extramarital relationships (same-sex marriage wasn't an option at the time), or be lonely (celibacy is NOT appropriate to expect of an ordinary person with a normal, healthy sex drive and no especially strong spiritual calling.) I don't believe any God would really be that cruel.

 

I refuse to believe in any deity who sets us up to fail, and that's how Christianity struck me. I know there are others who have come to a different understanding of this (such as has been expressed in this thread); I respect that.

 

I have no respect for someone telling me that there is no way for me to not live in sin short of lifelong celibacy and/or (being transgender) living a lie (choosing not to transition).

[TranquilMind]

This is not at all how I've seen it play out in real-life Christian families where kids and parents have been thoughtful and respectful to each other all along.  Not even close.  There's been no "blackmail" in the loving extended families I know.  There's been no "my way or the highway" on either side.  

 

Perhaps that's why I don't agree with shunning children, either completely or in an "I won't go to your wedding" type of way; it is not modeling the behavior you want to see from the child.  That doesn't mean you have to agree with everything your child does, but loving families can "pass the bean dip", and teach their children to do the same.

 

That's good to hear.  I hope so.  I hope you are right and that the situation I heard about turns out well too.   I agree shunning either direction is completely wrong.

 

Agree and also stated that loving families can "pass the bean dip". 

 

Edited April 27, 2016 by TranquilMind

[justasque]

...

 

I do believe that people can and should be free to choose to believe what the scriptures say for themselves despite the heavy pressure to silence that

viewpoint today.  Religiophobia is clearly alive and well.

  ...

 

I agree that people should follow their conscience, assuming that they do so after much thought, study, prayer, and listening to the testimony of people who have experience with the issue at hand.  I think it's important to understand that those who take what is sometimes seen as an un-Biblical position on homosexuality have in fact followed their conscience, and are not doing so lightly or out of selfishness or recklessness.

[Lady Florida.]

Why not other sins like gluttony? Why aren't some denominations applauding their parishioners for refusing to go to a restaurant with their overweight young adult kid?

 

 

 

Let's use divorce as an example instead of gluttony because it's more easily definable. Divorce is a sin according to Jesus. Some Christian denominations allow it in certain circumstances, some think it's a sin no matter what. But I've seen denomination after denomination jump through hoops to excuse their members/parishioners getting divorced for all kinds of reasons. Why? Probably because they'd lose too many members if they didn't adjust.

 

But it's still a sin according to the Bible. Why aren't more Christians trying to reinstate laws that make divorce illegal? Why aren't they demanding politicians address this sin? Why aren't they outside the courthouse where divorces are granted, holding up anti-divorcee signs? Why aren't they trying to take away the rights of divorced people? Why choose homosexuality or other gender differences as their hill to die on? 

 

To an outsider it's extremely hypocritical. Get that speck out of your eye. (general you)

[TranquilMind]

Really, that's not my experience. If the parents insist on preaching homosexuality is a sin every single time they see their LGBT kids, then yeah, but otherwise, most people I know are like, w/e. My wife has gotten to a point where she'll hang up on her mom when her mom 'accidentally' gets the pronoun wrong (she gets them right most of the time, tends to slip up when she's mad at my wife about something else), but it's been 8 years (and I got the pronouns consistently right within days - it's not rocket science).

 

I have no idea what you are talking about with "accidentally getting the pronoun wrong"? 

Oh, I think I see.  Is the person you are married to formerly male and this person's mother sometimes refers to the person in  that way in which she gave birth?  I would think that would still happen now and then with one's own mother. 

 

Sorry if I have that all wrong.  Lots of posters on this site and I rarely remember their background stories.   

[Katy]

My theory about why this particular sin is worse than others is that it was worse than others to Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament.

 

He had no problem violating other laws, doing all things for the sake of Christ. But he was personally horrified by sexual sin.  1 Cor 6:18-20.  Jesus didn't seem to make such a differentiation.

 

But then I'm implying not every verse has the same authority, which I'm sure many people would have issues with.

 

 

ETA:  I don't mean it is worse, I mean it's considered worse to some churches.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Katy

[Paige]

 

 

I do see that conflict arises where old and  (the superior ) new values collide, and it is too bad that the people involved cannot sometimes maintain the common ground.  One side generally has to demand the other conform or be cut off.  There is something vastly wrong with that intolerance. 

 

I don't understand what you mean by that. Are you wishing that the two views could coexist peacefully with neither side superseding the other, ever? Can you think of a large, emotional issue that illustrates what you would like to see? 

 

I think part of the reason why we see so much conflict with this issue, as the societal opinion is in flux, is because it is such an emotional, personal issue. It's about our children, parents, family, love, sex, religion, and issues that establish our personal sense of selves! 

 

Maybe religion in general would be a similar comparison? But- for hundreds of years it was a very divisive, emotional, and violent issue. It took a long time to get to the point where the majority sees it as a live and let live issue. We aren't there yet in regards to sexuality and gender- maybe we will be in a few 100 years. Also, why is this such an issue now? I think it is science. For 100s of years, it was easy to say that gender, in 95% of people, is obvious at birth, it's a binary system, and easy to justify why homosexuality or different sexuality was wrong. A greater understanding of human fetal development, DNA, and biology has caused many people to question long held beliefs. While there were always people who were advocating for more acceptance of people who are not cis, the science of today is what I believe has helped them to gain support. You (general) may not believe that science shows people are born homosexual or transsexual, or whatever, but it is true that science is changing many people's minds, and that the changing of minds is a messy process and is causing the social conflict today. 

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I really think you have no evidence for this. 

 

Statements like this belong to the school of misogyny that assumes because lesbianism doesn't involve penis in orifice sex, it's not 'real'. Not a real threat, not a real identity. 

I am unsure whether this a fair assessment. I have read articles on whether women's sexuality tends to be more fluid so to speak. I think many humans, both male and female may have sexuality that is more fluid than we think. In other words, I don't think it is always one way or the other.

[Pam in CT]

Thanks for this thread, TranquilMind.

 

Like several pp before me, I do not ultimately see these difficult and sometimes heartbreaking issues in terms of Christianity or any other faith tradition (we are FWIW Jewish).  Rather, I see them in terms of agency and boundaries between parent and child.

 

Kids grow up, exercise their own agency, make decisions and take actions that are different from what we parents would choose for them.  Sometimes in areas close to the bone, like values and religion.  That's how it works.  It's hard.  Sometimes their experiences cause us to reflect anew, rethink, help us to widen or deepen or otherwise evolve in our thinking.  Sometimes not, and even after grappling and wrestling, we still disapprove or are otherwise uncomfortable with the path they've taken.

 

We don't get to choose their path.  Just our response.  

 

Our respective faith tradition and how our child's path is defined within it may inform our response... and our child's ability and/or willingness to remain within the faith tradition... but ultimately our response is on us, vetted through our own struggle with values / text / God / community.  Like Joker here, like Veritaserum on prior threads, like John and Meghan McCain, like Chaim Potok and his fictional protagonists and their parents (run, don't walk!) -- different parents will navigate the tensions between love and acceptance / faith tradition teachings and community pressures differently.

 

 

 

Personally, I cannot imagine cutting off a child who's on a path that harms no one, whether or not I relate to it.  Refusing to attend a child's wedding, or welcoming a child's longterm partner into my home, or acknowledging grandchildren, would certainly amount to cutting off the child.

 

Personally, I believe any faith community that exhorts shunning (and there are pockets of Judaism that do this in certain circumstances) has crossed over into a degree of coercion that is IMO unethical and spiritually abusive.  If I ever were faced with a choice between supporting and sustaining my child / child's partner / my grandchildren, and remaining in a particular faith community in which they are unwelcome.... the choice to me would be both obvious, and -- FWIW -- within my (well-wrestled) understanding of what God wants.

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Let's use divorce as an example instead of gluttony because it's more easily definable. Divorce is a sin according to Jesus. Some Christian denominations allow it in certain circumstances, some think it's a sin no matter what. But I've seen denomination after denomination jump through hoops to excuse their members/parishioners getting divorced for all kinds of reasons. Why? Probably because they'd lose too many members if they didn't adjust.

 

But it's still a sin according to the Bible. Why aren't more Christians trying to reinstate laws that make divorce illegal? Why aren't they demanding politicians address this sin? Why aren't they outside the courthouse where divorces are granted, holding up anti-divorcee signs? Why aren't they trying to take away the rights of divorced people? Why choose homosexuality or other gender differences as their hill to die on? 

 

To an outsider it's extremely hypocritical. Get that speck out of your eye. (general you)

Divorce is a sin except where adultery/sexual immorality occurs. 

 

Attribute things to Jesus accurately.  (Matthew 5:32)

 

Divorce was illegal or difficult to obtain for most of our history.  The Catholic Church still does make it "illegal"; you have to qualify for an annulment if you want to marry there. 

 

Why has the issue dropped in the public arena? So much adultery that nearly what, 60% of marriages are ending today.  Hard to keep up with that flood. 

 

All you can do there is make sure you yourself are doing the right thing. Not much you can do about millions of people divorcing every day except tell them the truth according to your faith if they ask you and are interested at all.  Most aren't. 

 

[FaithManor]

I think the issue is that there was a time in this country when religious belief was favored, and a certain set of beliefs. Therefore, it was talked about in a widely accepted, and more this is fact kind of way. It was comfortable for conservative Christians.

 

Now, it is not widely accepted. It is talked about in very much the same way as a range of cultural beliefs, and political beliefs as well. We see how public discourse and debate goes with politics. It is pretty rarely all that happy and peaceful. Now it is the same for religious belief, but I think it is difficult for those that once experienced it being normal for their beliefs to be culturally acceptable to now be in a position that it isn't. There is a transition period that can be very intense.

 

It should be remembered that the early church was in this position. Their beliefs were not culturally acceptable at all, and the penalty for belief could be huge. Yet they seemed to function quite gracefully within society, without an assumption that non-believers should obey their religious rules, or that secular governments should ordain their religious beliefs as civil law. They operated with a pretty comfortable distance between the two things. Then the supremacy of the church, the Holy Roman Empire and the Reformation, the blending of civil law with religious law, enforcement of belief on society, and then that pesky enlightenment and its rejection of theocracy as a legitimate mode of government, and slowly, back to religious belief no longer being thrust upon secular society, a wider range of religious belief, a rejection of religious belief, less control within government and society of one preferred set of beliefs over another.

 

I think this transition can be very, very hard for some. It can be super tough within family units. What then is the religious groups' response? What then is the Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Hindu, or.....parents' response? How does that play out? What is the appropriate way to practice one's faith within a secular society that is to honor religious belief so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others to not believe, and how does that work within the family unit as the next generation may not subscribe to mom and dad's faith and especially so without a culture that pressures the adult child to accept a certain set of religious beliefs?

 

It's thorny. Definitely. It causes a lot of pain and suffering for sure. As for dh and I, we prefer to not inflict pain if we can help it.

[Lady Florida.]

Divorce is a sin except where adultery/sexual immorality occurs. 

 

Attribute things to Jesus accurately.  (Matthew 5:32)

 

Divorce was illegal or difficult to obtain for most of our history.  The Catholic Church still does make it "illegal"; you have to qualify for an annulment if you want to marry there. 

 

Why has the issue dropped in the public arena? So much adultery that nearly what, 60% of marriages are ending today.  Hard to keep up with that flood. 

 

All you can do there is make sure you yourself are doing the right thing. Not much you can do about millions of people divorcing every day except tell them the truth according to your faith if they ask you and are interested at all.  Most aren't. 

 

You missed my point. Divorce affects heterosexual people way more than gender differences does. And yet how many here have said they would cut off contact with their adult child if that child got divorced. How many who would not attend their child's gay wedding would also not attend their hetero child's second wedding if the first marriage ended in divorce? 

 

hyp·o·crit·i·cal

ADJECTIVE

1. behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case:

    

   owered by Oxford Dictionaries Â· © Oxford University Press Â·

[TranquilMind]

My theory about why this particular sin is worse than others is that it was worse than others to Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament.

 

He had no problem violating other laws, doing all things for the sake of Christ. But he was personally horrified by sexual sin.  1 Cor 6:18-20.  Jesus didn't seem to make such a differentiation.

 

But then I'm implying not every verse has the same authority, which I'm sure many people would have issues with.

 

 

ETA:  I don't mean it is worse, I mean it's considered worse to some churches.

He does differentiate sexual sin as sin you commit against your own body (which I think he uses on at least 2 levels, physical body and body of believers), a 1 Cor 6

 

18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

 

You missed my point. Divorce affects heterosexual people way more than gender differences does. And yet how many here have said they would cut off contact with their adult child if that child got divorced. How many who would not attend their child's gay wedding would also not attend their hetero child's second wedding if the first marriage ended in divorce? 

 

hyp·o·crit·i·cal

ADJECTIVE

1. behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case:

    

   owered by Oxford Dictionaries Â· © Oxford University Press Â·

 

 

I don't know; you would have to ask individuals.   

 

Are these divorces scriptural?  Did husband ditch the wife for a new model?  She is free to marry, scripturally.  Facts matter. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Lady Florida.]

I don't know; you would have to ask individuals.   

 

Are these divorces scriptural?  Did husband ditch the wife for a new model?  She is free to marry, scripturally.  Facts matter. 

 

Why aren't you personally complaining about divorce rates the way you are about gender differences? SMH

 

ETA: I'm done. I made my point. Others got it. You don't seem to want to get it.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Lady Florida.