People disown members of their families for lots of petty reasons. Sometimes for no reason at all, and don't give it much of a second thought, because you're attention demanding, and they're too self-centered for that. People that get hit hard by that suggestion annoy me. They must have come from some tv family. — Wosret

It isn't clear to me what "that suggestion" is.

A good share of homeless youth are kicked out by their families. This isn't all that new a phenomena; biographies of successful people (that's why they have biographies) in previous centuries mention that the subject "left home" at an early age--left, or was expelled.

That people disown, or have nothing to do with members of their families is like terrible, because families are all love or something. That suggestion is fantasy. Not just some places, or the people that "leave home" either. We all treat strangers better than "loved ones". We reserve only the most hateful speech and violent acts for loved ones.

The unfamiliarity of strangers tends to keep us scared enough to stay in line. We only act like our monstrous selves around people that we "love".

I maintain that people that keep up appearances of decency, even to their closest kin are the worst for sure.

Her testimony convicts her and her church's teachers. — Bitter Crank

Well her testimony is correct, Christ must come before husband/wife or children. The reason for this is that without Christ as a foundation, husband/wife, children, etc. are all without value and will be lost anyway. If you read Kierkegaard's Works of Love for example, you'll see why God must be the foundation of the love between two people for example, or otherwise that love will not last. Namely two lovers cannot swear their love by themselves - for they are changing and finite - they must swear by the eternal God who alone is unchanging and infinite and can guarantee eternity to their love (and what love doesn't thirst for eternity, isn't love). Thus they swear by duty, not by themselves.

They are certainly "sharp, shocking, and grim". — Bitter Crank

I haven't read the post super carefully, but I'm not sure what exactly she did or didn't do to her son when she found out that he is gay, so it's a bit difficult to comment. I get the sense that she reduced communication with him, but I also get the sense that the son has also been very aggressive towards her. So I'm not sure what to say.

Furthermore, being gay (being attracted to other men) isn't sinful, it's just having sex with other men that is the problem.

If my son was gay and engaged in homosexual sex for example, I would tell him that I think homosexual sex is sinful, that it will harm him and his soul, and I will pray for him to repent. But if that's his choice I will accept it and support him for his other good traits, however there will be certain rules. Like he won't be able to come with his boyfriend/husband to my house for example. I wouldn't break relations with him completely, but there will be this distance that is inevitably - to a certain degree - created. In other words, I will tolerate his choice, but I will not accept it, because I think it's wrong. In terms of his other endeavors that aren't related to this, I will continue to support him. Like if he needs help in his career, or anything of that nature, which isn't related to homosexual sex, then I will help him. But I will always encourage him to find other - more valuable ways - to deal with his attraction for the same gender than sex.

Their thinking is no different than the kind of savage theology practiced by Muslim fundamentalists -- cutting off the hands of thieves, killing women for shaming the family, or throwing homosexuals off the roofs of buildings. — Bitter Crank

I don't think they proposed killing their son for being gay, castrating him, or the like :s so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Well, what would you call her? A "not-enthusiastic about homos"? A "hetero-preferer"? "Homo annoyed"? — Bitter Crank

I would call her someone who thinks homosexual sex is immoral (maybe she also thinks homosexuality itself is immoral, I don't know that).

Look, if you are willing to slam the door on your own gay son, you probably are going to feel something similarly hateful when you see two guys kissing. — Bitter Crank

That depends. What if, for example, the gay son hates her for not approving of his actions and is deliberately being hateful towards her? That also escalates conflict, you know. The situation isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

Their thinking is no different than the kind of savage theology practiced by Muslim fundamentalists -- cutting off the hands of thieves, killing women for shaming the family, or throwing homosexuals off the roofs of buildings. — BitterCrank

Just read a passage from Robert Sapolsky's new book, Behave, about honor cultures of today evolving out of the savagery of pastoralism (possibly the early American frontier).

"What constitutes an honor killing? Someone does something considered to tarnish the reputation of the family. A family member then kills the despoiler, often publicly, thereby regaining face."

***

In the rare instances of men being subject to honor killings, the typical cause is homosexuality. "

— Robert Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst

Worldwide, monotheism is relatively rare; to the extent that it does occur, it is disproportionately likely among desert pastoralists (while rain forest dwellers are atypically likely to be polytheistic). This makes sense. Deserts teach tough, singular things, a world reduced to simple, desiccated furnace-blasted basics that are approached with deep fatalism. " Iam the Lord your God" and "there is but one god and his name is Allah" and "there will be no gods before me" -- dictates like these proliferate... — R. Sapolsky, Behave

"Losing face" is a semantic loan from Chinese. Two interestingly things about it. Firstly the Chinese have like a hundred expressions about losing face, but only a few about gaining it. Secondly, if you look into it you'll notice that the expressions deeply intertwine status and ethics, to such an extent that studies suggest that natives in their mid twenties and below cannot discern a distinction at all.

So, in reading up on it, you'll be convinced that it only has to do with prestige.

The face you can gain, is only in relation to status and perception, whereas the one you can lose with respect to ethics cannot be regained.

Does it contain a thick, robust streak of sociopathy? Probably. Why? Because ideas shape the way we view the world and respond to problems. What do you think are the elements of evangelical (that 'old time') religion that direct believers into sociopathic patterns?

I'm including fundamentalism as part of evangelical religion. It isn't just Christianity, of course. — Bitter Crank

I'm of two minds, here. I think it's good to get specific, but complaints against religion always seem to amount to little more than nitpicking an easy target, e.g, "I'm not religion so I'm not bad like that person".

But, if you look at the behaviors and motivations of religious people, you will find they are still just people. They express themselves in a religious way, but the underlying motivations are still the same that everyone else deals with; greed, fear, pride, hypocrisy, etc. In the same way that Christianity does not have a monopoly on love, neither does it have a monopoly on problems in these areas.

Look again at BC's list of sociopath-behaviors. Those traits could apply to any number of groups, professions, institutions etc. all of which are made up of individuals.

Are they criminal, evil? — Wosret

They CAN be, and a lot of them are, but so are a lot of non-religious people, too!

The 'tilt' can be exaggerated by skillful (and perhaps quite sociopathic) teachers and leaders. It isn't unique to evangelical Christians, of course. Roman Catholics have their own variety of severe, unbending beliefs. — Bitter Crank

Most people today believe that a 5 dollar bill has more value than a gallon of milk. Tilt indeed...