Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Jessa, Ben and Their Brood: Making a (Diaper) Mountain out of a Mold House

Chris Knight

By Chris Knight
in Counting On

Scarlett45
Message added by Scarlett45

The Duggars post about politics on social media frequently, but these social media posts are not an invitation to discuss politics here in this forum. This rule extends to Duggar adjacent families, friends, associates etc. Such discussions are a violation of the Politics Policy. 

I understand with recent current events there may be a desire to discuss certain social media postings of those in the Duggar realm as they relate to politics- this is not the place for those discussions. If you believe someone has violated forum rules, report them, do not respond or engage.

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 38.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • GeeGolly

    2021

  • Sew Sumi

    1757

  • Churchhoney

    1368

  • BitterApple

    1191

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Lady Edith
Lady Edith

Imho if you are pro-life, BE PRO LIFE.  That is, be pro every STAGE of life, not just in utero.  Why doesn’t pro life include teens?  Elders?  Suppprt QUALITY public education for all of our children.

Arwen Evenstar
Arwen Evenstar

Dammit, I wish they'd all stop spreading misinformation about abortion.  Most women who seek abortion don't do it at the stage of that ultrasound image Dustbin posted unless there are severe abnormali

IntoTheMystic
IntoTheMystic

I went on a couple of those ATI approved 'Journey to the Heart' brainwashings back in the day when I was a teenager. I think they might have been called something different. I don't really remember. M

Posted Images

DragonFaerie

DragonFaerie

5 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Me too. He's probably re-Tweeting Ben to share the wrath of the "haters".

For some reason, I blame the crazy heat today, I got this visual of Ben and Derick making their own rap video to talk about the "haters."  Ben in a backwards baseball cap with his less than stellar rapping skills while Derick, beside him, does his coordinated (sarcasm font) interpretive dance moves and as they end, shoulder to shoulder, crossing their arms in front of them you hear off camera - Yaaaaaaaaayyyyy.  Off to the prayer closet I go.

  • Love 20
Lunera

Lunera

1 hour ago, DragonFaerie said:

For some reason, I blame the crazy heat today, I got this visual of Ben and Derick making their own rap video to talk about the "haters."  Ben in a backwards baseball cap with his less than stellar rapping skills while Derick, beside him, does his coordinated (sarcasm font) interpretive dance moves and as they end, shoulder to shoulder, crossing their arms in front of them you hear off camera - Yaaaaaaaaayyyyy.  Off to the prayer closet I go.

Bin

8e2e72be-70a0-427f-901a-64be579637b5.gif.32b8026932c92fcbec1f7e85146623fe.gif

  • Love 21
toodles

toodles

2 hours ago, Lady Edith said:

Imho if you are pro-life, BE PRO LIFE.  That is, be pro every STAGE of life, not just in utero.  Why doesn’t pro life include teens?  Elders?  Suppprt QUALITY public education for all of our children. And access to basic necessities for the poor. And empathetic care for the elderly.  I’m not slamming those who are pro life, I am just wondering why the thinking stops at delivery.

Like x 1000000000

  • Love 24
QuinnInND

QuinnInND

4 hours ago, Lady Edith said:

Imho if you are pro-life, BE PRO LIFE.  That is, be pro every STAGE of life, not just in utero.  Why doesn’t pro life include teens?  Elders?  Suppprt QUALITY public education for all of our children. And access to basic necessities for the poor. And empathetic care for the elderly.  I’m not slamming those who are pro life, I am just wondering why the thinking stops at delivery.

Because then their parents are supposed to take care of them, and when they get older, they're supposed to take care of themselves.. Have enough money to be taken care of dontcha know.  

  • Love 1
madpsych78

madpsych78

9 minutes ago, Future Cat Lady said:

What is also infuriating with some pro-life people like the Duggars is that they're also against sex education and birth control (or easy access to it). Those are proven method to lower abortion rates. The bottom line is that they're against women having sex. 

It's all about the unborn babies. In their world, if women don't have sex, then men don't as well, because they're against gay sex.

  • Love 2
frenchtoast

frenchtoast

Let's move back to Ben and Jessa. We know their views on abortion, but this topic cannot become a discussion about abortion. It's so very easy to take the tweet and use it as a springboard to expound about the politics of it. A little off topic straying is ok. Taking the off topic discussion into charged political discussion is not. 

  • Love 3
TresGatos

TresGatos

On 5/19/2018 at 8:25 PM, queenanne said:

I don't think there is any such thing.  At least, the last thing I heard was, "it's currently considered wrong and possibly even dangerous/detrimental to future development, to set up expectations for anything that any child "should" be doing, based upon an arbitrary timetable."  

I do wish that, however old the photo is, they'd do more to discourage Spurge's attempts to use his teeth as a third hand anchoring heavy things.  In the modern world, there's no excuse for using teeth as tools outside of masticating food (my mother's pet peeve was people crunching ice, biting threads, and using their teeth to pry off bottle caps); and it certainly seems like a good way to encourage buck teeth.

I was still using a bottle and pacifier when I was about to enter Kindergarten so my parents melted them on the stove, told me they had died in a fire, and we had a funeral for them in the backyard. It was pretty traumatic.

  • Love 18
Fostersmom

Fostersmom

(edited)
9 hours ago, TresGatos said:

I was still using a bottle and pacifier when I was about to enter Kindergarten so my parents melted them on the stove, told me they had died in a fire, and we had a funeral for them in the backyard. It was pretty traumatic.

Holy crap, I'm traumatized for you!

My sister had her oldest at 17 and my mom watched him at night while my sister was at work. When my nephew got to be about 2 and was actively asking for a pacifier, my mom hid them in the kitchen cabinet and told him we ran out. It was a rough few days, but but the 3rd or 4th day of grandma "forgetting" to go to the store and buy more, he forgot and stopped asking. My other 2 nephews never really used them. The youngest however, held on to his sippy cups till he was damn near in kindergarten. 

Edited by Fostersmom
  • Love 2
RedheadZombie

RedheadZombie

10 hours ago, TresGatos said:

I was still using a bottle and pacifier when I was about to enter Kindergarten so my parents melted them on the stove, told me they had died in a fire, and we had a funeral for them in the backyard. It was pretty traumatic.

The Paci Fairy is a much gentler method.  But what creative parents you have.  Lol.

  • Love 6
QuinnInND

QuinnInND

On 5/28/2018 at 5:12 PM, Future Cat Lady said:

What is also infuriating with some pro-life people like the Duggars is that they're also against sex education and birth control (or easy access to it). Those are proven method to lower abortion rates. The bottom line is that they're against women having sex. 

But in their minds, if you're married, you don't need birth control, because you need to pop out as many blessings as you can. And in their minds, single people shouldn't have sex, period. So no need for sex ed and birth control. They're so stupid. 

  • Love 9
mynextmistake

mynextmistake

On 5/28/2018 at 5:19 AM, Lunera said:

699eab06-564f-4e41-a0ae-fd063a1a194c.thumb.png.4a9bd70ffaaaa83dff080b98c691317e.png

He deleted it, I guess he couldn't take the heat but the Internet is forever. He went back and forth with a woman who kept telling him it was no one's but the woman's choice. He kept insisting that the fetus life was equal to a grown woman's life.

“He forgave me?” Did Ben have an abortion? 

  • Love 21
satrunrose

satrunrose

15 hours ago, mynextmistake said:

“He forgave me?” Did Ben have an abortion? 

I think this goes back to one of my biggest confusions with the Duggar brand of "saved" crowd. It's perfectly possible and easy to forgive a Josh, but an amazing act of grace to forgive the sins that a three (TFDW) or 7 (Jinge) year-old have committed. I mean, I guess it's possible that Ben has done some hard-core commandment breaking and has wantonly defied most of Leviticus, but I mostly doubt it. 

  • Love 5
Nysha

Nysha

It comes down to their belief that God doesn't grade sins. Looking at a woman with lust in your heart is just as much a sin as actually sleeping with her. This is why they're so hard on their children and push to get them saved as early as possible because as soon as the child is aware that he has sinned, he's old enough to be judged on those sins.

  • Love 4
Normades

Normades

23 hours ago, Nysha said:

It comes down to their belief that God doesn't grade sins. Looking at a woman with lust in your heart is just as much a sin as actually sleeping with her. This is why they're so hard on their children and push to get them saved as early as possible because as soon as the child is aware that he has sinned, he's old enough to be judged on those sins.

I was taught that same line of thinking in catholic school. Basically, if you think about it, you're as guilty as if you had done it.  As a teen, I decided that if I was going to be judged that way, I should go ahead and commit the sin and enjoy it.  Why just think about it and never get the fun if you're just as guilty either way??  Such a stupid belief system.  

  • Love 23
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

None of the "saved" belief makes sense to me. I feel like it's often used as a 'stay out of hell free' card. A 7 year old saved child who kicks a bed can ask God for forgiveness, but a 5 year old 'unsaved' child who pushes his sibling down is doomed for hell? Well doomed for hell unless they get saved at age 6?

  • Love 7
MamaMax

MamaMax

5 hours ago, Normades said:

I was taught that same line of thinking in catholic school. Basically, if you think about it, you're as guilty as if you had done it.  As a teen, I decided that if I was going to be judged that way, I should go ahead and commit the sin and enjoy it.  Why just think about it and never get the fun if you're just as guilty either way??  Such a stupid belief system.  

Hmm, Catholic school all my life and I didn't ever get that impression.  While it is possible to sin in your thoughts as well as your actions, I never thought they were the "same." In fact, we Catholic do indeed "grade" sins...mortal, venial, etc.  My biggest take-away, even as a kid, was that there was no sin too grave to be forgiven.

  • Love 15
doodlebug

doodlebug

1 hour ago, MamaMax said:

Hmm, Catholic school all my life and I didn't ever get that impression.  While it is possible to sin in your thoughts as well as your actions, I never thought they were the "same." In fact, we Catholic do indeed "grade" sins...mortal, venial, etc.  My biggest take-away, even as a kid, was that there was no sin too grave to be forgiven.

Catholic school through 10th grade here.  I learned what you learned.  I was never taught that we could control all our thoughts, just our actions.

  • Love 4
Temperance

Temperance

4 hours ago, MamaMax said:

Hmm, Catholic school all my life and I didn't ever get that impression.  While it is possible to sin in your thoughts as well as your actions, I never thought they were the "same." In fact, we Catholic do indeed "grade" sins...mortal, venial, etc.  My biggest take-away, even as a kid, was that there was no sin too grave to be forgiven.

I wasn't personally taught that, but I've heard other old school Catholics talk about being taught that thoughts and actions are the same.

Topic: Jessa has been rather quiet lately. 

  • Love 1
ehall1052

ehall1052

22 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

None of the "saved" belief makes sense to me. I feel like it's often used as a 'stay out of hell free' card. A 7 year old saved child who kicks a bed can ask God for forgiveness, but a 5 year old 'unsaved' child who pushes his sibling down is doomed for hell? Well doomed for hell unless they get saved at age 6?

There is such a thing of an age of accountability, which varies from individual to individual depending on their maturity. I don’t believe that there are any children in hell. Although some children do get saved at 6, I believe there’s road to spiritual maturity that has to take place.

  • Love 5
  • Popular Post
Portia

Portia

  • Popular Post
(edited)
23 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

None of the "saved" belief makes sense to me. I feel like it's often used as a 'stay out of hell free' card. A 7 year old saved child who kicks a bed can ask God for forgiveness, but a 5 year old 'unsaved' child who pushes his sibling down is doomed for hell? Well doomed for hell unless they get saved at age 6?

I can't speak for all evangelicals. Even people close to each other on the evangelical spectrum may have differing interpretations, and I should also make it clear up front that I am that rarest of rare birds, a liberal evangelical.  But here goes: 

The common belief is that if a person is "unsaved," it's not because of any individual acts of sin but because of that person's state of unbelief.  One is "saved" by accepting Christ's work on the cross for the forgiveness of sin. As @ehall1052 referenced above, children below the "age of accountability" are considered safe--the term "umbrella of protection" is often used--until they are old enough to understand the concepts of sin and salvation.

Since one is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ--not by one's own good works--some evangelicals believe that one also cannot un-do one's salvation by messing up.  (I think there's a pretty big division here, though. There are large numbers who believe you can lose your salvation, but many firmly cling to the slogan, "Once saved, always saved.") I think most would agree that it is possible (and common) for someone to be a Christian but do bad things. But a Christian who lives in a state of willful disobedience is "out of fellowship with God" and not living the promised "abundant life."  A lot of non-evangelicals have noted (fairly) that the danger of "grace, not works" teaching is that it can result in so-called Christians living like jerks because they have the old get-out-of-Hell-free card. But Scripture clearly teaches that grace does not give us license to sin.  I've heard a lot of preachers say that if you're always looking for a loophole that allows you to sin, you're probably not really saved. 

Sorry about all the quotations. I am trying to set off the jargon to make it a bit more readable overall.

Edited by Portia
  • Love 29
zoomama

zoomama

27 minutes ago, Portia said:

I can't speak for all evangelicals. Even people close to each other on the evangelical spectrum may have differing interpretations, and I should also make it clear up front that I am that rarest of rare birds, a liberal evangelical.  But here goes: 

The common belief is that if a person is "unsaved," it's not because of any individual acts of sin but because of that person's state of unbelief.  One is "saved" by accepting Christ's work on the cross for the forgiveness of sin. As @ehall1052 referenced above, children below the "age of accountability" are considered safe--the term "umbrella of protection" is often used--until they are old enough to understand the concepts of sin and salvation.

Since one is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ--not by one's own good works--some evangelicals believe that one also cannot un-do one's salvation by messing up.  (I think there's a pretty big division here, though. There are large numbers who believe you can lose your salvation, but many firmly cling to the slogan, "Once saved, always saved.") I think most would agree that it is possible (and common) for someone to be a Christian but do bad things. But a Christian who lives in a state of willful disobedience is "out of fellowship with God" and not living the promised "abundant life."  A lot of non-evangelicals have noted (fairly) that the danger of "grace, not works" teaching is that it can result in so-called Christians living like jerks because they have the old get-out-of-Hell-free card. But Scripture clearly teaches that grace does not give us license to sin.  I've heard a lot of preachers say that if you're always looking for a loophole that allows you to sin, you're probably not really saved. 

Sorry about all the quotations. I am trying to set off the jargon to make it a bit more readable overall.

you said it just as i understand it to be. thanks for clarity.

  • Love 2
Marigold

Marigold

41 minutes ago, Portia said:

I can't speak for all evangelicals. Even people close to each other on the evangelical spectrum may have differing interpretations, and I should also make it clear up front that I am that rarest of rare birds, a liberal evangelical.  But here goes: 

The common belief is that if a person is "unsaved," it's not because of any individual acts of sin but because of that person's state of unbelief.  One is "saved" by accepting Christ's work on the cross for the forgiveness of sin. As @ehall1052 referenced above, children below the "age of accountability" are considered safe--the term "umbrella of protection" is often used--until they are old enough to understand the concepts of sin and salvation.

Since one is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ--not by one's own good works--some evangelicals believe that one also cannot un-do one's salvation by messing up.  (I think there's a pretty big division here, though. There are large numbers who believe you can lose your salvation, but many firmly cling to the slogan, "Once saved, always saved.") I think most would agree that it is possible (and common) for someone to be a Christian but do bad things. But a Christian who lives in a state of willful disobedience is "out of fellowship with God" and not living the promised "abundant life."  A lot of non-evangelicals have noted (fairly) that the danger of "grace, not works" teaching is that it can result in so-called Christians living like jerks because they have the old get-out-of-Hell-free card. But Scripture clearly teaches that grace does not give us license to sin.  I've heard a lot of preachers say that if you're always looking for a loophole that allows you to sin, you're probably not really saved. 

Sorry about all the quotations. I am trying to set off the jargon to make it a bit more readable overall.

I agree.

That's pretty much it!  

  • Love 2
ginger90

ginger90

2 hours ago, Portia said:

I can't speak for all evangelicals. Even people close to each other on the evangelical spectrum may have differing interpretations, and I should also make it clear up front that I am that rarest of rare birds, a liberal evangelical.  But here goes: 

The common belief is that if a person is "unsaved," it's not because of any individual acts of sin but because of that person's state of unbelief.  One is "saved" by accepting Christ's work on the cross for the forgiveness of sin. As @ehall1052 referenced above, children below the "age of accountability" are considered safe--the term "umbrella of protection" is often used--until they are old enough to understand the concepts of sin and salvation.

Since one is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ--not by one's own good works--some evangelicals believe that one also cannot un-do one's salvation by messing up.  (I think there's a pretty big division here, though. There are large numbers who believe you can lose your salvation, but many firmly cling to the slogan, "Once saved, always saved.") I think most would agree that it is possible (and common) for someone to be a Christian but do bad things. But a Christian who lives in a state of willful disobedience is "out of fellowship with God" and not living the promised "abundant life."  A lot of non-evangelicals have noted (fairly) that the danger of "grace, not works" teaching is that it can result in so-called Christians living like jerks because they have the old get-out-of-Hell-free card. But Scripture clearly teaches that grace does not give us license to sin.  I've heard a lot of preachers say that if you're always looking for a loophole that allows you to sin, you're probably not really saved. 

Sorry about all the quotations. I am trying to set off the jargon to make it a bit more readable overall.

Thank you, I appreciate your post, Portia.

  • Love 3
queenanne

queenanne

2 hours ago, Portia said:

The common belief is that if a person is "unsaved," it's not because of any individual acts of sin but because of that person's state of unbelief.  One is "saved" by accepting Christ's work on the cross for the forgiveness of sin. As @ehall1052 referenced above, children below the "age of accountability" are considered safe--the term "umbrella of protection" is often used--until they are old enough to understand the concepts of sin and salvation.

That was great!  I just wanted to add one thing, namely to the above:  I feel people differ on the "age of accountability" issue to such a large degree because some are willing to admit readily that there is a difference between a child with a child's underdeveloped brain "saying they understand" these principles, vs. them having "true understanding".

  • Love 7
Christina87

Christina87

3 hours ago, queenanne said:

That was great!  I just wanted to add one thing, namely to the above:  I feel people differ on the "age of accountability" issue to such a large degree because some are willing to admit readily that there is a difference between a child with a child's underdeveloped brain "saying they understand" these principles, vs. them having "true understanding".

Good point. Personally, I think the age of accountability is different for everyone. I was always brought up hearing that God knows what's truly in your heart. One person may be mentally and emotionally developed enough to be accountable for sins at thirteen, and another not until eighteen. And of course, it depends on the severity of the sin! I've always felt that it's not for us to judge (though few judge childrens' sins, thankfully) whether God will hold them accountable because only He knows what's in their heart. 

  • Love 6
  • Popular Post
Vaysh

Vaysh

  • Popular Post

I've always felt that if Bin hadn't been brought up they way he was, religion-wise and politically, he'd be a pretty solid good guy. I think he's got a core of decency that regularly tries to assert itself but he's surrounded by people who either don't value that part of him or actively oppose it, so he keeps it under wraps most of the time. He's a bit dopey and doesn't seem terribly clever but I do think he's genuinely kind despite being misguided and ignorant about a lot of issues. He comes across as very earnest. And while I disagree with almost all of his beliefs, at least he appears to be genuine about them, unlike someone like Jim Bob whose beliefs perfectly suit his own wants and needs and cater to and excuse all his character flaws.

  • Love 51
mythoughtis

mythoughtis

3 hours ago, Vaysh said:

I've always felt that if Bin hadn't been brought up they way he was, religion-wise and politically, he'd be a pretty solid good guy. I think he's got a core of decency that regularly tries to assert itself but he's surrounded by people who either don't value that part of him or actively oppose it, so he keeps it under wraps most of the time. He's a bit dopey and doesn't seem terribly clever but I do think he's genuinely kind despite being misguided and ignorant about a lot of issues. He comes across as very earnest. And while I disagree with almost all of his beliefs, at least he appears to be genuine about them, unlike someone like Jim Bob whose beliefs perfectly suit his own wants and needs and cater to and excuse all his character flaws.

If Ben had remained single, he might have gradually moved mainstream Christian. That kindness would have caused him internal struggles.  He would have begun to wonder about difference between what he was taught versus what the New Testament Bible actually says . He still might- but he’d have to give Up his whole life now.  

  • Love 16
Scarlett45
Message added by Scarlett45

The Duggars post about politics on social media frequently, but these social media posts are not an invitation to discuss politics here in this forum. This rule extends to Duggar adjacent families, friends, associates etc. Such discussions are a violation of the Politics Policy. 

I understand with recent current events there may be a desire to discuss certain social media postings of those in the Duggar realm as they relate to politics- this is not the place for those discussions. If you believe someone has violated forum rules, report them, do not respond or engage.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...