Gimme That Old Time Religion

[MJDai]

I was thinking about religion and the social safety net. It seems like countries where the government-arranged social safety net is strongest there is comparitively little religion. I'm thinking of the Scandinavian countries in particular.

In the USA there seems to be the reverse: a lot of religion and not so much government-arranged social safety net. As y'all have been telling the congregation is encouraged to give "love-offerings" and as most religious text goes into helping others being a good thing- could it be that the churches have taken it upon themselves to arrange the social safety net for their followers? In a way that has a LOT less admin? It would explain why religion is still going so strong there (even if it seems to be waning now). I don't want to overask, but could someone explain how or in what way the congregation helps those in need (other than prayer?) and how the ones that actually are in need are picked out?

 

As an agnostic, I don't really get organised religion but I really like the idea of a lot of people carrying the load of the weak amongst them.

I also like the idea of the USA secretly being a really socialist country only via the churches iso the government, but I dare not suggest it as the ghost of McCarthy (is he even dead?) is going to haunt me.

[3girlsforus]

The Duggars visit Vatican City? Oh, my, what a mental image that creates for me. First of all, they have absolutely NO appreciation of art, certainly too much NIKE on those statues and in the depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus...I can imagine Mullet trying to tell the Pope that he has no authority to interpret scripture, but that Bill Gothard does, oh, also, Jim Bob does too. JB will tell the Pope, how he, (wink, wink,) has 19 kids.

That family would be the most disrespectful group of crass Americans that all of Europe has ever seen at such a historical and religious place.Yes, I do believe that they just might sizzle too if they attempted to go there. Thanks for the laugh, Wellfleet.

 

LOL!!!! I saw some pretty crass people (of many different countries) when I was at the Vatican but I have to agree the only thing the Duggars would get right is the dress code. What an amazing place!! The Pieta brought me to tears. Such a shame there are people who can't appreciate incredible beauty and art like that. Want another laugh??? There are homeschoolers who go through the art and history books they use for school and sharpie over the "private parts" in the pictures of paintings and sculpture. 

 

I will admit that one of my favorite parts of our trip to Italy was my 6 year old staring up in awe at Michelangelo's David and saying in a loud voice 'Mom - he has really big DETAILS'!  I wasn't sure if I should laugh or crawl in a hole.

[3girlsforus]

Gothard's brother (who used to be in the "ministry" with Bill before he was thrown out for sexual harrassment c.1980) is in trouble again. 

 

https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/bill-gothards-brother-accused-of-racketeering-stealing-millions-from-the-elderly/

 

Such integrity, these two. eta: Gothard and his brother used to use the "Northwoods" location, now used for Journey to the Heart, to isolate these girls. It was a huge scandal back in the day; out of it arose what we now know as IBLP/ATI. Bill was allowed back after a 17 day (or thereabouts) haitus; their board of directors has always been "yes" men; they let Bill linger on far too long this last time, and the usual suspects (Duggars included) spoke at all three conferences last spring and summer, tacitly showing support for their deposed leader. 

 

Bottom line: the Gothard brothers are bottom-of-the-barrel scumbucket wolves in sheeps' clothing. 

 

I wonder if the Duggars have something in their TLC contract that says they can't be asked outright about following this family of criminals. I certainly would tune in for a candid question and answer about this topic.

[Rhondinella]

could it be that the churches have taken it upon themselves to arrange the social safety net for their followers? In a way that has a LOT less admin? It would explain why religion is still going so strong there (even if it seems to be waning now). I don't want to overask, but could someone explain how or in what way the congregation helps those in need (other than prayer?) and how the ones that actually are in need are picked out?

 

 

Yes, I think it's actually more than possible, but likely that there is a relationship between the robustness of the church culture and the need for social programs that the government doesn't provide.  This is something church-goers have realized for years: they are often the first ones (but certainly not the only ones) to step in to help out both others in their own congregation, and those outside.  I remember hearing Geraldo Rivera (yeah, I know) years ago talking about how religious-based organizations (Christian and otherwise) tend to meet societal needs much better, faster and CHEAPER than government solutions and that the government should encourage them and support them in doing more of it.  He specifically mentioned some of the Catholic ministries, like schools, which often have a proven track record of better performance that government programs.

 

As for individual congregations helping people in need, there are a lot of different ways it can be done.  I will speak of the way it happens in my church and denomination; it might vary elsewhere.  My church has a more centralized organizational structure than many do, we actually have a central denominational HQ.  Every church is required to send a specific amount of money to HQ every year (the amount is based on how large the congregation is) that helps pay for church operations, missions, etc.  Part of that money goes into a general church fund for what we call "Compassionate Ministries."  This is used by the organization to fund major things on a large scale like disaster relief (sending supplies into a disaster zone, for example).  So everyone who gives any money to their church is automatically contributing to this a little.

 

As for helping on the more local level, there are lots of ways this is done.  Our church has a local compassionate ministries fund as well which people can donate to (and a small amount of every offering is automatically included in) that is used specifically to meet serious needs of people in our congregation.  The church board (the governing body) has discretion to decide where and how it is spent.  We've given it to congregants who have lost their houses to tornadoes (I live in Oklahoma), those who have been out of work long term, or to help pay things like hospital bills.  Some people who have the means may even choose to give donations to needy persons in the congregation directly.  I've known this to happen several times.  And, then, of course, there's always volunteering time for various social organizations, as well as donations of food to various charities.

 

Hope that helps some.

[BitterApple]

I'm not surprised to read that churches are more efficient in serving those in need. I read an article a while back that stated the majority of tax dollars allocated to government welfare programs go to support the bureaucracy, not the poor. Not to mention, those working in the church programs are usually passionate about helping others, they're not just punching a clock counting down the days until they can pack it in and collect their pension.

[GEML]

It's important to know, however, that in 1932 it was churches and religious organizations writing to FDR asking him for help. His correspondence with Baptist ministers is voluminous. Half of all non-profits were bankrupt by 1931. While we don't have the social safety net that Europe does, it's interesting that what we do have owes much of it's existence directly to religious communities.

[mbutterfly]

And it isn't just churches in mission. It is also churches standing up on social justice issues. I know we've kind of said that, but it made me think about it. We have both roles to play. I think churches are also more effective than governing/government bodies in sorting through social justice issues because -- when we're doing well -- we are focused upon discernment more than governing/government bodies. 

[GEML]

FDR explicitly said that he needed to work with churches on the New Deal because they were the ones who knew best what was going on, where injustice was taking place, and who needed help most.

That's not an attitude many people on either side of the political aisle would be comfortable with today, but it was quite common for the first half of the 20th century, up and through, of course, the Civil Rights era.

It was only in the 1970's that you found liberals moving away from religion specifically in while conservatives moved away from government as any part of the solution.

[Fosca]

As I see it, the problem with relying on churches for aid and progress is that this only works for people/issues that the churches are in favor of.  From what I understand (and if I'm wrong correct me), the civil rights movement for African-Americans was primarily supported by black churches and not white ones (and even today churches are probably the most segregated places in the US, by choice perhaps but still).  I know religion was used to justify slavery, and is still used to justify racism ("sons of Ham" and whatnot) and sexism (women shouldn't be preachers/priests or have positions equal to men).  The Mormon church fought against same-sex marriage not only in Utah but in California and Hawai'i, and many other religions are also against this (even though religions cannot be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for anyone they don't want to).  The Catholic Church took over our hospital here in town, and now the hospital doesn't do any abortions (I'm not sure they even do medically necessary ones) or any other procedure that is against the beliefs of the Catholic Church, which leaves even non-Catholics having to follow their policies or travel a long distance for medical care. If I relied on the Duggars (and Gothardites) for social justice, I wouldn't be an independent childfree (I don't have "a heart for children" and thus don't have any) agnostic woman with a Ph.D. and a job as a professor; I'd be what for me would be a fate worse than death: spending my time gazing adoringly at my husband (who my dad picked out for me) with my 15 kids and and 20-some grandkids, when I'm not cooking and cleaning and going quietly insane.

 

I just think that relying on churches for aid and social justice leaves people (including myself) having to live by their rules, and I'd rather have a more neutral authority like the government providing aid (as inefficient as it may be).  I just don't trust religion to do what's right for me vs. what that religion says is right for me. 

Edited January 17, 2015 by Fosca

[GEML]

Which is a great point. It is also the point I make when someone says you should get help from your family to pay for school or start a business. What if you grow up in a family like the Duggars that can't or won't pay? Then you are stuck figuring out a way to do it on your own. And what worse in a family like the Duggars, their income will make it seem as though they should be contributing much larger amounts than they ever will, so no Pell grants or work-study for you either.

While meanwhile, they buy John David a plane.

[Rhondinella]

As I see it, the problem with relying on churches for aid and progress is that this only works for people/issues that the churches are in favor of.  From what I understand (and if I'm wrong correct me), the civil rights movement for African-Americans was primarily supported by black churches and not white ones (and even today churches are probably the most segregated places in the US, by choice perhaps but still).  I know religion was used to justify slavery, and is still used to justify racism ("sons of Ham" and whatnot) and sexism (women shouldn't be preachers/priests or have positions equal to men).  The Mormon church fought against same-sex marriage not only in Utah but in California and Hawai'i, and many other religions are also against this (even though religions cannot be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for anyone they don't want to).  The Catholic Church took over our hospital here in town, and now the hospital doesn't do any abortions (I'm not sure they even do medically necessary ones) or any other procedure that is against the beliefs of the Catholic Church, which leaves even non-Catholics having to follow their policies or travel a long distance for medical care. If I relied on the Duggars (and Gothardites) for social justice, I wouldn't be an independent childfree (I don't have "a heart for children" and thus don't have any) agnostic woman with a Ph.D. and a job as a professor; I'd be what for me would be a fate worse than death: spending my time gazing adoringly at my husband (who my dad picked out for me) with my 15 kids and and 20-some grandkids, when I'm not cooking and cleaning and going quietly insane.

 

 

Well-said, Fosca.  I can't disagree.  That's an excellent point.  I'm a supporter of religious-based aid organizations, but I realize they can't serve all of societal needs.  They have to work together with governmental organizations.  Unfortunately, both sides often don't like to play nicely with each other.

[Matryoshka]

Gothard's brother (who used to be in the "ministry" with Bill before he was thrown out for sexual harrassment c.1980) is in trouble again. 

 

https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/bill-gothards-brother-accused-of-racketeering-stealing-millions-from-the-elderly/

 

Such integrity, these two. eta: Gothard and his brother used to use the "Northwoods" location, now used for Journey to the Heart, to isolate these girls. It was a huge scandal back in the day; out of it arose what we now know as IBLP/ATI. Bill was allowed back after a 17 day (or thereabouts) haitus; their board of directors has always been "yes" men; they let Bill linger on far too long this last time, and the usual suspects (Duggars included) spoke at all three conferences last spring and summer, tacitly showing support for their deposed leader. 

 

Bottom line: the Gothard brothers are bottom-of-the-barrel scumbucket wolves in sheeps' clothing.

Just to clarify; this is actually a third brother. Bill has his "ministry," Steve is the one who treated the female staff at Northwoods as his personal harem, and this is David who has apparently been cheating elderly people out of their savings. The entire family look to be pieces of work indeed.

[mbutterfly]

Just to clarify; this is actually a third brother. Bill has his "ministry," Steve is the one who treated the female staff at Northwoods as his personal harem, and this is David who has apparently been cheating elderly people out of their savings. The entire family look to be pieces of work indeed.

A racketeering conviction in the Gothard family might do some good. I live in Indiana where Bill had his terrible residential facility for youths in trouble. I'm still pretty angry about what happened there. 

[Barb23]

After skimming through the Gothard article, I am left speechless. How can anyone associate themselves with this family? There was mention of Gothard sister(s). Does anyone have information on them? ( I just skimmed article, got disgusted & stopped reading so there could have been further info on them.)

[floridamom]

Had to pass this on guys....I was opening my MSN page on the internet and I saw this headline...Pope Francis stated in his speech that the ban on artificial birth control for Catholics does NOT mean that couples should "breed like rabbits"...you know who I immediately thought of don't you? Our dear Miss Michelle Duggar. Even he is stating that one needs to be and should be reproducing responsibly. I kept thinking what would Jim Bob and Michelle say about that? I guess, maybe they are on my mind waaayy too much!

[ginger90]

They would probably say he's not their Pope!!!

[GEML]

Yes, Jim Bob would probably make some insulting comment like "Pope who?"

[Barb23]

And hand him one of their family photos & track/prayer cards.

[dillpickles]

And Michelle would say she delivered every single one of those kids.

[Micks Picks]

IIRC the church likewise does not approve of IVF and surrogates and so on.  Nor to they demand treatment no matter how horrendous the health condition someone has.  Withdrawal of treatment or refusal of further treatment merely to keep one alive is not encouraged.  Not forbidden, but not encouraged.

[NikSac]

And Michelle would say she delivered every single one of those kids.

 

Even Anna's kids. It always creeps me out when she says that.

[dillpickles]

Even Anna's kids. It always creeps me out when she says that.

She delivered Josh, who impregnated Anna, who delivered those kids. If it wasn't for Michelle, there would be three less solders in God's army.

Edited January 21, 2015 by dillpickles

[fliptopbox]

IIRC the church likewise does not approve of IVF and surrogates and so on.  Nor to they demand treatment no matter how horrendous the health condition someone has.  Withdrawal of treatment or refusal of further treatment merely to keep one alive is not encouraged.  Not forbidden, but not encouraged.

I'm not religious at all. Agnostic, actually. But I agree with all of that. Some people may get mad at me or disagree, but I believe if you're biologically incapable of having kids that's nature's way of saying there's something going on that shouldn't be passed down. Adoption is an option, if you really want kids. There are plenty who need homes. I just don't understand why religious groups get all up in arms about early term abortions, yet all major insurance companies will cover a vasectomy. So, it's ok to not have [more] kids, but only if it's the man's choice? That's insane. Especially since once an unwanted child is born all the resources and rallying suddenly dries up. Then you're just another deadbeat welfare queen sucking up resources. It's a ridiculous double standard....since it seems that almost all rabid pro-life people are also anti-welfare and/or government programs. They are also anti-birth control too (usually) and preach abstinence only. That's fine, for teenagers. I guess. But what adult woman in her 20's and up is going to remain celibate if she doesn't want [more] children? What man would? That also makes no sense. I am sick of pro-lifers responding with "well she should have kept her legs closed"  to an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. That's not how life works. Isn't it smarter to teach women/teenage girls about birth control so the world isn't overrun with children that are unwanted? It's not a sin to be childless, or to only want 1 or 2 kids. People don't just stop banging because they've reached their "kid quota".

 

I also agree about rejecting the over the top lifesaving measures. Sometimes the end is the end.

 

Whoever said it above, about rather having government aid than a church's....yes. I would not want to have to live by someone else's moral standards in order to be "deserving" of help. I'm not saying I'm some sort of terrible person, but I can see a church/congregation being far more judgmental about how someone receiving aid uses it than the government would be.

Edited January 21, 2015 by fliptopbox

[Micks Picks]

I know some religious groups where aid is given no matter the circumstances.  In fact, even the biggies like Salvation Army, Catholic Charities and so on dispense aid and since it is direct aid, more of the money goes to the recipient without qualifications than it would be if it was government run.  Government would have policies and procedures manuals, data base checks about income and sources, etc etc.  May God love you if you need food, you'll get it much sooner and without the hassle and wait with a private organization rather than going to social services.  I coughed up a hundred bucks for a family who needed something to eat for a few days until they could get a food stamp card.  This was only 3 weeks ago.  I've also participated in or organized ways to raise funds for those who needed them.  I'm thinking about raising money for a darling dog's cataract operation but I need the owner to get a second opinion and price before I proceed.  It's $7500.00+ and that's too much to raise without cooperation.  Well, that's off topic, but my current worry.  Sorry.

[BradandJanet]

I wonder if the Duggars believe the second coming is immenent or at least in their lifetime. Since the belief usually involves the idea that those who are left behind will suffer tribulations while the good Christians float away, I have trouble squaring that with the strong antiabortion stance. I would think that heathens with such a bleak future would not be encouraged to reproduce.

[GEML]

But their "reproductions" get to go! :)

[mbutterfly]

I know some religious groups where aid is given no matter the circumstances.  In fact, even the biggies like Salvation Army, Catholic Charities and so on dispense aid and since it is direct aid, more of the money goes to the recipient without qualifications than it would be if it was government run.  Government would have policies and procedures manuals, data base checks about income and sources, etc etc.  May God love you if you need food, you'll get it much sooner and without the hassle and wait with a private organization rather than going to social services.  I coughed up a hundred bucks for a family who needed something to eat for a few days until they could get a food stamp card.  This was only 3 weeks ago.  I've also participated in or organized ways to raise funds for those who needed them.  I'm thinking about raising money for a darling dog's cataract operation but I need the owner to get a second opinion and price before I proceed.  It's $7500.00+ and that's too much to raise without cooperation.  Well, that's off topic, but my current worry.  Sorry.

I must agree. I've been involved with many missions through my Methodist church outreach -- quite a bit of it ecumenical -- and I've not seen the slightest behavioral/life style requirement ever. I suppose the one exception, and it is exceedingly rare, would be if someone comes in under the influence of a substance and frightens others. 

[kalamac]

The Salvation Army have actually turned away people in need if said person is known to be part of the LGBTQ community.

[GEML]

I do think that policy has changed, or is not made across the board. I definitely can say that some SA ministers are fully welcoming to LGBTQ people in need. But as with any large organization, I don't doubt there are plenty of stories out there on all sides.

Again, this is why discussing private charity online is pointless. Americans love to tell other people how awful their charities are.

[floridamom]

Aside from the Duggars reading and re-reading the bible and study of it, I don't see their daily lifestyle as being a Christian one OR biblical. I would like for them to take the time to site line per line in the bible, where it states that the "buddy system", kids doing the cooking, not attending even a Christian school, playing sports on real teams with the general population or having real friendships besides their siblings is in the bible. Isolation is NOT there, as far as I'm concerned. They need to own up to the fact that they follow the "Gothard-dictated" interpretation of these things and NOT the biblical one. It is a lifestyle of convenience for Michelle, plain and simple. It's high time their grown children know this.

[Barb23]

Just wondering -Does anyone know if Boob's sister Deanna is religious or what church she attends? Church of the Duggar?

[floridamom]

[Note: moved from another thread; referring to post by Jessa.  You can find link in the Jessa/Ben thread--Rhondinella]

 

After reading most of Jessa's post, I couldn't stomach it any more. I would like to ask her if this is her family's interpretation and belief in the Almighty or is it personally HERS or Ben's? It this the God that the Seewald family believes in? I, for one, wish she would have qualified that and let us know when she discovered this type of Almighty.

 

Having said that; I was brought up Roman Catholic, and thought that came with it's own degree of built in guilt. After reading Jessa's we are lightyears apart from that! I would think that Jesus came into this world to correct those vengeful God beliefs and teach us that although God is "just", He also is a forgiving and loving one. Yes, we all have tendency to sin and fall short of perfection; as we are human and those tendencies are there...I also believe that God's justice allows us to have that free will to choose "A or B" paths and the resulting consequences of making poor choices bring us that "suffering or result" and we have to live those things out here on earth. Failure to move forward to a better way of living; is what brings us short of Heaven; we have that purging, separating of earthly things and unfinished business process after this life...

I also believe that one has to be a pretty evil person, continually rejecting God and His good; to be separated from Him permanently, which is the hell in itself; realizing that we have don't it to ourselves. The part of God that is just is He lets us live out those consequences in this life and after. I don't think it is quite as harsh, rigid and terrible as Jessa's post indicates...After all, where is the loving, forgiving part of the Almighty in her interpretation?

 

She is entitled to her belief, as we all are, but I would feel pretty depressed, damned no matter what I do, because constant perfection is unattainable in an imperfect world. We may sin, we ask for forgiveness in those transgressions, and do our best after that, but there IS the "light at the end of the tunnel" in eternity and we will find that utter peace and fulfillment after this....Jesus said that there are many mansions in His Father's house, didn't he? I also believe that those are levels of peace and closeness to the Beatific Vision, depending on our spiritual evolvement in this life...some are just ahead of the game, some behind..We all strive for better after this life.. I wouldn't want to believe as she/Ben(?) Duggars (?) do. It's seemingly a doomed outlook, IMO. Thanks, guys for letting me post my stand on this issue, I hope I made sense in my wording...I get flustered with people like Jessa, etal.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Rhondinella

[Catlyn]

You made perfect sense. Jessa's God is of the old testament, and not the one Jesus represented.  I think Gothard and his ilk are just too much in love with the Old Testament they just skim over the New and only pick and choose what they want to hear.

[Betweenyouandme]

The following is what I think Jessa is saying and/or the Bible says...

I think Jessa is trying to say that any sin in our life separates us from God to varying degrees. In death, we all deserve Hell because of this. And that we all will be judged when we die. Believing in Jesus will save us, but the Bible says our specific rewards in Heaven will vary depending on our works on Earth. Also, the Bible and Jesus in the New Testament make it very clear that having true faith and repentance doesn't mean we get to do whatever we want. The entire book of Romans talks about this. God does get angry, according to the Bible. He hates sin. This didn't suddenly change in the New Testament. What changed is that instead of being judged by the law as far as Heaven and Hell goes (Jews), we will be judged on faith in Jesus (Christians). The Bible does not say only very evil people will go to Hell. The loving part comes in two ways. One, the promise that God will always forgive a sincere heart. Two, He gave us his Son so we could have everlasting life if only we believe.

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches purgatory which is where people with faith go who are still living in a state where they are engaging in mortal sins.

Most Protestant churches do not believe in Purgatory.

Matthew 5:17

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

James 2:10

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

Romans 2:6-8

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Romans 3:31

Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Betweenyouandme

[GEML]

Glad to see some New Testament quotes from you over here!

But I do think the Duggars worship an Old Testament God. There is an enormous difference between the God of the Old Testament and the Father Jesus speaks of. It's not "rationalizing" to take Jesus at his word when I speak through that same Father God in my own prayers and in reading through the Bible. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if the people who are so fixated on the angry Old Testament God know He exists as Jesus promises. Sometimes, perhaps, they are the ones who might need to take a leap of faith and trust.

[Betweenyouandme]

Responding to post from Religion thread

Glad to see some New Testament quotes from you over here!

But I do think the Duggars worship an Old Testament God. There is an enormous difference between the God of the Old Testament and the Father Jesus speaks of. It's not "rationalizing" to take Jesus at his word when I speak through that same Father God in my own prayers and in reading through the Bible. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if the people who are so fixated on the angry Old Testament God know He exists as Jesus promises. Sometimes, perhaps, they are the ones who might need to take a leap of faith and trust.

Glad to see some New Testament quotes from you over here!

But I do think the Duggars worship an Old Testament God. There is an enormous difference between the God of the Old Testament and the Father Jesus speaks of. It's not "rationalizing" to take Jesus at his word when I speak through that same Father God in my own prayers and in reading through the Bible. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if the people who are so fixated on the angry Old Testament God know He exists as Jesus promises. Sometimes, perhaps, they are the ones who might need to take a leap of faith and trust.

Hi. I don't think we're using rationalizing in the same way. If we are, then, I think I disagree. What words of Jesus are you referring to? I do believe God is loving, but I also believe he still hates sin. I will love my child, but I will hate when she lies or is violent with another child. I'll still be angry. I don't think God being loving means God cannot be angry. The Bible, to my knowledge, certainly never says we are completely free to do everything bad we want and not try our best or still ask for forgiveness. Jesus coming was a huge event. But, Jesus didn't stop sin from being wrong. He made it so we could still be saved with eternal life through faith. I'm unsure of what else you're referring to at taking Jesus at his word.

That's a lot of Old Testament....

I don't think the Old Testament is void of anything useful and helpful or true.

If everything in the Bible was so immediately clear and impossible to misinterpret there would not be hundreds of different sects out there.

I think there would still be a lot of sects and denominations. However, I agree with your point. But, I also think some things are clearer than others, for example having faith and the Ten Commandments seem clear to me. I think a big difference is in how literally people take the Bible and how the churches are governed and operated. Then, as far as interpretations of certain verses, etc., I agree, there are lots of differences, especially given which Bible translation is used. But, I think looking out for the big, clear things is a more useful test to find a religious leader and home church if one is looking. If there's a moral dilemma that a person looking at the Bible can't figure out, I think asking a trusted leader and also praying to God for a discerning mind are both helpful. Sometimes it takes a while to realize if you're doing something bc you really just want to or if it's really the right thing. And, some decisions don't have a moral component, but I don't think praying hurts.

But, no, there are lots and lots of times there won't be an immediate answer. I don't think that means to give up or no longer seek an answer.

We're not going to get everything right. It takes diligence to listen to the Holy Spirit rather than our sinful hearts. That's what I believe. I believe there's a difference.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Betweenyouandme

[galax-arena]

Taken from Jessa & Ben's thread:

By reading the Bible, being knowledgable about it. Seeing if what your heart is telling you is against something the Bible commands.

But I think that's reductive. What you're saying here is still based on subjective interpretations of the Bible that very conveniently match up with what they want. Think of how many different translations there are of the Bible. Think of how many things were probably lost in translation when we went from ancient Hebrew to NIV English. Think of how many theologians disagree with each other on what a particular verse or even a single word means. So who really has the truth then?

 

I just think that Jessa et al should recognize their own sense of human fallibility when talking about how they believe something is a sin. To do otherwise seems like the height of arrogance and hubris, IMO. I was looking up my old college fellowship group's website, and this is what they had to say in their Beliefs section:

 

We try not to be dogmatic about matters on which Bible-based believers have held different views. It’s common for non-essentials to drive a wedge between people. We want our essential beliefs to be centered on Christ and His message as found in and supported by the clearest passages of Scripture.

 

In essential beliefs — we have unity.

 

"There is one Body and one Spirit...there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
and one God and Father of us all...” - Ephesians 4:4-6

 

In non-essential beliefs — we have liberty.

 

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment
on disputable matters...

Who are you to judge someone else's servant?
To his own master he stands or falls...

So then each of us will give an account
of himself to God...

So whatever you believe about these things
keep between yourself and God." - Romans 14:1,4,12,22

 

I wish the Duggars would be more like that. But I suppose even the question of non-essential v. essential beliefs could be up for subjective interpretation/debate...

[Betweenyouandme]

Taken from Jessa & Ben's thread:

But I think that's reductive. What you're saying here is still based on subjective interpretations of the Bible that very conveniently match up with what they want. Think of how many different translations there are of the Bible. Think of how many things were probably lost in translation when we went from ancient Hebrew to NIV English. Think of how many theologians disagree with each other on what a particular verse or even a single word means. So who really has the truth then?

I just think that Jessa et al should recognize their own sense of human fallibility when talking about how they believe something is a sin. To do otherwise seems like the height of arrogance and hubris, IMO. I was looking up my old college fellowship group's website, and this is what they had to say in their Beliefs section:

We try not to be dogmatic about matters on which Bible-based believers have held different views. It’s common for non-essentials to drive a wedge between people. We want our essential beliefs to be centered on Christ and His message as found in and supported by the clearest passages of Scripture.

In essential beliefs — we have unity.

"There is one Body and one Spirit...there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

and one God and Father of us all...” - Ephesians 4:4-6

In non-essential beliefs — we have liberty.

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment

on disputable matters...

Who are you to judge someone else's servant?

To his own master he stands or falls...

So then each of us will give an account

of himself to God...

So whatever you believe about these things

keep between yourself and God." - Romans 14:1,4,12,22

I wish the Duggars would be more like that. But I suppose even the question of non-essential v. essential beliefs could be up for subjective interpretation/debate...

I talked about some of this in above post too.

I think Jessa's post stuck to essential beliefs.

They aren't keeping non-essential beliefs to themselves since they're on TV talking about them, but neither is anyone who writes a Christian theology or Christian living book.

I personally think wearing skirts for women is non-essential. I don't think the Duggars would say not doing so is sending anyone to Hell. That's what they've chosen for their family. That's what many churches approve.

A lot of churches are denominational. Several differences are what I consider to be non-essential.

However, Jessa's post I think is referencing big things. She talks about what it takes to get to Heaven and that there's a Hell. Beware of false prophets. These are essentials as I see the Christian religion.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Betweenyouandme

[mbutterfly]

Taken from Jessa & Ben's thread:

 

But I think that's reductive. What you're saying here is still based on subjective interpretations of the Bible that very conveniently match up with what they want. Think of how many different translations there are of the Bible. Think of how many things were probably lost in translation when we went from ancient Hebrew to NIV English. Think of how many theologians disagree with each other on what a particular verse or even a single word means. So who really has the truth then?

 

I just think that Jessa et al should recognize their own sense of human fallibility when talking about how they believe something is a sin. To do otherwise seems like the height of arrogance and hubris, IMO. I was looking up my old college fellowship group's website, and this is what they had to say in their Beliefs section:

 

We try not to be dogmatic about matters on which Bible-based believers have held different views. It’s common for non-essentials to drive a wedge between people. We want our essential beliefs to be centered on Christ and His message as found in and supported by the clearest passages of Scripture.

 

In essential beliefs — we have unity.

 

"There is one Body and one Spirit...there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

and one God and Father of us all...” - Ephesians 4:4-6

 

In non-essential beliefs — we have liberty.

 

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment

on disputable matters...

Who are you to judge someone else's servant?

To his own master he stands or falls...

So then each of us will give an account

of himself to God...

So whatever you believe about these things

keep between yourself and God." - Romans 14:1,4,12,22

 

I wish the Duggars would be more like that. But I suppose even the question of non-essential v. essential beliefs could be up for subjective interpretation/debate...

I pretty much agree, but we do need to remember that is considerable scholarship in editing contemporary Bible versions. The Dead Sea scrolls gave us even more and older scrolls or bits of scrolls to compare. The study of the Greek of the New Testament and the Septuagint has never stopped being taught generation to generation and the same for Hebrew. I don't see a lot of significant differences of beliefs based upon using different versions. The differences come from developed traditions, I think, largely. Or people who kind of make things up like Bill Gothard. 

[GEML]

But while this is drastically overly simplistic, there had for centuries been a big breakdown between two big schools of thought in Protestantism in how the Bible should be interpreted. One is the Calvinist model - it's a much sterner, angrier God who stands in judgement and condemnation. The other is the Arminian model - a more loving and approachable God, who stands waiting for his Creation to recognize how much he wants to welcome them home.

Both are easy to "prove" Biblically, in both the Old and New Testaments, but our brains make it difficult to hold opposites of anything at the same time so we as a species tend to focus on one at the expense of the other.

It's clear whom the Duggars hold to. But that doesn't make their interpretation the ONLY one, even at the most basic level.

[Absolom]

And that is just two main splits of protestantism.  Eastern Orthodox, who have been around centuries longer, don't hold with the original sin doctrine that Augustine introduced.  If he'd stayed quiet, we could have avoided almost this entire discussion.  :)  

[GEML]

You say that you will "hate" when your child lies or is violent with another child. I'm not sure how old your child is, but I've raised a child, and it's hard for me to imagine "hating" my child, ever. Even when he did do things that were outright sinful. More to the point, in the parable of the two sons, there is nothing in that parable that leads me to believe that the father hates the son who takes his inheritance, squanders it in the worst way possible, humiliates the family and comes crawling home. Instead that father watched for that son with what I believe we are to read as love and hope and compassion. There's no hate in that parable that I can see, but that father is no fool.

That's the Parent I've tried to be with my children when they sin, and the Father God I'm talking to when I pray.

Oh yes. That man has quite a bit to answer for!! ;)

[Betweenyouandme]

I didn't say I would hate my child. I said I'd hate the sin. I will never partially sort of not really maybe kinda dislike sin. Obviously, I wouldn't scream at a kid about hating anything, as it is a distinction that older teens and adults should be able to make.

And, yes, the father loved the son who came home. He came home and wanted a change. God loves us...I'm saying it doesn't mean he NEVER gets angry. When we repent or try to do good again, God loves us all the more.

"17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate."...

"28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

Luke 15

He was lost and then is FOUND. That is what the rejoicing was over.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Betweenyouandme

[Literata]

I'm Christian, having grown up Catholic and now distanced from the church. Maybe I'm too simplistic, but I try to follow Jesus's command: "Love one another as I have loved you." That doesn't mean loving only those who wear dresses, or have crunchy long hair with bangs, or who follow Gothard's teachings, or who don't listen to music with a beat.

 

I know I'll have plenty to answer to if I'm lucky enough to experience an afterlife, but I can't help thinking St. Peter will have plenty to speak with the Duggars about as well. I don't care enough about them to be personally offended by their views, but I'm astonished at their arrogance. 

[GEML]

To me there is an enormous difference between hate and anger. I've never used the word hate in conjunction with my child in any way - not even in a "love my child, hate the sin" context. I don't think God does either. You can say that's a rationalization if you like. But if God can give flawed human parents that kind of unconditional love for their own flawed children, it's ridiculous to think that his own love is somehow more limited than my own.

[Betweenyouandme]

To me there is an enormous difference between hate and anger. I've never used the word hate in conjunction with my child in any way - not even in a "love my child, hate the sin" context. I don't think God does either. You can say that's a rationalization if you like. But if God can give flawed human parents that kind of unconditional love for their own flawed children, it's ridiculous to think that his own love is somehow more limited than my own.

You're putting words in my mouth. I firmly believe God hates murder, rape, lying, etc. If you don't, okay. But, I clearly have said I don't and wouldn't go around yelling or even saying calmly that I hate anything about a child. That doesn't mean I have to have any partial love in my heart for rape. I see a gigantic difference in that. God does love us unconditionally, but I don't think that means he loves sin or that everyone is going to Heaven.

[Absolom]

Gospel pride is a terrible but very real thing and it seems Jessa and Ben have a bad case of it.  

[Betweenyouandme]

romans 12:9

Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good

Jesus died for us while we were still sinners. He loves us. That doesn't mean he loves sin.

Judgment of us is reserved for God. But that doesn't mean we should have no thoughts on if, for example, murder is wrong. This is how I separate the sin v the sinner. Am I judging or trying to judge a person or am I saying that the Bible says murder is wrong? How would I raise my child if i had no thoughts at all about right or wrong?

Edited February 26, 2015 by Betweenyouandme

[GEML]

I have no idea how you would raise your child. I'm only saying how I raised mine and how that had given me insight into scripture, which is a very different insight than where it took people like the Duggars. And I raised a reverent child who holds the values even a Duggar wouldn't sneer at, without teaching him that God hated His own Creation.

That may not be the way you want to raise your children. That's fine. But having grown up in the Fundamentalist world myself, I chose a different way.

Sorry - this one cross posted. Please move this one as well.

Edited February 26, 2015 by GEML

[GEML]

Gospel pride is a terrible but very real thing and it seems Jessa and Ben have a bad case of it.

There's a reason Jesus talks more about self-righteousness more than any other sin. Doesn't mean other sins aren't important, but it's awfully difficult to follow the first two Commandments of loving God with all your Heart, Soul, Mind and Strength and then your Neighbor as yourself if you are all caught up and busy loving and praising yourself and putting other people down.

Edited February 26, 2015 by GEML