Ugh help

[Scarlett]

43 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

No...I don't think premarital sex makes someone living a 'double life' either. It's between that person and God - not something I think people should judge. 

If a person is claiming to  be of a religion which strictly adheres to a Biblical command to not engage in sex outside of marriage is indeed engaging in sex outside of marriage then yes that is living a double life.

 

[hippiemamato3]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

If a person is claiming to  be of a religion which strictly adheres to a Biblical command to not engage in sex outside of marriage is indeed engaging in sex outside of marriage then yes that is living a double life.

 

It says that divorce and remarriage is adultery ...so how is a divorced person not living a double life? 

[Scarlett]

Just now, hippiemamato3 said:

It says that divorce and remarriage is adultery ...so how is a divorced person not living a double life? 

It also says except on the grounds of adultery....so that breaks the marital bond like death does.  But sure if you believe that to remarry while your first mate is still living is wrong and you do it anyway then that is a problem.  If you believe something is wrong don't do it.  If you don't want to follow the 'rules' (for lack of a better word) of a particular faith then don't join that faith.  If you make a mistake/sin own it, take steps to correct it, turn back from it.  Don't keep doing it.

[hippiemamato3]

Just now, Scarlett said:

It also says except on the grounds of adultery....so that breaks the marital bond like death does.  But sure if you believe that to remarry while your first mate is still living is wrong and you do it anyway then that is a problem.  If you believe something is wrong don't do it.  If you don't want to follow the 'rules' (for lack of a better word) of a particular faith then don't join that faith.  If you make a mistake/sin own it, take steps to correct it, turn back from it.  Don't keep doing it.

So premarital sex is believed to be strictly wrong and therefore makes you not JW, but not all continuous sins. I find this really interesting. 

[Scarlett]

Just now, hippiemamato3 said:

So premarital sex is believed to be strictly wrong and therefore makes you not JW, but not all continuous sins. I find this really interesting. 

I don't know what that means.  

[hippiemamato3]

13 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don't know what that means.  

It just seems that you put a lot of emphasis on premarital sex as being a major sin, but less for other things. Maybe that's just how JW religion is; there are a lot of things a lot worse. 

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, hippiemamato3 said:

It just seems that you put a lot of emphasis on premarital sex as being a major sin, but less for other things. Maybe that's just how JW religion is; there are a lot of things a lot worse. 

I do not put a lot of emphasis on premarital sex.  It is the topic of this current conversation.  What other things are you talking about?  

Edited February 15, 2019 by Scarlett

[hippiemamato3]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I do not put a lot of emphasis on premarital sex.  It is the topic of this current conversation.  What other things are you talking about?  

Can you elaborate on what other sins would be considered "living a double life" or would get you removed from the list of people who can knock on doors?

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, hippiemamato3 said:

No...I don't think premarital sex makes someone living a 'double life' either. It's between that person and God - not something I think people should judge. 

To be fair, there is more than one type of judging. There is judging as a hypocrite, which Jesus clearly condemned: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

Jesus also told us not to judge superficially: "Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

However, there is also the judging of open, unrepentant sin which is necessary as part of church discipline. It should be done carefully and mercifully, with the aim of restoring the brother or sister to a right relationship with God and the church:

"Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted." 

"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?"

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

Edited February 15, 2019 by MercyA

[Scarlett]

11 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Can you elaborate on what other sins would be considered "living a double life" or would get you removed from the list of people who can knock on doors?

Not really.  @MercyA summed it up well in her post below.

10 minutes ago, MercyA said:

To be fair, there is more than one type of judging. There is judging as a hypocrite, which Jesus clearly condemned: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

Jesus also told us not to judge superficially: "Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

However, there is also the judging of open, unrepentant sin which is necessary as part of church discipline. It should be done carefully and mercifully, with the aim of restoring the brother or sister to a right relationship with God and the church:

"Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted." 

"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?"

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

 

[marbel]

How did this thread turn into a microscopic examination of Scarlett's religious beliefs and community? (And it's not the first one that has taken this turn.)  Some of these comments/questions seem really disrespectful and snarky to me. 

[Valley Girl]

6 minutes ago, marbel said:

How did this thread turn into a microscopic examination of Scarlett's religious beliefs and community? (And it's not the first one that has taken this turn.)  Some of these comments/questions seem really disrespectful and snarky to me. 

Yeah, I've gotten that feeling as well. It's not cool.

[unsinkable]

27 minutes ago, marbel said:

How did this thread turn into a microscopic examination of Scarlett's religious beliefs and community? (And it's not the first one that has taken this turn.)  Some of these comments/questions seem really disrespectful and snarky to me. 

I could trace it back if you really want, but I based my question off of another post.

I also offered my perspective from my own religion as my point of reference. 

I asked politley, twice, and was ignored. So I dropped it. 

 

[hippiemamato3]

31 minutes ago, marbel said:

How did this thread turn into a microscopic examination of Scarlett's religious beliefs and community? (And it's not the first one that has taken this turn.)  Some of these comments/questions seem really disrespectful and snarky to me. 

I'm honestly trying to understand. If someone is having premarital sex (which shouldn't really be public knowledge anyway IMO) Scarlett said they would be prevent from practicing traditional JW rituals. I want to understand what other things would have the same consequence; it seems odd that that would be the one major thing that would cause public shame. 

[Scarlett]

7 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

I could trace it back if you really want, but I based my question off of another post.

I also offered my perspective from my own religion as my point of reference. 

I asked politley, twice, and was ignored. So I dropped it. 

 

It was a big question.  🙂  But JW are not like Catholics in most ways.  Unrepentant sin is subject to congregation discipline.  But anyone can come back from that and regain their standing in the congregation.   

[Scarlett]

9 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

I'm honestly trying to understand. If someone is having premarital sex (which shouldn't really be public knowledge anyway IMO) Scarlett said they would be prevent from practicing traditional JW rituals. I want to understand what other things would have the same consequence; it seems odd that that would be the one major thing that would cause public shame. 

Why do you need a list of sins?  Surely you have an idea of what Christians consider to be sins.

[hippiemamato3]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Why do you need a list of sins?  Surely you have an idea of what Christians consider to be sins.

That would require public shaming? Nope. 

[Scarlett]

Just now, hippiemamato3 said:

That would require public shaming? Nope. 

To  be clear the discipline is not always public and the details of why discipline was given is never public.  

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, hippiemamato3 said:

That would require public shaming? Nope. 

I think that depends on what you mean by public shaming. Certainly there is a Scriptural precedent for public discipline of those who claim to be Christians but engage in open, unrepentant sin.

From 1 Corinthians 5: "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not 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. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked person from among you.'"

I think the Amish (for example) take this type of instruction too far, and shun for things not even named as sin in the Bible. On the other hand, I believe most American churches don't go far enough--many choose to ignore passages like this and practice no church discipline at all for open sin, which hurts people's souls and allows hypocrisy to flourish.

ETA: It should go without saying, but this type of discipline would be a last resort, after other steps were followed--meeting with the person(s) privately, meeting with them in a small group, etc.

Edited February 15, 2019 by MercyA

[Scarlett]

15 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

I remember an old thread about the situation between this couple, the parents of the girl and the elderly couple. Iirc, the elderly couple was complicit in founding this relationship? Didn’t we discuss the whole marry-them-young philosophy when scarlet first told us of this?

Looking into my (obviously not flawless) crystal ball, here’s my prediction: the couple wed. Bride moves into house with groom and elderly couple. Voila, elderly couple’s plan for elder care established. 

I’m afraid this girl is destined to indentured servitude.

Ok, y’all can throw tomatoes at my speculations but you ought to save a few for her parents, because they are insane to allow this.   

  

Ha, no you have a couple of different situations mixed up I think.  This elderly couple was not involved in founding this relationship.  The young man at first just stayed a couple nights a week with them....while he still primarily lived with his parents a hour or so away.  Then the parents nicely evicted him...:)  and so he asked to stay with elderly couple for a few weeks until he could get an apartment.   Which then turned into 6 months and counting.  The elderly couple are nice people who are not taking advantage of anyone, but rather being taken advantage of.  But they are allowing it obviously....

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

 

Thanks for clarifying. Nonetheless, I am sad for this young girl’s future prospects. 

Me too.  

[SKL]

A sort of random thought here ... but isn't it interesting that most if not all religions require people to be married before they move in together, but they apparently don't require that either spouse be gainfully employed before they move in together?  I guess that prior to the relatively recent phenomenon of independent nuclear families, this was not much of a concern ....

But if I were writing the rules today, I think I would put "can support a household" right up there with "is married" as a goal / requirement for setting up housekeeping together.

Edited February 15, 2019 by SKL

[Scarlett]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

A sort of random thought here ... but isn't it interesting that most if not all religions require people to be married before they move in together, but they apparently don't require that either spouse be gainfully employed before they move in together?  I guess that prior to the relatively recent phenomenon of independent nuclear families, this was not much of a concern ....

But if I were writing the rules today, I think I would put "can support a household" right up there with "is married" as a goal / requirement for setting up housekeeping together.

It is actually required.  🙂  But how that is accomplished varies so much by individuals. And the person to complain would be the wife..

[Scarlett]

10 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

 

The concept of work as vital to human flourishing (as opposed to working to earn God’s grace) is implicit throughout the scriptures, and in some places explicit. A well read student of the writings can see that work is a blessing and means of provision. So, the “rules” on that are already written. Interesting topic for discussion, probably best in another thread. 

It appears the groom herein has no regard for what actually is expected of a husband. Immature, as scarlet says, we just don’t know if it’s circumstantial or “dumb on purpose.”

Very true.  Everything in your post is exactly true.  

[itsheresomewhere]

57 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

I remember an old thread about the situation between this couple, the parents of the girl and the elderly couple. Iirc, the elderly couple was complicit in founding this relationship? Didn’t we discuss the whole marry-them-young philosophy when scarlet first told us of this?

Looking into my (obviously not flawless) crystal ball, here’s my prediction: the couple wed. Bride moves into house with groom and elderly couple. Voila, elderly couple’s plan for elder care established. 

I’m afraid this girl is destined to indentured servitude.

Ok, y’all can throw tomatoes at my speculations but you ought to save a few for her parents, because they are insane to allow this.   

  

Switch a few things around and I think you are on to aomething.  Manchild has found a way to not grow up fully and do want he wants.  He found housing and people to take care of him since his parents demanded/ordered him to become a productive member of society and stop taking avantage of them. 

Now if manchild grows up and becomes a provider, only time will tell and we can hope he does.

[Scarlett]

Just now, itsheresomewhere said:

Switch a few things around and I think you are on to aomething.  Manchild has found a way to not grow up fully and do want he wants.  He found housing and people to take care of him since his parents demanded/ordered him to become a productive member of society and stop taking avantage of them. 

Now if manchild grows up and becomes a provider, only time will tell and we can hope he does.

I am hoping for the best.  I don't want them to fail.  She will have to demand he be a man.

[itsheresomewhere]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I am hoping for the best.  I don't want them to fail.  She will have to demand he be a man.

Sadly, unless he wants too no matter how she demands he wants too.  I hope she has some wonderful support if anything happens. 

 

[Catwoman]

2 hours ago, unsinkable said:

I could trace it back if you really want, but I based my question off of another post.

I also offered my perspective from my own religion as my point of reference. 

I asked politley, twice, and was ignored. So I dropped it. 

 

 

Same here. It seemed more like people were asking for information, not that they were attacking Scarlett’s religion, and when questions were repeated, it was because they hadn’t been answered or the poster needed more clarification.

I hope Scarlett didn’t think I was picking on her by asking for more details about things like chaperones and the conventions of dating, because I was only trying to understand how it works. It’s hard to comment in a thread like this when you don’t have fairly specific information, because things that seem unusual to me may be the norm for Scarlett and the couple in question. If I started a similar thread from my perspective, I wouldn’t be surprised if people said that the conventions and beliefs that are the norm where I live are completely foreign to them, and I would be happy to answer their questions to try to clarify things.

[Scarlett]

47 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

That is actually one of my biggest concerns with this whole situation, not the age difference.  This man doesn’t seem prepared to actually take care of a wife and children, even in an egalitarian way.  That would be disqualifying from marriage in our congregation, though there is a lot of nuance there.

 

This whole situation is a mess.

Yes it is my biggest concern too.  To be fair though when they were first dating and when they got engaged last fall he DID have a job.  When his hours dropped to nothing he just didn't seem to have the sense of urgency to get another job.  I think he has worked a few days this week.

[marbel]

2 hours ago, MercyA said:

I think that depends on what you mean by public shaming. Certainly there is a Scriptural precedent for public discipline of those who claim to be Christians but engage in open, unrepentant sin.

<snip>

I think the Amish (for example) take this type of instruction too far, and shun for things not even named as sin in the Bible. On the other hand, I believe most American churches don't go far enough--many choose to ignore passages like this and practice no church discipline at all for open sin, which hurts people's souls and allows hypocrisy to flourish.

ETA: It should go without saying, but this type of discipline would be a last resort, after other steps were followed--meeting with the person(s) privately, meeting with them in a small group, etc.

I agree with everything here (including the snipped bit).

I have seen a few church discipline cases handled well. In a couple of the cases, the excommunicated was an abusive spouse/parent. All "private" methods of bringing the person to repentance and reconciliation failed. When the person was excommunicated, their family was finally able to start healing, in part because they knew the church was on their side.  The excommunications were done in a church service; the families were fine with that even though it made the situation very public within the church. 

Sometimes there is not such a clear victim, but if  a person is openly living in a sinful (as defined by the faith community government) and attempts are not made to correct the behavior, it would be wrong of the church to just shrug and say 'oh well, lots of people do this, no big deal.'  For one thing, it absolutely would open the entire community open to charges of hypocrisy.

 

[hippiemamato3]

Charges of hypocrisy? I haven't ever heard of such a thing...I feel like I live in a very different world!

[Katy]

I think I would decline the invitation. If she comes to you in person and asks why, because you used to be so close, at that point you can (gently) say you see more than a few red flags with this man and you're quite concerned he's neither ready nor willing to be a responsible provider.  And that's important when you're discussing sex and children, which are an inherent part of most Christian marriages.

[Scarlett]

Their shower is tomorrow and I have found NO ONE who is going. People are planning to send gifts, but aren't going.  The MOB asked me specifically if I would be there so I am committed to the shower at least.  

[Catwoman]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Their shower is tomorrow and I have found NO ONE who is going. People are planning to send gifts, but aren't going.  The MOB asked me specifically if I would be there so I am committed to the shower at least.  

 

It seems kind of petty that no one is going.  Not even the girl’s friends??? 😞

Edited February 15, 2019 by Catwoman

[hippiemamato3]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Their shower is tomorrow and I have found NO ONE who is going. People are planning to send gifts, but aren't going.  The MOB asked me specifically if I would be there so I am committed to the shower at least.  

That makes me feel really sad. The couple definitely will need support. I can't imagine that no one in this couples' church feels compelled to show them church family love and be there for them?! 

[marbel]

8 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Their shower is tomorrow and I have found NO ONE who is going. People are planning to send gifts, but aren't going.  The MOB asked me specifically if I would be there so I am committed to the shower at least.  

That is really sad, in so many ways.  Sad that she is embarking on a marriage that so few people agree with. Sad that so few people will go show her some love and support.  But also sad if this young woman doesn't see that people aren't supportive of the match and doesn't give some thought as to why, and if that lack of support is legitimate.

[Scarlett]

7 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

It seems kind of petty that no one is going.  Not even the girl’s friends??? 😞

Well I haven't called everyone but so far the 10 or so people I have asked aren't going.  My sons and my oldest son's girlfriend aren't going.  I am sure there will be people there.  It will be interesting.

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, marbel said:

That is really sad, in so many ways.  Sad that she is embarking on a marriage that so few people agree with. Sad that so few people will go show her some love and support.  But also sad if this young woman doesn't see that people aren't supportive of the match and doesn't give some thought as to why, and if that lack of support is legitimate.

Yes I just spoke to one friend who expressed the same sentiment. Sad it has to be this way because if things had been handled differently it could have been a really fun time.  

[Scarlett]

But this same friend I just talked to said she feels the bride and groom and family won't notice because they have been in their own little orbit lately.  So it is good they seem happy and won't miss us.

[Garga]

A person engaging in premarital sex would not be allowed to be in a leadership or outreach position at most of the churches I’ve been to. Nor would a person who gambled.  Nor would a person who drank, and not to drunkeness, but any drinking at all.  Watching R-rated movies also would quietly remove someone from positions of authority in many of the churches I’ve attended.  Reading books that would be R-rated if they were movies is frowned upon. 

Some people really do take their religion incredibly seriously and absolutely want to live a holy life before God. It’s not just salaciousness around sexual sin.  Some people are honestly concerned about *all* sin.  And they mean it and they live it out in their actions.  They do their best to control their minds to have lovely thoughts (which is where the frowning upon R-rated books and movies comes in—there are a lot of dark stories in R rated books/movies.)  I chose the word “lovely” because of this scripture:  

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—thing about such things and the God of peace will be with you.  —Philippians 4:8

People take the above seriously regarding controlling what they bring in front of their minds (movies/books or anything else like that.)

All of these things are not what a church forces upon the people.  People find churches that will support them in their desire to live a holy life.  Some people become priests or nuns if they are Catholic.  Other people are of a religion that doesn’t have priests or nuns, but still live with a sense of holiness as if they were a priest or nun, but with a spouse and children.  

(I would like to write more, but I must help a kid with a class right now...)

 

EDITED:  I helped my son and came back and edited for sloppy writing.

Thought of a couple more:  anger issues, money mismanagement in ones personal life, talking smack about other church members—all these things would make someone not a good candidate to lead.  Depending on how much of an impact the sin caused would impact how much they could work as a representative of the church in an outreach situation.  Do the anger issues mean you have a frowny face and talk agressively but are mostly harmless in your anger?  Or do you hit people in your anger?  Are you in a little bit of debt but working on getting better?  Or do you constantly live way above your means and are missing paying bills to people whom you owe money (like the gas company even...Christians ought to pay what they owe if they can and not blow their money and then renege on what they owe.). Did you talk bad about someone and realize, “Wow, I was a jerk, I need to stop,” or are you the sort who can’t wait to get around other people so you can pass on the latest gossip.  It’s one thing to talk about someone and then catch yourself and reign it in, but it’s another if you just live for the next tasty bit of gossip.  These are things that will keep you out of leadership.  Premarital sex is not the only one, by a long shot.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Garga

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, Garga said:

A person engaging in premarital sex would not be allowed to be in a leadership or outreach position at most of the churches I’ve been to. Nor would a person who gambled.  Nor would a person who drank, not even just to drunkeness, but any drinking at all.  Watching R-rated movies also would quietly remove someone from positions of authority in many of the churches I’ve attended.  Reading books that would be R-rated if they were movies is frowned upon. 

Some people really do take their religion incredibly seriously and absolutely want to live a holy life before God.  It’s not just salaciousness around sexual sin.  Some people are honestly concerned about all sin.  They do their best to control their minds to have lovely thoughts, even (which is where the frowning upon R-rated books and movies comes in—there are a lot of dark stories in R rated books/movies.)

It’s not something a church forces upon the people.  People find churches that will support them in their desire to live a holy life.  Some people become priests or nuns.  Other people choose a religion that doesn’t have priests or nuns, but still live with a sense of holiness as if they were being a priest or nun, but with a spouse and children.  

(I would like to write more, but I must help a kid with a class right now...)

The  bolded is true and what many people don't realize.

 

[Katy]

If you're going to the shower you must attend the wedding. If not you need to call the girl herself or her mother and explain why not right now.

[Scarlett]

12 minutes ago, Katy said:

If you're going to the shower you must attend the wedding. If not you need to call the girl herself or her mother and explain why not right now.

I have never heard that rule.  I do need to make a decision though.  

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Seasider too said:

 

I hope when she says, “Gee, scarlet, why do you think no one came?” that you can have a loving yet frank discussion about the concerns. 

They won't ask because they already know.  

[Scarlett]

I am just ready for this wedding and another equaling unsettling wedding to be both completely over.  I haven't received a invitation to the shower or the wedding for the second couple, but it is a little early yet. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Scarlett

[SKL]

I guess I wonder why people think it will do any good to tell (or show) people you disagree with a wedding - especially when it is imminent or already past.  I mean the time to talk someone out of it (if ever) is when you first realize it's going to be a train wreck.  Sounds like that ship has already sailed.

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

That is actually one of my biggest concerns with this whole situation, not the age difference.  This man doesn’t seem prepared to actually take care of a wife and children, even in an egalitarian way.  That would be disqualifying from marriage in our congregation, though there is a lot of nuance there.

Does this mean that in your congregation someone, or some group, makes a determination of whether a man is prepared to take care of a wife and children?  If so, I am curious of what this looks like.  Is the same criteria used for a woman as used for a man?

I am just thinking that about a couple I most admired growing up.  My uncle was injured in a freak accident as he was returning from the Korean War; although he survived the war without injury, a roof blew off the building where he was waiting to fly back home, and left him a paraplegic.  He married one of his nurses.  She was a wonderful woman who cared for him dearly and continued to work as a nurse.  He was one of the most optimistic, happiest people that I knew; he provided a great deal of emotional support to her and they had a wonderful, fulfilling relationship.  There was no way that he would be able to take care of a wife and children in what is traditionally meant by that.  Their relationship, love, and warmth touched the lives of many.  

 

[Catwoman]

45 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

But this same friend I just talked to said she feels the bride and groom and family won't notice because they have been in their own little orbit lately.  So it is good they seem happy and won't miss us.

 

I would think their feelings would be hurt, if they consider the people to be their friends, yet few of them show up for the shower.

Your son is a good example of that. I realize that your son has his reasons for why he won’t attend, but no matter how he explains. it to her, the girl may just think he doesn’t like her any more and that he doesn’t want to be her friend. After all those years of being so close, it would be odd if she didn’t feel very hurt by her longtime friends not attending her shower.

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Charges of hypocrisy? I haven't ever heard of such a thing...I feel like I live in a very different world!

You've never heard of, say, Christians being called out for being hypocrites for tacitly condoning (or not addressing or being concerned about) divorce or adultery within the church but being against gay marriage at the same time?

This is just one example I can think of off the top of my head, but there a lot of others where Christians are charged with being hypocrites. Oh, and allowing priests to be moved around in the RCC and not reported when higher ups knew of their sexual abuse of minors, there's another one where  not addressing sin in a church is a huge problem for a number of reasons, with hypocrisy being up there on the list.

[Catwoman]

29 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I am just ready for this wedding and another equaling unsettling wedding to be both completely over.  I haven't received a invitation to the shower or the wedding for the second couple, but it is a little early yet. 

 

There is a second couple? Did I miss a post somewhere? (Probably!)