Have you changed your view of right or wrong.......

[fraidycat]

43 minutes ago, Condessa said:

I agree that there is more to love than just a feeling, that it requires action.  And I agree that wishing someone would make a different choice is not the same as all of those.  My post was not about parents with unloving actions towards their adult children.  It was in response to this :

The idea that you cannot love your child and want them not to act on a part of their nature.

It is very, very unloving to ask someone you "love" to live their lives without romantic love, coupling, partnership, and a lifelong commitment if that is what they want, just because of who they are "as a fundamental part of their nature" ,as that romantic relationship does not cause harm to anyone else.

Edited June 7, 2021 by fraidycat
grammar, clarity

[MEmama]

4 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I do wonder if there is anything besides homosexuality that still engenders this particular response? It used be a myriad of things all in the same general category, premarital sex, illegitimate children, inter racial marriage, living together before marriage. Now the only one left is homosexuality.  

Trans rights. The latest frontier of misplaced hatred. 😞 

[Condessa]

13 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I'm the one who you think wrote the bolded. That's a misunderstanding of what I wrote. Love is not a faucet that we turn on and off. Yesterday they loved their son and today they don't love him. We can love a person and not love a person at the same time. 

But I think that parents of gay children who claim that they love their children, despite rejecting their lifestyle, want to have their cake and have it too. I doubt their children see if the same way as the parents do. 

I apologize if I misunderstood you.  I took the question, "How do you say to someone that you love them but tell them that they cannot act on something that is a fundamental part of who they are?" to imply that you cannot.

[HeartString]

1 minute ago, MEmama said:

Trans rights. The latest frontier of misplaced hatred. 😞 

I stand corrected.  Ty.  I think I broadly lump gay and trans rights together when I’m thinking about them, but you’re right, they are different.  

[Condessa]

13 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Isn't it possible to love a child and abuse them? I think so. But I think we can still ask how a parent can claim to love the child and hit them or starve them or molest them. Love is complicated. The parent/child relationship is very complicated. There's always a mix of love and other things. But it's not enough that the neglectful parents "love" their child. 

I don't think so.  I think my foster kids' parents have loving feelings for them, but do not really love them, because the feelings don't translate to actions.

Maybe that's why I reacted so strongly against the idea that parents who want their children to not act on a part of their nature do not love their children.  I personally know parents in this situation whose feelings and actions are all very loving.  Is there sadness on both sides that the parents cannot give approval, vs. just acceptance, for some of their child's life choices?  Yes.  But they are still one of the most loving families I know in both word and deed.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Condessa

[Terabith]

Yes, I have changed my mind about moral and religious issues over time, but not because of stances of my children.  

But, let's talk about things Scripture really hates.  You know what God apparently hates?  Mildew.  If we get mildew, we aren't supposed to get tilex.  We're supposed to call the priest and if we get mold a second time, we are supposed to tear down our house and throw the stones outside of the town.  

I have decided that this is not a core part of Scripture that I need to follow.  As an Episcopalian, I've never been a sola Scriptura person.  I actually really like the Wesleyan quadrilateral of balancing Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience in developing my moral compass.  And my moral compass has decided that tilex is a better way of dealing with mold than calling up Pastor Dave.  

Scripture also really hates wealth, but I have interpreted that in terms of tradition, reason, and experience to allow living in a household where my husband has a pretty decent job and we have some savings.  

I imagine that God loves us at least as much as I love my children.  Any command that requires me to act towards my fellow man in a way that is less loving than how I feel towards my children feels like it's breaking my moral code.  I am a Micah 6: 8 Christian.  I totally pick and choose how I interpret Scripture, and the lens through which I read the Bible is through the idea that grace is relentless and that God wants us to love Him and to love each other.  When I am eventually judged, I am okay with being judged for having loved too much.  

[Murphy101]

 

26 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I do wonder if there is anything besides homosexuality that still engenders this particular response? It used be a myriad of things all in the same general category, premarital sex, illegitimate children, inter racial marriage, living together before marriage. Now the only one left is homosexuality.  
 

 

ETA divorce.  Forgot that one.  

Myself and many people I know and the RCC still has the same view of all those things as possibly grave sins.  Doesn’t mean we don’t help and love them.  In fact, we help them all a lot.

24 minutes ago, MEmama said:

Right.

In case anyone needs to hear this, if your child comes out to you please, please do not say any version of “Ok. I'll love you anyway”. That “anyway” speaks volumes, it is telling your child they are flawed. It is a rejection of your child no matter how you try to justify it. It is, in essence, “love the sinner hate the sin” and it is not okay. 
 

Once again, being queer isn’t entirely about sex. Insisting it is and pretending you can reject just one aspect of a person isn’t ok. It isn’t loving, it is hurtful and devaluing. Even if you don’t believe it. 

In case anyone else needs to hear it. Your loved ones are human and have sins.  Love them and help them as best you can or as best they will let you. And pray for them always.  And I hope they bless you by doing the same for you. 

21 minutes ago, fraidycat said:

It is very, very unloving to ask someone you "love" to live their lives without romantic love, coupling, partnership, and a lifelong commitment if that is what they want, just because of who they are "as a fundamental part of their nature" that does not cause harm to anyone. 

The thing is, the RCC does not view any sin as harmless to others. And I agree with that view.

I don’t think it compares to interracial marriage. If my kids dies a virgin bc they just never met mr/mrs right even though they would have liked to - okay. No one has a right to coupling or romance or lifelong commitment.

Personally I don’t think it’s healthy to put all of that in one relationship for heterosexuals either.  Even in a really great marriage, that’s unlikely to be the case “lifelong”.   But more than one good friendship can carry a person through down times in other relationships.  Because again, heterosexual people who don’t have sex, who don’t get married or have children (whether they want any of that or not) are not deprived and unloved.   They do still have friends and family that love them and share their lives together.  I see no reason why that would be different for homosexuals.   

[bolt.]

I have changed my mind on moral stances over time.

- I had some major changes when I accepted the Christian worldview in the first place -- having previously been a make-my-own-rules teenager. I gave up on some previous moral standards, for example: It's okay to try to cheat people because it's their job to stop you, and that's fair because it respects both people's freedom.

- As a later adult I have shifted my views on the morality of various 'hot topic' but theologically 'nonessential' ethical issues. My shifts include... towards believing that the corporal punishment of children is unethical, away from believing that abortion should be illegal, and away from the belief that homosexuality and transgender 'lifestyles' are immoral.

- As my kids become adults, I anticipate a tension developing regarding premarital sexual relationships and activities. I still think that those are immoral choices, but I have plenty of people around me that I love and respect who aren't living within those limits. My kids might go that way. I think that will be hard, but I can draw on my previous experiences of being unjudgmental in less close relationships as a foundation for not being a jerk.

- In the future, I anticipate (based on some current pressure within my heart) that I need to begin to shift away from a few things that I am currently morally okay with. I feel the unspecific beginnings of a shift in my attitudes and practices in terms of my personal wealth and my commercial participation in economies of oppression. I also sense that my values and my actions are not well aligned in the ways I use fossil fuels, generate pollution, and create waste in the world (or have others generate it on my behalf).

- I also sense that I have a ways to go in terms of unconscious racial bias and support for systemic racism.

I consider moral development to be a lifelong process, and, as uncomfortable as I am with that feeling of having-been-wrong-before, I need to make space and give myself permission to grow. Ethics aren't a one-time-deal for me.

Edited June 7, 2021 by bolt.

[HeartString]

7 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Myself and many people I know and the RCC still has the same view of all those things as possibly grave sins.  Doesn’t mean we don’t help and love them.  In fact, we help them all a lot.

I was thinking more in terms of turning away, not letting them come to parties or be in the home.  How many people refuse to go to a child’s first birthday if the child was born out of wedlock, for fear of participating in that sin, the way they might refuse a gay anniversary party.  Or go to dinner with a couple where one was married before.  No one feels that “accepting” their divorced child is re-writing a moral code, but accepting a gay child is.  
 

I’ve heard the same line about celibacy post divorce as I hear here about gay people. It’s ok to get divorced as long as you are celibate until that first spouse dies. But most people would find that absurd today.  But many thinks it’s fine to say or think that of gay people. It’s a strange dichotomy.  

[Frances]

24 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Myself and many people I know and the RCC still has the same view of all those things as possibly grave sins.  Doesn’t mean we don’t help and love them.  In fact, we help them all a lot.

In case anyone else needs to hear it. Your loved ones are human and have sins.  Love them and help them as best you can or as best they will let you. And pray for them always.  And I hope they bless you by doing the same for you. 

The thing is, the RCC does not view any sin as harmless to others. And I agree with that view.

I don’t think it compares to interracial marriage. If my kids dies a virgin bc they just never met mr/mrs right even though they would have liked to - okay. No one has a right to coupling or romance or lifelong commitment.

Personally I don’t think it’s healthy to put all of that in one relationship for heterosexuals either.  Even in a really great marriage, that’s unlikely to be the case “lifelong”.   But more than one good friendship can carry a person through down times in other relationships.  Because again, heterosexual people who don’t have sex, who don’t get married or have children (whether they want any of that or not) are not deprived and unloved.   They do still have friends and family that love them and share their lives together.  I see no reason why that would be different for homosexuals.   

But the heterosexuals can choose to have or not have a marriage and children and it won’t affect the love and acceptance they get from their family and friends. Both options are completely open to them. They aren’t forced to choose one or the other. However, in certain families, the homosexual has to choose between a spouse/partner and their family because of their families stance on homosexuality. Your are presenting a false equivalency.

I will say that my mom has several lifelong devout Catholic friends who have faced this. It’s pretty hard not to when you had 9-13 kids and now have great, great grandchildren. Although all struggled mightily in the beginning, all eventually came to accept their child’s (or grandchild’s or great grandchildren’s) gay partner/spouse the same as they did their straight progeny’s spouse. Whether they changed their stance on homosexuality, I don’t know, but they did change their actions. According to my mom, they all still struggle mightily with guilt over the psychological harm they inflicted. On the other hand,  not all of the fathers changed their actions. Several died without reconciling with their child and others are still estranged.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Frances

[Murphy101]

12 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

How do you know they are "loving?" What does the child think? Have you heard both sides? 

What actions show love? How would you feel if your parents refused to believe that you were actually married to your husband? 

I think many of us think that we're loving someone but we're not actually loving them. 

 

People who love each other hurt each other deeply every day. It’s not a new concept.  Men who love their wives still cheat on them. Children who love their parents still break their hearts.  Parents can be hurtful or neglect their children bc they just can’t get their parental crap together.  Love is a difficult sacrificial act we choose to live every day.  And on any given day every single one of us fails to love as fully as we could have.  But it doesn’t mean no love abides there. It just means we are not saints yet and we have to practice loving more and better to become saints.  This is the grace I offer everyone I know.  This is the grace I beg of my children and others I love.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

7 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Everyone is speaking past each other. I don't think anyone involved in this discussion is a gay child of parents who believe homosexuality is a terrible sin. I can't tell you that they don't feel loved by that response and don't believe that it's actually loving. 

Have you discussed this with gay people? 

 

I have.  I know people who have parents who have kicked them out or cut them off for all kinds of supposedly biblical bs.  Some of those young adults who have stayed with me over the years are kids whose parents have said they can’t associate with their own child.  They can understand viewing something as a sin. They can’t understand not even wanting to be around a sinner given they are literally everywhere. They can’t understand why even if they aren’t dating or having sex, their parents can’t love them.  There’s hurt as in wishing their parents didn’t think that way but knowing they are still loved. And then there’s hurt but knowing they might never see or speak to them again ever bc they don’t love them anymore. One poor girl tried to call her dad to wish her baby sister happy birthday and I could hear from across the room (not on speaker) him yelling at her that she couldn’t talk to her sister and not to call again. The call ended with him hanging up on her while she was crying and just asking why and promising to be good on the call. Just. Daaamn. It’s a happy birthday phone call to a 10 year old. If he was worried she’d say something inappropriate, he could have always put her on speaker and decided to end the call if she did. Why not even let her say happy birthday?! I cannot fathom that. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, fraidycat said:

It is very, very unloving to ask someone you "love" to live their lives without romantic love, coupling, partnership, and a lifelong commitment if that is what they want, just because of who they are "as a fundamental part of their nature" ,as that romantic relationship does not cause harm to anyone else.

Yes. I agree. 

I remember long ago I used to listen to Dr. Laura on the radio. (I know, I know...) Anyway, for a long time, her standard response in re: homosexuality was that, “It’s not wrong to *be* gay; it’s wrong to act on it.” But, literally, while on air one day, she stopped and said something like, “You know, I have been saying you just dont act on it but I’m not going to say that anymore. I am not going to tell a person they have to live without love. It’s too cruel.” And, although I was much more conservative in my thinking at the time and didn’t disagree with her former position, I remember thinking, “She’s right. It is cruel.” That was a big part of my changing view on same-sex marriage. 

[Amy in NH]

Haven't read the responses.  No, I have not changed my views on what is right or wrong, and I do not hold personal allegiances above morality.  Let's just say that these past 5-6 years have caused some major changes in who I consider friends and family versus those who I only tolerate in a civil fashion when necessary but avoid the rest of the time.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Amy in NH

[Melissa Louise]

Hmm...the more people use the word 'sin' the less sense it makes to me (this is a failing in my own imagination).

Tbh, I never really got it as a kid, either. Try going to confession every Saturdsy when you can't get your head around what sin is.

That which displeases God? I think God would be displeased when I type on my forums instead of on my book draft. So, a sin. But would it violate anyone elses moral code? Doubtful. 

Does my DD being in a loving, respectful relationship with another woman displease God? I mean, maybe, but it's hard to see why, given they.dont generate any inter or extra personal harm. But they sure do violate some people's moral code. 

Idk. I just don't know if sin language and moral code language is all that useful? It isn't to me. 

I guess I think about it like this. We arrive on this earth holding a lantern, which shines a light on all the complex decisions we face as we go through life. It gives a constant light, but some problems are deep, and dark, and our lantern can barely illuminate them. Then we must wrestle to see. Yet the light never goes out. 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

Just a word extra on moral codes changing along with renouncing religion - that may be the case for some, but obviously, the values we hold are informed deeply by our prior religious experiences. We may reject some specific doctrines, but life has its way of shaping us. Despite my lantern metaphor, our values don't come in modular form. Extract religious module, insert agnostic model. I can't help but have the agnostic informed by Catholicism viewpoint I have today and honestly, I think that's ok. My humanism comes straight from childhood exposure to Church and Jesus. 

[fraidycat]

3 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Myself and many people I know and the RCC still has the same view of all those things as possibly grave sins.  Doesn’t mean we don’t help and love them.  In fact, we help them all a lot.

In case anyone else needs to hear it. Your loved ones are human and have sins.  Love them and help them as best you can or as best they will let you. And pray for them always.  And I hope they bless you by doing the same for you. 

The thing is, the RCC does not view any sin as harmless to others. And I agree with that view.

I don’t think it compares to interracial marriage. If my kids dies a virgin bc they just never met mr/mrs right even though they would have liked to - okay. No one has a right to coupling or romance or lifelong commitment.

Personally I don’t think it’s healthy to put all of that in one relationship for heterosexuals either.  Even in a really great marriage, that’s unlikely to be the case “lifelong”.   But more than one good friendship can carry a person through down times in other relationships.  Because again, heterosexual people who don’t have sex, who don’t get married or have children (whether they want any of that or not) are not deprived and unloved.   They do still have friends and family that love them and share their lives together.  I see no reason why that would be different for homosexuals.   

Because in many cases the homosexuals have to choose one or the other. They don't get to have both the love from their family AND from a significant other. Thankfully the tide is shifting, but there is still a ways to go.
 

This is not the case for most heterosexuals. There are some families who refuse to accept a spouse or partner for one reason or another, but they are the exception, not the norm.

At no time, did I suggest any person should rely solely on one other person to meet each and every emotional need. I specifically said romantic relationship, coupling, partner, and commitment. I did not mention friendship even one time, although hopefully couples are friends with each other, too. 

If we as heterosexuals get the choice to have a CHANCE to have a significant relationship that doesn't get us shunned from our family AND friends to help meet all of our emotional needs - who are we to say that other people don't get that same chance and have to choose one or the other. Whether it actually comes to pass or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Edited June 7, 2021 by fraidycat

[MercyA]

So many thoughts. In no particular order:

Scarlett, in answer to your question, no, I would not change my morality based on the actions of a loved one. My DH and I have wrestled with this long and hard, not concerning gay people, but concerning divorce and remarriage in the church and in our families. Someone said no one cares about that anymore, and that's just not true.

Based on the words of Jesus Himself, I do believe remarriage after a biblically unjustified divorce is adultery. We would not attend the wedding of people we knew to be marrying unbiblically. And people can think what they want about that. 🙂 

I do believe the church has been extremely inconsistent with their emphasis on homosexuality (is that term still okay to use?) and downplaying of other sexual sins. That serves no one well and it's wrong. It is entirely justifiable to point out that hypocrisy.

I often see people give examples of Old Testament teachings, and then say Christians are cherry-picking when they don't follow them. I've said it before and I'll say it again; I'm not Jewish. Christians are specifically told in the New Testament that we are no longer under the law given to Israel.

It's like, when I moved to the West Coast, the maximum allowed speed was (let's say) 75 mph. It had been 65 mph in Indiana. I'm not a cherry picking traffic law follower if I speed up to 75 in CA. I would no longer be under the Indiana law.

Someone mentioned that the New Testament Greek word for homosexual actually meant something like child molester. That is a new and novel interpretation that only arose after people began accepting homosexuality. It is not born out by tradition or by the Greek word itself, which, as I recall, comes from the Greek roots meaning "man" and "lie." 

In any case, it doesn't negate the passage in Romans 1, which says that both men and women are acting "against nature" when engaging in homosexual behavior. 

Do these particular commandments make as much sense to me as others? Nope. They don't. But I'm not God. 

Some have said that they follow Jesus, not Paul. I follow Jesus in part by following the teachings of His chosen apostles, including Paul, to whom Jesus appeared after His death and specifically commissioned to teach the Gentiles. Paul said "the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." I believe it, and that's why I don't reject portions of the New Testament written by Paul to the church. I believe they contain the commandments of God Himself. 

I agree whole-heartedly that Jesus is full of love and grace and mercy. But He is also the one who said: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword....Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."

All of this said: I do not and cannot judge the state of the souls of those outside the church. Scripture specifically says that is for God to do and that we are only to judge (and rebuke, exhort, and discipline) those inside the church. I am not anti-gay marriage or otherwise anti-equality in public policy. We are after all a secular country.

Forgive me if I've unintentionally caused offense by using incorrect terms. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by MercyA

[JennyD]

38 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I often see people give examples of Old Testament teachings, and then say Christians are cherry-picking when they don't follow them. I've said it before and I'll say it again; I'm not Jewish. Christians are specifically told in the New Testament that we are no longer under the law given to Israel.

I am Jewish and don't really have much to offer to the general discussion, but I do appreciate this point.  We Jews have had 2000 years' worth of cage matches about the cherry-picking thing, but it always strikes me as so weird when Christians start quoting Leviticus to one another.  I'm always, like, why are you people arguing about this?  Didn't Jesus basically declare that all of these fiddly details are largely irrelevant to you?   Enjoy your bacon!

4 hours ago, Terabith said:

You know what God apparently hates?  Mildew.  If we get mildew, we aren't supposed to get tilex.  We're supposed to call the priest and if we get mold a second time, we are supposed to tear down our house and throw the stones outside of the town.  

FWIW, the traditional Jewish interpretation of this text is that plague (tzara-at) on a house was evidence of selfishness and a refusal to help the poor.  The house had to be torn down so the owners could see how much they were hoarding.  Those ancient rabbinic commentators never missed an opportunity for a cautionary tale about rich people refusing to share....

 

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by JennyD

[maize]

4 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Everyone is speaking past each other. I don't think anyone involved in this discussion is a gay child of parents who believe homosexuality is a terrible sin. I can't tell you that they don't feel loved by that response and don't believe that it's actually loving. 

Have you discussed this with gay people? 

 

Being loved and feeling loved are two different things. Both are subjective, and no-one can determine for someone else how they experience either.

If I love someone, I am *the only person* who can know the depth and reach of that love. The fact that the person I love *does or does not feel loved* has nothing at all to do with it.

I have deep and sometimes heartbreaking personal experience with this. I've written at times on here about my husband's struggles with mental health. I have had hundreds of conversations with him where my heart was overflowing with love for him and he experienced none of it and in fact attributed to me awful negative thoughts and intentions. 

Love given cannot in fact be measured by love felt.

Edited June 7, 2021 by maize

[fraidycat]

40 minutes ago, maize said:

Being loved and feeling loved are two different things. Both are subjective, and no-one can determine for someone else how they experience either.

If I love someone, I am *the only person* who can know the depth and reach of that love. The fact that the person I love *does or does not feel loved* has nothing at all to do with it.

I have deep and sometimes heartbreaking personal experience with this. I've written at times on here about my husband's struggles with mental health. I have had hundreds of conversations with him where my heart was overflowing with love for him and he experienced none of it and in fact attributed to me awful negative thoughts and intentions. 

Love given cannot in fact be measured by love felt.

This is very true. A person's capacity to feel loved is only to the extent that they love themselves and feel worthy of love.

Mental illness wreaks havoc on that.

But on the other hand, if an otherwise mentally healthy person is told they are not worthy of love because of their orientation, it can cause or contribute greatly to them becoming mentally ill and view themselves as unworthy. Especially when the rejection comes from the parents & family group, whom we are hardwired to remain connected to no matter what, because throughout evolution being disconnected from "your tribe" was almost certain death. There was safety in numbers in the wild. Disconnection is traumatic and traumas play a role in mental wellness.

[maize]

6 minutes ago, fraidycat said:

This is very true. A person's capacity to feel loved is only to the extent that they love themselves and feel worthy of love.

Mental illness wreaks havoc on that.

But on the other hand, if an otherwise mentally healthy person is told they are not worthy of love because of their orientation, it can cause or contribute greatly to them becoming mentally ill and view themselves as unworthy. Especially when the rejection comes from the parents & family group, whom we are hardwired to remain connected to no matter what, because throughout evolution being disconnected from "your tribe" was almost certain death. There was safety in numbers in the wild. Disconnection is traumatic and traumas play a role in mental wellness.

I agree.

Disconnection is not healthy and I am not a fan of shunning or other harsh treatment.

I do claim the right to preserve my own boundaries in not letting others dictate my personal moral beliefs. Sometimes things will be complicated and grace must be extended in both directions.

I hope to raise my children with enough resiliency to stand on their own feet without constant validation of every single choice. 

(I have told them there is one and only one thing for which I will disown them...it's complicated though and would involve first becoming President of the US so I'm pretty confident they won't actually grow up in fear of being rejected 😂)

[Janeway]

I have a lot of friends and family with different politics, religions, and moral codes. There are some things morally that I cannot tolerate, but that really comes down to abuse and adultery and criminal activity. It does not come down to political views or religious beliefs, etc. 

One thing I have seen is...a pastor who is divorced and remarried-after he had an affair, preaching against gay people. I never get that. I would never be willing to be "friends" with someone who had an affair. I could be civil and carry on as needed, but I would not choose to continue that relationship. And I would not stay at a church where the pastor was like that, but I would be fine with an LGTBQ pastor of any gender. 

[bookbard]

'Sin' doesn't mean much to me now. Or even 'moral code', really. I kind of wonder if the prison reformers are right, and criminal behaviour is an illness and needs to be treated as such. I don't know enough about it, don't know many 'bad' people. The people I know in real life who do things that shock me are all rich people who take advantage of others in order to become richer. I wonder if that is a kind of illness too. Sometimes I imagine a society where all criminal acts were treated as sicknesses, some short-term, some life-long. I think it might be a better society. But I don't know.

[Laura Corin]

9 hours ago, bookbard said:

'Sin' doesn't mean much to me now. Or even 'moral code', really. I kind of wonder if the prison reformers are right, and criminal behaviour is an illness and needs to be treated as such. I don't know enough about it, don't know many 'bad' people. The people I know in real life who do things that shock me are all rich people who take advantage of others in order to become richer. I wonder if that is a kind of illness too. Sometimes I imagine a society where all criminal acts were treated as sicknesses, some short-term, some life-long. I think it might be a better society. But I don't know.

I'm reading Unapologetic by Francis Spufford at the moment, which is a discussion of why he is a Christian - I'm interested because he's a writer whom I rate highly.  He talks about the HPtFtU as being a more useful phrase than 'sin', because of the many meanings that that word can have to different people (from murder, to many common forms of sex, to eating a cream cake). Translation below - language warning:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the Human Propensity to Fuck things Up.

 

[Guest]

20 hours ago, bookbard said:

'Sin' doesn't mean much to me now. Or even 'moral code', really. I kind of wonder if the prison reformers are right, and criminal behaviour is an illness and needs to be treated as such. I don't know enough about it, don't know many 'bad' people. The people I know in real life who do things that shock me are all rich people who take advantage of others in order to become richer. I wonder if that is a kind of illness too. Sometimes I imagine a society where all criminal acts were treated as sicknesses, some short-term, some life-long. I think it might be a better society. But I don't know.

I think this, pretty much totally. We *know*, for example, that children who are harmed in various ways (physically, emotionally, socially, etc) are much more likely to commit crimes themselves. It’s still a conundrum for me though, when the Josh Duggars of the world are revealed. I think that shows such a person was profoundly damaged in fundamental ways. But he still has to be kept from further harm of others. So I don’t always know what the solution might be. 

[Faith-manor]

43 minutes ago, Quill said:

I think this, pretty much totally. We *know*, for example, that children who are harmed in various ways (physically, emotionally, socially, etc) are much more likely to commit crimes themselves. It’s still a conundrum for me though, when the Josh Duggars of the world are revealed. I think that shows such a person was profoundly damaged in fundamental ways. But he still has to be kept from further harm of others. So I don’t always know what the solution might be. 

I think that some things are so egregious that even though we can see circumstances and events that lead to such illness, since we currently have no cures, we error on the side of caution and keep such persons away from the rest of society.  Ideally, facilities that are not themselves abusive just heaping more and more abuse on the pile, and allowing inmates the ability to pursue wholesome activities. Is am all for facilities that allow for gardening, landscaping, art, music, education, therapy, hydroponics, etc. Even among the most violent, it has been proven that these are beneficial, and lower rates of violence among inmates. But I do think we have to keep them locked away in order to protect innocent people, to prevent more suffering.

[SeaConquest]

Skimmed through the thread....

The main change in my moral code came about during law school. Growing up in a family of cops, I came from a very law and order background. I wanted to be a federal prosecutor and saw the world in a very black/white way (I am supposedly an ENTJ). I was very much in favor of the death penalty and basically felt like 'if you did the crime, you do the time.' I had no serious understanding of the connection between the criminal justice system and the impact of trauma, social determinants, mental illness, systemic racism, poverty, power, politics, influence, money, corruption, etc. on our system. Over time, my views softened a great deal because I began to understand that there was much more to delivering justice than simply putting "bad" people behind bars.

My law school was not designed to teach you the actual law. Any monkey can memorize the laws of a particular jurisdiction and pass a bar exam. Ideally, law school should teach you to think like a judge. It should make you think about what you would do in various hypothetical situations so you learn to distill appropriate legal principles and apply them in a variety of scenarios. It should challenge you to think deeply about what you believe and why you believe it, but also teach you that, as an officer of the court, you must set aside your own beliefs, when necessary, to apply appropriate legal precedent or theory.

So, even though I was co-President of the Federalist Society in law school, and still support many of the underlying principles of the Fed Soc (https://fedsoc.org/about-us), I continue to evolve in my thinking and try to keep an open mind as I age. I realize that I still have much wisdom to be gained from life and from the perspectives of others (including my children, who teach me so much).     

ETA: I guess I should have said that I no longer support the death penalty because its application is discriminatory on numerous levels.

Edited June 8, 2021 by SeaConquest

[katilac]

On 6/7/2021 at 8:57 AM, Murphy101 said:

Nah. Of the atheist I have known,  they aren’t any more kind or better for it.  

I could say the same for many of the Christians I have known - they aren't any more kind or better for it. 

 

On 6/7/2021 at 11:38 AM, fraidycat said:

These are false equivalencies.

Violence harms another person.

Pedophelia harms another person.

Laziness, temper, unhealthy habits are changeable qualities - choices.

Attraction is not a choice. I did not choose heterosexuality. I am a female attracted to males. That's just how it IS. I choose to be monogamous, however, whether or not I find other men besides my DH attractive.

Yes, let's wonder why gay people don't understand that others still love them as they are equating consensual gay sex with anger, violence, laziness, and pedophilia. 

On 6/7/2021 at 12:54 PM, fraidycat said:

How would you even know if your child masturbated? Rhetorical, please don't answer.
 

😂

I don't care what religion they were raised in; anyone who has more than one child has at least one child who is masturbating. If you have only one child . . . the odds are still not in your favor. 

On 6/7/2021 at 1:54 PM, Murphy101 said:

 

Myself and many people I know and the RCC still has the same view of all those things as potentially grave sins.

Personally I don’t think it’s healthy to put all of that in one relationship for heterosexuals either.  Even in a really great marriage, that’s unlikely to be the case “lifelong”.   But more than one good friendship can carry a person through down times in other relationships.  Because again, heterosexual people who don’t have sex, who don’t get married or have children (whether they want any of that or not) are not deprived and unloved.   They do still have friends and family that love them and share their lives together.  I see no reason why that would be different for homosexuals.   

To the first part: all of them? You know people who consider inter-racial marriage a grave sin? 

To the last part: it is, as people have already said, different because the heterosexual person is choosing not to get married. Even if  they don't fall bang in love, they can certainly get married if they choose to do so, and no one will regard it as a sin. A homosexual who is not having sex or getting married due to religious fears or family shunning is not making that same choice. 

On 6/7/2021 at 3:28 PM, Quill said:

But, literally, while on air one day, she stopped and said something like, “You know, I have been saying you just dont act on it but I’m not going to say that anymore. I am not going to tell a person they have to live without love. It’s too cruel.”  

When Dr. Laura says something that you believe in is too cruel, it is definitely time to pause and reflect 🤣

 

[BusyMom5]

Very interesting thread.  I left my religion and a lot of my 'morals' when I was about 20.  I then went about polar opposite - I didn't want to judge anything or anybody.  I've noticed myself switching back,  for various reasons, in certain situations.  There are things they can do that we would have to cut them off.  They are aware of these things.   

1.  Drugs- our kids know if they do drugs the only help they will get from us is rehab.  I may buy them food,  but I will not send money for food.  I may help pay for a lawyer, but only the first time, and only if they are in rehab.  DH and I both have cousins who have been on and off drugs for years,  and we have watched how different families have navigated this situation.  I wouldn't stop loving my child, but they would not be allowed in our home:  Younger kids will not be exposed to drugs in our home.   I do not want my others kids to have to make the choice of being around a druggie sibling at a family gathering (or one day exposing their kids).  If I set the rule of no drugs or high people, then no one else has to make a choice.

2.  Violent crime or violent temperment- similar to above.  I am not going to put others in a place to have to make the choice when we have a family event.  

There are a host of things that I also consider destructive and harmful behaviors.   

1.  Drinking- it won't be allowed in my home.  I have watched alcoholics,  poor decision-making, complications like loosing license, so while I wouldn't cut a kid off for this,  they would know my disappointment.  Driving while drinking is one of the most selfish things people do!  I know you can drink responsibly,  but not at my house.  I will not look the other way or 'accept' this behavior.   

2.  Not putting their kids needs first- kids don't get a choice in parents.  I'm pretty accepting of most things, but this would be going out with friends while skipping a kids ball game- repeatedly.  Multiple romantic partners, drama, and not putting kids needs first bc they are so caught up in their own drama.  Not paying child support.  I'm not talking about stay at home vs work,  breastfeeding vs bottle feeding, homeschooling vs public schooling- not parenting decisions.  

I hope I am never in a situation that I have to address either one.  I'm not too worried about sexual orientation or premarital sex, or an unplanned pregnancy.   I figure with so many kids I'll probably have some issues eventually!  

[SeaConquest]

12 hours ago, BusyMom5 said:

1.  Drugs- our kids know if they do drugs the only help they will get from us is rehab.  I may buy them food,  but I will not send money for food.  I may help pay for a lawyer, but only the first time, and only if they are in rehab.  DH and I both have cousins who have been on and off drugs for years,  and we have watched how different families have navigated this situation.  I wouldn't stop loving my child, but they would not be allowed in our home:  Younger kids will not be exposed to drugs in our home.   I do not want my others kids to have to make the choice of being around a druggie sibling at a family gathering (or one day exposing their kids).  If I set the rule of no drugs or high people, then no one else has to make a choice.

If we want people to ask for help with addiction, it helps not to stigmatize those with a medical condition.