Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Recommended Posts

Scarlett, I’m just going to be blunt and ask, and feel free to ignore if you want.  Did you not go to your son’s wedding for some reason?  Or is it a completely different issue?  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frances said:

Would you ever support or at least not condemn or report someone for stealing to provide food for their starving child if neither you nor they could provide food in any other way? People have certainly found themselves in that situation before throughout time and place and likely still do today. Otherwise, I think your example is so contrived as to be meaningless.

 

Well I think your example is contrived and meaningless too.  People have the option to not have sex with others and to not marry others.  Are you suggesting they don’t? I mean sure I know some folks think humans are basically lower level animals who just can’t help acting on base instinct. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

With JW?  It could be transfusions or vaccines, though the latter seems to have been allowed in recent decades.  There’s any number of smaller church polity things too.  And, uh, the whole cult-y thing. I mean, potentially if her son converted to a mainline or evangelical Christianity there is much concern then for some of the doctrinal positions and eschatology of his Mom’s church.

Without knowing more specifically what the concern is this is all just speculation of course.

 

 

I was also wondering if maybe it was related to the military or politics/voting?  But I might be totally off base.  I’m really confused by the thread, and I’ve read the whole thing.  (I know it’s hard to get complicated situations across on a message board, especially if you’re trying to be vague.) 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

I'm interested in reading that argument.

Let's apply that logic to other sins.

I go into store with a person knowing they are going to steal because that's what they told me they were inviting me to see -  but if I tell them how much I don't think it's right, wellll I'm not really supporting them by going there knowing that's the point of the trip, watching them do it, and hugging later saying how much I love them.  I hate shoplifting but it's more important I support the person or I must not really love them.  I mean, they obviously don't agree with me and think what they are doing should be okay, who am I to hold them to my beliefs by deciding I can't go to this event? Would anyone legit buy that argument?

 

 

I think we all sometimes make compromises depending on the type of sin. Would I go to a dinner party of someone who I know engages in gluttony? Etc etc etc. One could make the argument that they did not provide transportation or help to the person stealing, and spent the time there trying to convince them to not do it. Is it still sinful? Is it participation? 

Also, the long history of nuns who have worked with and helped prostitutes, etc, even those still in the business...there is just a lot of grey area in when compassion should trump doctrine. No idea if Scarlett's issue is one of those. And clearly people of good hearts will differ as to which situations  they think compassion should trump doctrine, but I don't think an argument can be made solely on scripture that it should never trump doctrine. 

2 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

The Bible doesn't really provide "unless, of course" clauses to get out of sins that I've come across.

well, there is the bit about it being okay to break the law on the Sabbath if you are doing good. And feeding one's family is doing good. Human life is valued over material goods, so stealing to feed one's family and preserve life might be a case of that. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Well I think your example is contrived and meaningless too.  People have the option to not have sex with others and to not marry others.  Are you suggesting they don’t? I mean sure I know some folks think humans are basically lower level animals who just can’t help acting on base instinct. 

So people didn’t really have to steal food to stay alive during the German occupation of many countries during WWII? Some people today in warn torn countries don’t have to choose between stealing food or their children dying?

Of course people have choices when it comes to marriage and sex, just as people have a choice to hold others to their beliefs or allow others to believe differently while loving and supporting them and holding steadfast to their own beliefs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

The Bible doesn't really provide "unless, of course" clauses to get out of sins that I've come across. It's actually pretty straightforward that we are to trust in the Lord to provide for all of our needs. It doesn't give an "unless you're really hungry, then stealing is okay," clause. Proverbs 6:30 talks about how it is understandable if someone steals out of hunger, however they are still required to repay what was stolen 7-fold. Of course, if you aren't a Christian then there is a different moralistic compass there that may vary. 

Maybe another example would be attending a KKK rally with a child, even though you aren't a racist, and find the whole concept of the KKK morally reprehensible. But they asked you to as a show of support for their belief system. Is that okay then to attend? 

So then why do Christians differ on whether or not killing is ok during war or for capital punishment?

As for your last example, see my article linked toward the very beginning of this thread where a dad doing something very similar helped to bring about profound positive change for a young man.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Scarlett said:

They aren’t too far away but we definitely aren’t talking.  Space is required for sure.  

I will be ok.....I have good friends, a great husband  and I have peace that I did the right thing.  If he never comes around I will be sad but I am not going to let it ruin the rest of my life.  

 

HUGS

space and time are the key.

it will get better in time - maybe several years.  but it will get better

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ktgrok said:

I think we all sometimes make compromises depending on the type of sin.

Mercy and compromise on morals are not the same thing.  My goodness, what you talkin ‘bout, Kate?😦

Would I go to a dinner party of someone who I know engages in gluttony?

Sure. But would you cheer him on and congratulate him? I would hope not.

Etc etc etc. One could make the argument that they did not provide transportation or help to the person stealing, and spent the time there trying to convince them to not do it. Is it still sinful? Is it participation? 

Oh come on now.  Really? So let’s ask how people would react to grandma showing up at her grandson’s gay wedding and spending the entire time saying how awful a sin it is and how hey shouldn’t go through with it and how it’s not a valid sacrament so they can change their mind any time and grandma will support them in ending things? And be sure to give a toast to that affect!

Come on.  They are invited specifically to CELEBRATE and SUPPORT that choice.  You and I both know what they would do if they knew they were going to spend that time dissuading  - they wouldn’t invite them.

Also, the long history of nuns who have worked with and helped prostitutes, etc, even those still in the business...there is just a lot of grey area in when compassion should trump doctrine.

What in the world?  Yes, the beatitudes say to help many.  Even prostitutes.  We don’t ask about sex or work before offering to feed clothe give medical care or pray or educate or many other forms of corporal and spiritual works of mercy.  What are you suggesting? That the nuns had open house parties celebration event for the local  whore house or what? I don’t know what kind of help you are referring to but if you are suggesting they supported prostitution then I sure hope those nuns aren’t around anymore!

No idea if Scarlett's issue is one of those. And clearly people of good hearts will differ as to which situations  they think compassion should trump doctrine, but I don't think an argument can be made solely on scripture that it should never trump doctrine. 

Ahhh. Doctrine IS compassion.  Can you point me to which doctrines you think are not compassionate? Feel free to PM if you’d rather. 

well, there is the bit about it being okay to break the law on the Sabbath if you are doing good. And feeding one's family is doing good. Human life is valued over material goods, so stealing to feed one's family and preserve life might be a case of that. 

Indeed.  We do adjust actions to fit situation.  It’s okay for a person to kill another to defend themselves. It’s not considered wrong for a pregnant or ill person to eat on a fasting day.  

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Frances said:

So people didn’t really have to steal food to stay alive during the German occupation of many countries during WWII? Some people today in warn torn countries don’t have to choose between stealing food or their children dying?

Of course people have choices when it comes to marriage and sex, just as people have a choice to hold others to their beliefs or allow others to believe differently while loving and supporting them and holding steadfast to their own beliefs.

 

We are talking a question of sin.

Surviving is not a sin.

if I think someone is committing a sin, I’m not going to show up for a party to support them in that just because they are happy sinning.

If they don’t have a choice in their sin, then I have an obligation to do what I can to help. A starving person doesn’t need me to judge them for surviving - they need me to spare any food I can. If it matters I’m against forced marriages and rape and I’m pro feeding the hungry.

I don’t think your argument of supporting the person doing something viewed as wrong bc it’s not actually the event that you are showing up to celebrate that you are supporting holds up to reasoning. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

We are talking a question of sin.

Surviving is not a sin.

if I think someone is committing a sin, I’m not going to show up for a party to support them in that just because they are happy sinning.

If they don’t have a choice in their sin, then I have an obligation to do what I can to help. A starving person doesn’t need me to judge them for surviving - they need me to spare any food I can. If it matters I’m against forced marriages and rape and I’m pro feeding the hungry.

I don’t think your argument of supporting the person doing something viewed as wrong bc it’s not actually the event that you are showing up to celebrate that you are supporting holds up to reasoning. 

But they don’t think they are sinning because they don’t share your religious beliefs. I think your not attending the marriage is you playing God and saying you know definitely what is right and wrong and you expect others to do the same regardless of their different religion or beliefs, so what if they are harmed, rather than showing love. And for me, that is a greater wrong. But a I think ultimately we have to agree to disagree.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heatherwith4 said:

Scarlett, I’m just going to be blunt and ask, and feel free to ignore if you want.  Did you not go to your son’s wedding for some reason?  Or is it a completely different issue?  

 

Unless/until Scarlet specifically addresses this question, I’m going to assume that’s exactly what happened. 

At the current level of vagueness, this thread is meaningless, to me, anyway, and leaves me no way to offer advice or comfort. 

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that conversations about people who are sinning and in a sad situation and "destroying society" (which is a very strong perspective) should be a little more in-house? I mean, when the people being discussed are (so far and mostly) part of our community, part of every nation, part of humanity, and legally marrying, living, raising children, and working in the civilized nations of the world?

In other words, why is it okay on these forums to talk about the legal activities and life experiences of gay people being the end of society and a sin, when no other demographic would be discussed in that manner? No matter the demographic, is it not bigotry? No matter the demographic, is it not discussing people as if their identity and lives may be freely censured, and discussing that as if it doesn't matter that they are here and reading these condemnations?

Or is it OK because this is a thread about hurting people in the name of religious freedom, so that's why it's fine to keep doing that right here in this thread. As long as it's someone's religious belief that another person's law abiding activities are destroying the nation and worthy of hell, it's fine to express that thought in a very matter-of-fact way. Is that right? It's not hurting anyone because it's religion?

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

 

Unless/until Scarlet specifically addresses this question, I’m going to assume that’s exactly what happened. 

At the current level of vagueness, this thread is meaningless, to me, anyway, and leaves me no way to offer advice or comfort. 

Oh no - I very much hope that Scarlett did not miss her son's wedding. Something like that can't be taken back - it can't be done over. I really hope that's not it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Frances said:

But they don’t think they are sinning because they don’t share your religious beliefs. I think your not attending the marriage is you playing God and saying you know definitely what is right and wrong and you expect others to do the same regardless of their different religion or beliefs, so what if they are harmed, rather than showing love. And for me, that is a greater wrong. But a I think ultimately we have to agree to disagree.

 

You are correct in that I believe in right and wrong.  You are in error in that I believe anyone has to agree with me, the RCC or God.  You are in error that showing love means showing public acceptance of someone’s sin. 

It is entirely possible to love someone while not celebrating choices we morally disagree with. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lang Syne Boardie said:

Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that conversations about people who are sinning and in a sad situation and "destroying society" (which is a very strong perspective) should be a little more in-house? I mean, when the people being discussed are (so far and mostly) part of our community, part of every nation, part of humanity, and legally marrying, living, raising children, and working in the civilized nations of the world?

In other words, why is it okay on these forums to talk about the legal activities and life experiences of gay people being the end of society and a sin, when no other demographic would be discussed in that manner? No matter the demographic, is it not bigotry? No matter the demographic, is it not discussing people as if their identity and lives may be freely censured, and discussing that as if it doesn't matter that they are here and reading these condemnations?

Or is it OK because this is a thread about hurting people in the name of religious freedom, so that's why it's fine to keep doing that right here in this thread. As long as it's someone's religious belief that another person's law abiding activities are destroying the nation and worthy of hell, it's fine to express that thought in a very matter-of-fact way. Is that right? It's not hurting anyone because it's religion?

 

Because people talk about all kinds of things. To be fair. I never said anything about our nation. In fact, I have not even said they can’t make those choices. 

The thread evolved to why would a parent not attend a wedding. I’m sure there’s other reasons other people have. 

Someone else mentioned the KKK. There’s a demographic I hope none of my kids marry into.  A legal active group  

I also mentioned living together outside of marriage in general being a sin, that’s certainly a large demographic. Most doing so legally.  

I also mentioned shoplifters, that’s no small demographic either.  Not legal though.

I think you are naive if you think those people aren’t on this board or reading it.  I’m sure here’s plenty of them.

I also discussed that my main point was that love doesn’t equal giving people what they want just because it makes them unhappy if we don’t.  It’s very possible to love people we strongly don’t agree with.  Most of us love people that we strongly disagree with on many things.

It’s okay to discuss these things because that’s part of freedom of speech and a requirement of any reasoned debate.

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Lang Syne Boardie said:

Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that conversations about people who are sinning and in a sad situation and "destroying society" (which is a very strong perspective) should be a little more in-house? I mean, when the people being discussed are (so far and mostly) part of our community, part of every nation, part of humanity, and legally marrying, living, raising children, and working in the civilized nations of the world?

In other words, why is it okay on these forums to talk about the legal activities and life experiences of gay people being the end of society and a sin, when no other demographic would be discussed in that manner? No matter the demographic, is it not bigotry? No matter the demographic, is it not discussing people as if their identity and lives may be freely censured, and discussing that as if it doesn't matter that they are here and reading these condemnations?

Or is it OK because this is a thread about hurting people in the name of religious freedom, so that's why it's fine to keep doing that right here in this thread. As long as it's someone's religious belief that another person's law abiding activities are destroying the nation and worthy of hell, it's fine to express that thought in a very matter-of-fact way. Is that right? It's not hurting anyone because it's religion?

This looks like an attempt to impose one's own morality on others by shutting down points of view one disagrees with...

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

You are correct in that I believe in right and wrong.  You are in error in that I believe anyone has to agree with me, the RCC or God.  You are in error that showing love means showing public acceptance of someone’s sin. 

It is entirely possible to love someone while not celebrating choices we morally disagree with. 

And it is entirely possible to attend an event you believe is wrong (gay marriage) and not engage in sin or condone what you believe to be sin. It’s even possible to attend and not say things like “congratulations”, but rather “I love you”. It’s also entirely possible to love someone but still do harm to them and sin against them, even when you may not think you are doing so. And I too believe in right and wrong, although I think many things are more gray, as maize stated earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Because people talk about all kinds of things. To be fair. I never said anything about our nation. In fact, I have not even said they can’t make those choices. 

The thread evolved to why would a parent not attend a wedding. I’m sure there’s other reasons other people have. 

Someone else mentioned the KKK. There’s a demographic I hope none of my kids marry into.  A legal active group  

I also mentioned living together outside of marriage in general being a sin, that’s certainly a large demographic. Most doing so legally.  

I also mentioned shoplifters, that’s no small demographic either.  Not legal though.

I think you are naive if you think those people aren’t on this board or reading it.  I’m sure here’s plenty of them.

I also discussed that my main point was that love doesn’t equal giving people what they want just because it makes them unhappy if we don’t.  It’s very possible to love people we strongly don’t agree with.  Most of us love people that we strongly disagree with on many things.

It’s okay to discuss these things because that’s part of freedom of speech and a requirement of any reasoned debate.

 

I didn't say you were the one who said all the things. You are the one who just listed the KKK, people living together outside of marriage, and shoplifters as being in the same category as the gays, as far as being undesirable wedding parties or otherwise socially unacceptable to some people, but you weren't the one who said that gay marriage is destroying the nation, which is why I didn't name you. 

I am not naively thinking "those people" aren't reading this board. My point was that all people are.

But if you feel my post didn't apply to you, and you think these comments are a requirement of reasoned debate, I'll leave you to it.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maize said:

This looks like an attempt to impose one's own morality on others by shutting down points of view one disagrees with...

 

I am not an administrator nor moderator here. I have no power to shut down your point of view that gay marriage is destroying the nation. If you want free speech, I've exercised mine, no more than you have. Less, actually. The heavier comments, and the majority opinion shutting down the minority view (that all are equal legally and gay people are not immoral), are coming from your side.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lang Syne Boardie said:

Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that conversations about people who are sinning and in a sad situation and "destroying society" (which is a very strong perspective) should be a little more in-house? I mean, when the people being discussed are (so far and mostly) part of our community, part of every nation, part of humanity, and legally marrying, living, raising children, and working in the civilized nations of the world?

In other words, why is it okay on these forums to talk about the legal activities and life experiences of gay people being the end of society and a sin, when no other demographic would be discussed in that manner? No matter the demographic, is it not bigotry? No matter the demographic, is it not discussing people as if their identity and lives may be freely censured, and discussing that as if it doesn't matter that they are here and reading these condemnations?

Or is it OK because this is a thread about hurting people in the name of religious freedom, so that's why it's fine to keep doing that right here in this thread. As long as it's someone's religious belief that another person's law abiding activities are destroying the nation and worthy of hell, it's fine to express that thought in a very matter-of-fact way. Is that right? It's not hurting anyone because it's religion?

It is interesting to me, but it’s also why I now hesitate less to state when I think some people’s religious views and practices are doing harm, on both an individual and global level. Now not nearly to the extent I actually feel that way, but for a long time I held way back. And in general, I think it’s good to actually know what is in people’s hearts and how they put their believes into practice and to put them out there to see the light of day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

You are correct in that I believe in right and wrong.  You are in error in that I believe anyone has to agree with me, the RCC or God.  You are in error that showing love means showing public acceptance of someone’s sin. 

 

Does the public's opinion matter if the grandson and God both know you disapprove, and do not accept it? Because I would imagine both God and the grandson would know you don't. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Frances said:

And it is entirely possible to attend an event you believe is wrong (gay marriage) and not engage in sin or condone what you believe to be sin. It’s even possible to attend and not say things like “congratulations”, but rather “I love you”. It’s also entirely possible to love someone but still do harm to them and sin against them, even when you may not think you are doing so. And I too believe in right and wrong, although I think many things are more gray, as maize stated earlier.

 

No. YOU think it is entirely possible for YOU to engage in an activity supporting a sinful act you disagree with without it meaning anything about what you think of the event and YOU think you would do it because that’s what love is to YOU. 

Obviously we disagree.

I agree people who love each other commit sins that hurt each other all the time. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Frances said:

But they don’t think they are sinning because they don’t share your religious beliefs. I think your not attending the marriage is you playing God and saying you know definitely what is right and wrong and you expect others to do the same regardless of their different religion or beliefs, so what if they are harmed, rather than showing love. And for me, that is a greater wrong. But a I think ultimately we have to agree to disagree.

I'm sure I'm going to regret even wading in here. (I've deleted this post a couple of times.)

You can turn this argument around, too. A couple (same sex or otherwise) says they definitely know what is right or wrong and expects others to feel the same regardless of their different religion or beliefs, so what if they (the other person) are harmed,* rather than showing love.

I think that's what makes these conversations so hard. It does cut both ways. Murphy isn't telling anyone else to believe anything. She's saying what she would feel obligated to do personally. Everybody else gets to do what they like. Isn't that what people were saying earlier about religion needing to guide your OWN actions? She's not imposing anything on anyone else. Support can manifest itself in many ways.

I had a fairly close family member refuse to attend my wedding because she believed my church was wrong. While I disagreed with the basis for her decision, I respected her right to make it. That one day did not prevent her from showing her love and support for me outside of my wedding day. And that one day did not define our relationship going forward because relationships are built over time and on many experiences. (I realize that's slightly different from the specific example being discussed, but I think the principle is similar.)

This thread has gone way off track. Best wishes to Scarlett and her family.

*on a spiritual level

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The doctrine I was quoting was the Jewish doctrine (law) of not doing work on the sabbath, and yet Jesus said that it was okay to break that rule for a good reason. 

A modern example would be the advice that it if a Catholic is served meat at someone's home on a Friday it is better to eat the meat and avoid offending the host than to keep one's dietary rules and follow the doctrine of abstaining from meat. That interpersonal relationships are more important than the doctrine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Does the public's opinion matter if the grandson and God both know you disapprove, and do not accept it? Because I would imagine both God and the grandson would know you don't. 

 

Yes. I refer you to the CCC to reference scandal and complicity to wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even understand how one continues to have a relationship with their child/grandchild/etc if they feel that way about their spouse. i mean, if you can't attend the wedding, can you acknowledge that they are married at all? Do you have to pretend they are not? It seems pretty complicated as to where that line would end up being drawn. 

And I do get that people could draw it in different places, but what I was trying to say was that is where the surprise/hurt would come from - if grandson and grandmother draw that line in different places. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we are here circling around the heart of Scarlett's original question: what are the appropriate limits between my morality and yours? Can you rightfully and morally tell me I am wrong to try to live in accordance with my own morality? People often harp on not imposing religious morality on others but in that very act they are attempting to impose their own morality on another.

This is not a realm of black and white.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Yes. I refer you to the CCC to reference scandal and complicity to wrong.

Which goes back to the idea of when is it okay to choose the greater good. 

1 minute ago, maize said:

And we are here circling around the heart of Scarlett's original question: what are the appropriate limits between my morality and yours? Can you rightfully and morally tell me I am wrong to try to live in accordance with my own morality? People often harp on not imposing religious morality on others but in that very act they are attempting to impose their own morality on another.

This is not a realm of black and white.

Which goes right back around to the question of is observing/attending something the same as committing sin oneself? It is when the two people in question disagree on that question that I think the hurt happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Selkie said:

I find it pretty mind boggling that someone wouldn't go to a same sex wedding, and especially for their own child!

 

I'm not sure about the own child thing, but again, people here have said they wouldn't attend the wedding of something they consider grossly immoral (say a wedding between a child bride and a grown man, or a father and daughter).  So obviously people can understand the idea of not attending a wedding because you find the nature of the wedding seriously unacceptable.  And if you're surprised that there are people in the world who think homosexuality is immoral, or that homosexual marriage is immoral, I just don't know what to say.  There are entire nations where being gay is illegal, and entire religions where it is a sin.  And certainly the vast majority of even the West across history (even fairly recent history) were not as accepting of homosexuality as people in the West are today, so I just can't see it as all that mind boggling.

  • Like 7
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Frances said:

For me, getting divorced when you have children (obviously abusive situations accepted) or having (not adopting) children when single and not in a stable relationship do far more to undermine the basic structure of our society than a gay couple committing to love and support each other for the rest of their lives (which I actually view as contributing to the stability and health of our society). That being said, none of these beliefs would cause me to not attend a wedding.

 

I agree with you about divorce and single parenting/ child creation (which is part of why I find gay marriage anathema) and I don't know that I'd attend that wedding either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2019 at 4:13 PM, Murphy101 said:

 

No. YOU think it is entirely possible for YOU to engage in an activity supporting a sinful act you disagree with without it meaning anything about what you think of the event and YOU think you would do it because that’s what love is to YOU. 

Obviously we disagree.

I agree people who love each other commit sins that hurt each other all the time. 

No

 

On 9/15/2019 at 4:14 PM, Valley Girl said:

I'm sure I'm going to regret even wading in here. (I've deleted this post a couple of times.)

You can turn this argument around, too. A couple (same sex or otherwise) says they definitely know what is right or wrong and expects others to feel the same regardless of their different religion or beliefs, so what if they (the other person) are harmed,* rather than showing love.

I think that's what makes these conversations so hard. It does cut both ways. Murphy isn't telling anyone else to believe anything. She's saying what she would feel obligated to do personally. Everybody else gets to do what they like. Isn't that what people were saying earlier about religion needing to guide your OWN actions? She's not imposing anything on anyone else. Support can manifest itself in many ways.

I had a fairly close family member refuse to attend my wedding because she believed my church was wrong. While I disagreed with the basis for her decision, I respected her right to make it. That one day did not prevent her from showing her love and support for me outside of my wedding day. And that one day did not define our relationship going forward because relationships are built over time and on many experiences. (I realize that's slightly different from the specific example being discussed, but I think the principle is similar.)

This thread has gone way off track. Best wishes to Scarlett and her family.

*on a spiritual level

Nm

Edited by Frances

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Frances said:

No

 

How is the gay couple getting married harming anyone? They are simply doing a legal thing and committing themselves to each other for the rest of their lives. And I never said others have to feel the same way. In the example I gave, the gay grandson had no problem with his grandma thinking gay marriage was wrong due to her Catholicism and not choosing one for herself. But she also isn’t going to expect her gay grandson to follow her Catholic beliefs because he is not Catholic, so she will of course attend the wedding of her beloved grandson. They are both demonstrating mutual love and respect for each other’s beliefs.

The point is that the choice to attend a wedding and what that means is an individual one. The relationships involved are between those individuals. The fact that you don't see anything immoral about it or grandma doesn't mind attending has nothing to do with anyone else's personal decisions on the matter or their personal moral beliefs about any given issue. 

Mutual respect could also be to decline to accept an invitation to any given event and the hosts being okay with the invitee having different beliefs about weddings, celebrations, ceremonies, religion, sacraments, or any number of issues.

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, maize said:

And we are here circling around the heart of Scarlett's original question: what are the appropriate limits between my morality and yours? Can you rightfully and morally tell me I am wrong to try to live in accordance with my own morality? People often harp on not imposing religious morality on others but in that very act they are attempting to impose their own morality on another.

This is not a realm of black and white.

 

100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Frances said:

No

 

How is the gay couple getting married harming anyone? They are simply doing a legal thing and committing themselves to each other for the rest of their lives. And I never said others have to feel the same way. In the example I gave, the gay grandson had no problem with his grandma thinking gay marriage was wrong due to her Catholicism and not choosing one for herself. But she also isn’t going to expect her gay grandson to follow her Catholic beliefs because he is not Catholic, so she will of course attend the wedding of her beloved grandson. They are both demonstrating mutual love and respect for each other’s beliefs.

And where does it end? If a parent or grandparent won’t attending the wedding, is the married couple not welcome in their home? Will they not visit them in their home? Will they not recognize the spouse as part of the family?

 

Idk where it ends for other people. Does it matter? Are they not free to decide where their personal boundaries are for themselves? They might not ever speak to each other again.  Or maybe they do but it’s neutral conversations.  Maybe they chat just like before bc the concern was a question of sacrament and the gay couple had a civil wedding. I have literally no idea. But I think any of the parties can make those decisions and I won’t judge them for it.  Maybe the child is furious the parents would keep a faith that calls their lifestyle a sin and cuts the ties. I have no idea.  I hope whatever they decide they need to do - they can remember that they still love each other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2019 at 4:18 PM, maize said:

And we are here circling around the heart of Scarlett's original question: what are the appropriate limits between my morality and yours? Can you rightfully and morally tell me I am wrong to try to live in accordance with my own morality? People often harp on not imposing religious morality on others but in that very act they are attempting to impose their own morality on another.

This is not a realm of black and white.

Nm

Edited by Frances

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to take a guess here but I think it has something to do with the current abuse scandal that your religion is facing and the lack of handling it.  If so, I understand your son’s reactions to it and would want heads to roll.  If it is more of, for example, Bishop Peter played the lotto and I want him publicly shamed and wearing a scarlett letter in church, he just needs to grow up more and realize that is not how you handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, itsheresomewhere said:

I am going to take a guess here but I think it has something to do with the current abuse scandal that your religion is facing and the lack of handling it.  If so, I understand your son’s reactions to it and would want heads to roll.  If it is more of, for example, Bishop Peter played the lotto and I want him publicly shamed and wearing a scarlett letter in church, he just needs to grow up more and realize that is not how you handle it.

Could you please pm me what the abuse scandal is. As a non practicing JW I would be very interested to know. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Melissa in Australia said:

Could you please pm me what the abuse scandal is. As a non practicing JW I would be very interested to know. Thanks

 

It was on 20/20 or dateline here and a friend of mine that is JW was talking about it.  Basically, it is sexual abuse just like the one that hit the Catholic Church.  It was covered up in some halls and not much was done.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, itsheresomewhere said:

 

It was on 20/20 or dateline here and a friend of mine that is JW was talking about it.  Basically, it is sexual abuse just like the one that hit the Catholic Church.  It was covered up in some halls and not much was done.

 

Thanks.

 We have had a royal commission into child sexual abuse. Every single religion was implicated. Every one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Frances said:

I think complicated because in cases such as gay marriage and gay rights, people want to use their beliefs to enact laws that limit the rights of others while preserving their own. So it’s one thing to say I think gay marriage is wrong and I won’t get one and will discourage my children from doing so and won’t attend one. But quite another to say I think it should be illegal for anyone to have a SS marriage and people should be allowed to discriminate against gays in hiring, housing, public accommodations, etc., despite the fact that many people have no moral or religious issue with homosexuality.

Or I think birth control is illegal and I choose not to use it myself, but I also think birth control should be illegal for everyone, even those who do not share my religious or moral beliefs.

Even though I feel pretty strongly about some moral issues, especially around children and families, I’m not trying to make things illegal or take rights away from others. And I’d be first at the protest if anyone tried to force churches to perform SS marriages.

You are turning this into a debate about political stances on a specific issue. This thread isn't even about that. It's about an individual choosing not to do something (we don't even know what) and how those personal, individual boundaries should be handled. I feel like your posts are trying to litigate this specific issue (to what end, I'm not sure), and societal outcomes to activism that isn't even mentioned by Scarlett or Murphy...which is a good discussion to have in a lot of other places , but I'm afraid is going to get this thread nuked for politics.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Frances said:

How is the gay couple getting married harming anyone?

Not sure where you got that in what I said. I simply reversed YOUR example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Frances said:

I think complicated because in cases such as gay marriage and gay rights, people want to use their beliefs to enact laws that limit the rights of others while preserving their own. So it’s one thing to say I think gay marriage is wrong and I won’t get one and will discourage my children from doing so and won’t attend one. But quite another to say I think it should be illegal for anyone to have a SS marriage and people should be allowed to discriminate against gays in hiring, housing, public accommodations, etc., despite the fact that many people have no moral or religious issue with homosexuality.

Or I think birth control is immoral and I choose not to use it myself, but I also think birth control should be illegal for everyone, even those who do not share my religious or moral beliefs.

Even though I feel pretty strongly about some moral issues, especially around children and families, I’m not trying to make things illegal or take rights away from others. And I’d be first at the protest if anyone tried to force churches to perform SS marriages.

But this thread is about personal conscience and acting on that in one's private life, not politics.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Frances said:

I think complicated because in cases such as gay marriage and gay rights, people want to use their beliefs to enact laws that limit the rights of others while preserving their own. So it’s one thing to say I think gay marriage is wrong and I won’t get one and will discourage my children from doing so and won’t attend one. But quite another to say I think it should be illegal for anyone to have a SS marriage and people should be allowed to discriminate against gays in hiring, housing, public accommodations, etc., despite the fact that many people have no moral or religious issue with homosexuality.

Or I think birth control is immoral and I choose not to use it myself, but I also think birth control should be illegal for everyone, even those who do not share my religious or moral beliefs.

Even though I feel pretty strongly about some moral issues, especially around children and families, I’m not trying to make things illegal or take rights away from others. And I’d be first at the protest if anyone tried to force churches to perform SS marriages.

Rights are determined and granted by society at large. A right does not exist as a separate and absolute truth--unless, like the writers of the Declaration of Independence, we claim there are inalienable rights granted by a divine Creator; but then short of that Creator manifesting himself indisputably and publicly and proclaiming those rights himself we come back to society deciding and delineating rights.

A right to enter into a social and legal contract termed marriage does not exist unless society determines it should exist, and the meaning and definition of marriage must also be determined by society. The argument that same sex marriage is a right is meaningless at any point in time in which the definition of marriage and the existence of a right to marry are being actively questioned and negotiated by greater society.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

You are turning this into a debate about political stances on a specific issue. This thread isn't even about that. It's about an individual choosing not to do something (we don't even know what) and how those personal, individual boundaries should be handled. I feel like your posts are trying to litigate this specific issue (to what end, I'm not sure), and societal outcomes to activism that isn't even mentioned by Scarlett or Murphy...which is a good discussion to have in a lot of other places , but I'm afraid is going to get this thread nuked for politics.

I’m fine with stepping back from this thread. I just don’t think there is equivalence in the idea of imposing morality on others when generally only one side is trying to legally restrict rights and protections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, itsheresomewhere said:

I am going to take a guess here but I think it has something to do with the current abuse scandal that your religion is facing and the lack of handling it.  If so, I understand your son’s reactions to it and would want heads to roll.  If it is more of, for example, Bishop Peter played the lotto and I want him publicly shamed and wearing a scarlett letter in church, he just needs to grow up more and realize that is not how you handle it.

You are 100% wrong.  There was no abuse of anyone. Nothing was covered up and that is not what ds is angry about.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

You are 100% wrong.  There was no abuse of anyone. Nothing was covered up and that is not what ds is angry about.  

Not in your hall ( and I am happy it was not in your hall).  But unfortunately other halls did have one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I can’t answer everyone.  

The highlights.  There was no sexual abuse of anyone in our congregation. My son being angry (with others-not me) for the last 3   (almost) years has nothing to do with what he is mad at me about.  I only mentioned that to point out he is generally really angry.  

I did not start this thread asking for approval of my decision.  I asked is it possible for this relationship to every be healed.  Many of you said maybe not.  Some said yes with time.  That was helpful.  I have a cautious optimism.

It does not matter what the issue is.  It is a decision many of you would not make,  never understand etc.  I am very sad, but I do not regret my decision.  I continue to keep the door open, but no I do not anticipate asking my son to forgive me for sticking to my faith. I also don’t expect to ask him to apologize for his over the top behavior......I will welcome him back in to my life joyfully because I love him and I know he is just young and immature and adulting is hard.   

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, itsheresomewhere said:

Not in your hall ( and I am happy it was not in your hall).  But unfortunately other halls did have one. 

 

5 minutes ago, itsheresomewhere said:

Not in your hall ( and I am happy it was not in your hall).  But unfortunately other halls did have one. 

My point is that is not relevant to this conversation. I don’t have the energy to defend such accusations at the moment.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...