Dear Abby: Son upset that dad's started dating men

Philly.com ^ | May 19, 2009 | Jeanne Phillips and some unfortunate guy

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt

[Antoninus]

Actually, not to get into a religious fight, but that sounds quite Christ-like to me. Love others, don’t judge, respect your elders, etc.

Uh, no.

Christ never told anyone to accept disgusting behavior. His message was one of repentence--forgiveness of sins, not acceptance of sinful behavior. "Go and sin no more," is what he said to the women caught in adultery. Not, "Go and sin all you like."

[Antoninus]

Fine, we disagree.

No, you are wrong.

[FTJM]

This guy’s father sounds like he is losing it. The kid needs to get him into to see a doctor and therapist for a battery of tests.

[Antoninus]

We simply disagree on interpretation of the entire quote. Which is fine.

No, you choose to ignore THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of the quote which reveals Jesus's true intention. HE calls all to holiness and repentence of sin. Nowhere does He endorse sinful behavior. His mercy is available freely. But those who choose to remain in sin, reject Christ and His mercy.

This is only hard for those who are addicted to one sin or another. What's your poison?

[Antoninus]

Dear Abby, There's an advice columnist I know who's brain has been devoured from the inside out by a Political Correctness worm. Since this parasite has taken away her ability to offer thoughtful, insightful advice like she used to, do you think she should give it up and leave the advice business to more rational people?

Bingo!

[Antoninus]

I guess it’s just logically not as simple a question/answer for me...

It's only seems complicated because you are making it so. It's really very simple--buggery was properly considered a terrible vice in Christ's day. It was practically unknown among the Jews who rejected it utterly as a Gentile vice. Jesus himself preached almost exclusively to the Jews so the issue is one that never came up in the context of his preaching. By contrast, St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, condemned sodomy and same-sex liaisons directly.

Sodomy is spiritual poison and a weapon satan uses to corrupt men practically beyond repair. But the love of Christ can even save the sodomite from his addiction and spiritual despair if they will trust in Him.

[happygrl]

A truly wise answer.

That is the Spirit of Christ.

[happygrl]

One was a guy who in late forties and long marriage and two grown kids dumped the unsuspecting wife and moved to a gay area with his new boyfriend.

Same scenario for a friend from college.

His wife idolized him, then he pulled this stunt.

In his own mind, he's a Heroic Gay.

[TurtleUp]

Except that he said both. And we don't get to pick the half we like. Either half.

I was looking forward to picking which individual words and phrases to omit from the Bible. Does this mean Christians can't skip a three letter word they don't feel like listening to and just read: "Thou shalt commit adultery"?

[TurtleUp]

The famous, original Greek manuscript of John 8:3-11 omits this story completely. Other later manuscripts insert this quote by Jesus *before* John 8, in John 7. Others even place the quote after Luke 21:38 (where it doesn’t really sit comfortably with the rest of the narrative). So, which version of the Bible is correct? Which one is the “truth”? Did Jesus even say this, or was it inserted into the texts later? These are unanswerable questions, unless you simply take whatever different version of the Bible (King James? Revised? NLV? The Living Bible? etc.) that you are reading to be “THE Word of God.” So, when you say that I cannot ignore a certain passage — oh, do you mean the one that is missing from ancient Greek manuscripts, and placed in different passages and contexts in other manuscripts (thus altering the narrative and placing ambiguities on the intended meaning)? THAT passage?

You might want to study the issue before you accept this old (and inaccurate) criticism of the Bible. The current order of books: Matt, Mark, Luke, John, ... Revelation came a few centuries after the books were written, but I have studied the Bible extensively, and I have not found a single significant difference between the meanings of passages in the oldest quotes from the Gospels, Peter, Paul, John, and Timothy in letters written in the first 200 years of the Christian church and the Bible I read daily. A large fraction of the New Testament can be found in original correspondence from that time period, and the meaning is perfectly clear and identical with today's meaning of the corresponding passages.

Excluding the long ending of Mark, the main differences among manuscripts are in verb tense ("Jesus wept", or "Jesus did weep"), word order (is it "Christ Jesus" or Jesus Christ"?), and spelling of names ("Daviad" or "David"). A reasonable person can question the historical/theological origin of the Bible: was it written by God, by men inspired by God, or by men on their own? A reasonable and informed person cannot question whether we know exactly what the original manuscripts of each New Testament book said when written, with the exception of a small number of non-critical phrases.

[TalonDJ]

Oh come on, that kind of thinking is old and out of date. It is due for an update. Just go with ‘commit adultery.’ Less archaic that way.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Do you remember the time you made the choice to be attracted to men/women? Sex (and therfore sexual attaction) is one of the most basic and primal thoughts of every human. It’s right up there with eating and drinking. We are programmed this way in the same way that we are programmed to eat when we are hungry. Of course, there are people who choose to be gay, but this doesn’t mean everyone does.

[CaliforniaCon]

Re: “Same scenario for a friend from college.

His wife idolized him, then he pulled this stunt.

In his own mind, he’s a Heroic Gay.”

***********

Yes, and in their wake these ‘heroic gays’ leave devastated families who never recover from the shock of it all. The victims I knew needed lots of therapy just to get out of bed each day.

[RepublitarianRoger2]

No, we simply disagree. Our views of the entire Christ story, and of the nature of reality and of the nature of God, differ. I will leave the discussion at that.

[RepublitarianRoger2]

We disagree on the nature of what the Bible is, and what the Christ story is. My views of the nature of God and of reality and of the infallibility of the Bible differ from yours. I do not believe in Hell or in Satan. I do not believe in the “Father” anthropomorphism of God. I believe that we, collectively, constitute God. It is part of a framework which includes the Christ story, but in a different context than yours. My view of the nature and possible causes of homosexuality are different than yours. My worldview is not as rigidly black-and-white as yours. I still believe, as I said in the beginning, that compassion and support, rather than the condemnation that is so prevalent here, are the ways to approach such individuals. I will leave it at that.

[Antoninus]

No, we simply disagree.

Characterize it as you will, but your opinion is just plumb mad-dog wrong and intellectually dishonest.

[RepublitarianRoger2]

No, we simply disagree. Not wrong, just different concepts of the nature of reality.

[Antoninus]

No, we simply disagree. Not wrong, just different concepts of the nature of reality.

No. There is truth. And then there are lies.

Your position is a tissue of lies.

[MEGoody]

Once again, behavior is a choice.