Posted on 02/13/2005 8:46:21 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
To be fair, I was talking about very real and very specific situations - not hypotheticals.
I believe there are circumstances under which divorce is warranted. And I don't only mean physical abuse. However, too many today don't really understand "for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health," and these two women certainly did not. One faced up to those words and made a marriage. The other didn't.
Maybe they would have done exactly what they did no matter what their mothers told them. But I don't believe we could ever say that the mother who said, "you don't live here any more" did not love her daughter.
If I thought throwing my child out without a dime would stop him from doing drugs, or engaging in homosexual sex, or stealing, or murdering, then I would do it in a heartbeat.
But I would not do it without pain.
Shalom.
"Children rejecting the values of their parents is an old story, I guess. What should a father do?"
Same sex attraction isn't a typical benign problem.
I think her father did the right thing. She's 19 and needs to get out there. Perhaps she'll start being responsible and stop being a parasite. Maybe in living around other gay people she'll realize she made a very bad choice.
You'd be surprised. Some women spend decades married to an abuser.
These are not hypotheticals. I know both personally. Both women wanted to divorce for selfish, childish reasons. One was asked to grow up and did. The other was not and did not.
Maybe in those situations, the reasons for the divorce were selfish and childish. What about if the reason behind the divorce was abuse?
Prov.22:6
[6] Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
It is the responsibility of the parent to raise their child in the Christian faith with lots of firmness and love.
Rebellion, perhaps.
Don't hijack my parable - write your own.
In the case of abuse I would expect the parents to help the spouse leave the abuser. But I was posting the situation to make the point - sometimes the touchy-feely thing isn't the loving thing.
Parents must try to discern the difference and do the loving thing. It's hard, but then, parenting isn't for children.
Shalom.
If it were my child, I would still pay for her education, but NOT at Brown. How does Abilene Christian College sound?
;)
That's my way of saying, to quote former Sec. of State Colin Powell "Comparison of the two is a convenient, but invalid argument."
I am truly humbled by your articulate defense of Dr. Keyes, as well as your insightful analysis of his detractors.
I don't know about that specific college (sounds, good, TX?).. I'm not particularly keen on having any active homosexual radicals go to any Christian organization, but maybe there's a way to get the Keye's daughter out of the jaws of the liberals?
Leaving it up to a "Left" / liberal "sexual orientation" types of "funds" to snatch someone's kids away in a "seeming" rescue from "strict" parents may not be a good idea. I have to think about this, particularly if the "h" is unrepentant.
I don't judge the Keye's or the Cheney’s approach to their own particular individual "faith." God through Christ will sort everything out, that's for dead certain.
He was the LAMB first, yet people forget that He is also a Lion. Tension, balance, justice, objectivity in all matters, without compromise or partiality is key. I feel badly for both families that they have this issue. The Bible is very clear about this, and we have to cling to the Truth. How that works out, "where the rubber meets the road" is the hard part. In all things Love, but that does not mean surrender or compromise the Truth.
I like what Hank Hennigraf says: ..and "in all things with gentleness and respect..." (Meanwhile stick to your guns!) Whatever works in bringing the Lost back (like the Prodigal Son). Let's pray that kids rebelling against God and parents "come to their senses", repent and get on the straight and narrow, "with gentleness and respect"
: )
It's nice that it worked out. You wouldn't have told this wonderfully contrasting story if the daughter, with no place to go, had shacked up with a series of men that led ultimately to disaster, and I have seen that scenerio played out first hand.
The other also called her mother to discuss the possibility of divorce. Her mother said, "Well, if you do decide you have to leave, you can move back in here until you get your feet back on the ground." The daughter left within 2 weeks.
Which mother loved her daughter more?
Now that you have 3 daughters, 1 who stayed with her husband because her mother wouldn't let her come home, 1 who went from shackup to shackup because her mother wouldn't let her come home, and 1 who left her husband and moved home with mom, you tell me which mother loved her daughter more.
It's not as cut and dried when the endings aren't so neatly tied to the action is it?
Thanks, but I don't mean to be defending Dr. Keyes per se as I really don't know the situation. I'm defending the concept of taking harsh measures against someone who seems bent on destroying themselves if the harsh measures may save them.
Dr. Keyes may be taking the correct approach and he may not be. It is also likely that this is just a MSM hit piece and doesn't even come close to the truth in the matter.
But I do know that sometimes we must turn a man's body over to Satan that his flesh may be destroyed and his soul saved. If that is what Dr. Keyes is doing, I pray it turns out to be the right thing.
Shalom.
Actually you make my point. It's not cut-n-dried. You can't just blythly say that your own version of "unconditional love" is the only version. There are circumstances that make the difference and sometimes you have to grant that people see different circumstances than you do.
Dr. Keyes may be making a right or wrong decision. Only time will tell. But your answer can't be judged the universally correct answer. People aren't machines.
Shalom.
The MSM will no demonize thos mothers and fathers who made the moral decision to not tollerate or accept the lifestyle coice of children.
This is not about rights this is about spin. It is a far more difficult situation whern there are other grand children and children involved. Particularly since the homosexuals lifestyle is very very very very very unlikely as a rule to "produce" future generations.
The homosexual organizations with their cronies in the MSM are gearing up for 2006. They are getting ver desperate.
They are only providing anecdotes no substance. Parents who have homosexual children are the same as parents who lost a child to death. Not to detract from the other, but it may even be worse since the child is alive and in a destructive situation.
Understood.
Nevertheless, your comments are important if for no other reason than to temporize the otherwise pavlovian response of many other posters.
"God through Christ will sort everything out, that's for dead certain. "
Amen. Your entire comment is spot on.
Thats crazy. I know alot of parents who don't pay for a kids college because they want them to earn it. Paying everything for you kid doesn't teach the right lessons. You can tell the difference between the kids who are paying for their own college and the kids who are on mom and dads dime. Parents are not required to pay for college under ANY circumstance.
ArGee - thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I think you nailed it.
Not required to, but they should if they can afford it, and the kid is using his time productively there. JMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.