Gimme That Old Time Religion

[kokapetl]

Similar to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Apocrypha books. Jesus plays with clay sparrows that he made.

I may have attributed the bird story to the wrong source. I also heard a story about child Jesus being wrongly accused of causing another child's death, and so child Jesus resurrects the dead child to recount what happened. I don't know what the source of that is.

[GEML]

Oh, I will say that "the prosperity gospel" does make me really angry really quickly. If wealth were a sign of God's love and grace as expressed by people, then the continents that have it are all messed up.

Edited July 2, 2015 by GEML

[Rhetorica]

I may have attributed the bird story to the wrong source. I also heard a story about child Jesus being wrongly accused of causing another child's death, and so child Jesus resurrects the dead child to recount what happened. I don't know what the source of that is.

That's from the Apocrypha too. The bird story may be from the Koran too. I'm not an Islamic scholar. The only infant story of Jesus I know about in the Koran is baby Jesus speaking when Mary took him to the temple. The men basically called her a liar and slut and her son stuck up for her.

Oh dear, when did Blinginess become Godliness?

Yeah, I thought, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

[DangerousMinds]

Hey, I grew up in this movement. Talk about the crazies coming out of the woodwork! If you want to get me hostile and ranting just bring up charismania and the nuts who follow it and preach it. It took me years and a lot of hard work to purge this sickness out of my system.

 

Someone wondered when bling became associated with godliness. I can tell you why. Charismatics and particularly word of faith people (confessing yourself into prosperity) believe it represents your "success" as a christian, that God is blessing you and increasing your prosperity, that you're in God's will, in alignment with Him. The implication--and it's sometimes it's stated out loud-- is if you're sick-poor-struggling you're out of God's will. Grrrrrrr.

 

It really shocked me that the Duggars aren't charismatics. Truly, they're sane and moderate compared to charismatics.

Hmmm, you know how hard it is for a rich man to get into heaven, as the bible says, IIRC.

[Absolom]

I'm finding the references to Jesus being in the Apocrypha confusing.  The books listed as the Apocrypha in the Bibles I have all pre-date Jesus.  The books are between the OT and the NT in placement and time.  Is there a second Apocrypha or perhaps it's a reference to the pseudo-Gospels?

Edited July 5, 2015 by Absolom

[Churchhoney]

I'm finding the references to Jesus being in the Apocrypha confusing.  The books listed as the Apocrypha in the Bibles I have all pre-date Jesus.  The books are between the OT and the NT in placement and time.  Is there a second Apocrypha or perhaps it's a reference to the pseudo-Gospels?

 

If the clay birds are in the Infancy Gospel of St. Thomas, as someone said above, then that's a pseudogospel.

[GEML]

If you want to know about crazy American cults or the history of Protestant martyrdom, I'm here for you. But the Apocrypha and the "Lost" Gospels and things like that? I'm out of my depth.

[kokapetl]

What size hair shirt should JimChelle buy for Josh?

[JoanArc]

I'm finding the references to Jesus being in the Apocrypha confusing.  The books listed as the Apocrypha in the Bibles I have all pre-date Jesus.  The books are between the OT and the NT in placement and time.  Is there a second Apocrypha or perhaps it's a reference to the pseudo-Gospels?

Wouldn't the gnostic gospels all post-date Jesus?

 

Studying Apocrypha is one of the things that seals Christianity as being made up nonsense to me.

[Rhetorica]

I'm finding the references to Jesus being in the Apocrypha confusing. The books listed as the Apocrypha in the Bibles I have all pre-date Jesus. The books are between the OT and the NT in placement and time. Is there a second Apocrypha or perhaps it's a reference to the pseudo-Gospels?

I'm finding the references to Jesus being in the Apocrypha confusing. The books listed as the Apocrypha in the Bibles I have all pre-date Jesus. The books are between the OT and the NT in placement and time. Is there a second Apocrypha or perhaps it's a reference to the pseudo-Gospels?

Apocrypha just means "hidden" texts. These were books that the men in the Nicene council, and later councils, deemed not worthy to be included in the Bible. Some may refer to them as pseudo-Gospels but that has a negative connotation. I hope I've helped and not confused more.

[Rhetorica]

If the clay birds are in the Infancy Gospel of St. Thomas, as someone said above, then that's a pseudogospel.

But that's the problem. Who's to say they're pseudo? A group of men that meet with like minds and like agendas can decide what's bogus and therefore banned?

[Micks Picks]

No that's not a problem.  It's a lack of evidence, or disagreement about the validity of the evidence, that accepts or denies, in this case inclusion into the bible.  It happens every day among thoughtful people worldwide in all fields.

[Absolom]

Apocrypha has a general meaning of the word, but when used in reference to the Bible, it has a specific list of books called out as the Apocrypha.  They are generally printed in a separate section between the OT and NT although in Orthodox Bibles they are frequently interspersed within the OT. 

[Churchhoney]

But that's the problem. Who's to say they're pseudo? A group of men that meet with like minds and like agendas can decide what's bogus and therefore banned?

 

Yeah, I agree. I was only saying that that book, for whatever reason, is classified as one of what's called the "pseudogospels" and isn't among the bunch generally published as "the apochrypha." I wasn't commenting on the authenticity or truth or whatever of any of them. It's obviously all the product of various people's ideas, analysis and agendas through history.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Churchhoney

[Portia]

I'm a liberal Baptist, so I'm used to encountering "doctrine" that I think is stupid and dangerous, but it's been a long time since I've been directly exposed to the outright name-it-and-claim-it, believe-it-and-it-will-come-to-pass stuff. Until recently, that is. We were traveling with a Christian teen musical group that my husband directs, and after a public concert one of the students, who is a double amputee due to a birth defect, was approached by a stranger who wanted to pray with her that her legs would grow back. When our incredibly well-adjusted young friend stammered that she doesn't think that's going to happen and tried to tell the woman how much God has taught her and used her as a result of her "disability," she was interrupted by the woman snapping that God could heal her if she had enough faith. I really wish I had been there when this happened, because I would have LOVED to have taken this woman on for directing that kind of destructive teaching at a child.

[Rhetorica]

All good points on the Apocrypha writings and doctrine. I think most debates begin with word interpretations. That's why the first thing you do in debate is define terms. We each assign meaning based on our own experience. Open discussion on this forum is well presented and respectful. That makes learning from others easier and fun, in addition.

[Julia]

We were traveling with a Christian teen musical group that my husband directs, and after a public concert one of the students, who is a double amputee due to a birth defect, was approached by a stranger who wanted to pray with her that her legs would grow back. When our incredibly well-adjusted young friend stammered that she doesn't think that's going to happen and tried to tell the woman how much God has taught her and used her as a result of her "disability," she was interrupted by the woman snapping that God could heal her if she had enough faith. 

 

So, was God punishing her for having insufficient faith as a zygote, or does God smite the children of the insufficiently faithful? That's wrong on so many levels.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Julia

[Churchhoney]

Installment of a creepy Gothard story. Makes me wonder how much influence his sex-related creepiness has had on the Duggars' warped views of what is and isn't appropriate.

 

https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/how-i-survived-homeschooling-in-bill-gothards-cult-part-three/

 

 

"At some point Bill took off his shoes and encouraged me to do the same. I gladly took them off, since I’m used to not wearing shoes whenever I can. Shortly after, I felt his foot on my ankle. I quickly pulled my feet away and to the side, looking over at him. He was smiling at me. I said “Pardon me”, and tried to put distance between us. Yuck was the word running through my head, and I couldn’t wait to get out of the van. A part of me wondered if I’d misunderstood – maybe his foot accidentally hit me. Even so, I made sure to keep my body as much to myself as possible. I was enormously relieved when we arrived.

 

"I don’t remember very much about what was taught that week, except that it was more of the same stuff in the “Wisdom” Booklets....Occasionally Bill had me sit across or next to him when we gathered to eat. I learned quickly to sit with my feet tucked securely away from him and my chair moved away as far as possible....

 

"....At some point towards the end of the week, we had an afternoon session where we were instructed to examine ourselves and find any sin that would hinder us from helping others. We were told this sin could be unkind thoughts, lust of the eyes, too much “worldly” influence (i.e. music with a beat, wrong clothes, spending time with the wrong people-anyone outside the group or who lived life differently and wouldn’t accept “God’s truths” as taught by IBLP/ATIA), stepping outside of your father’s authority, etc."

[galax-arena]

Taken from the Josh & Anna thread, because I thought it'd be more fitting here:

That irks me too, so much. The whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" concept, odious to begin with, is taken to really evil extremes with them. There are lots of things about me that would qualify as "sins" that they feel free to hate while "loving" me. Thanks guys, I don't need your creepy-assed "love". Or your judgement regarding ANYTHING about my life.

Oh man, I don't even have the words to express how much I utterly loathe "love the sinner, hate the sin." It's such an utterly toxic, condescending form of "love." And it's so frustrating when people use this line (or some variation thereof) as though it's some revelatory concept that the other side has never heard before. Newsflash: It's not! We've all heard it! I used to be a Christian, I lived it, I breathed it, I said the exact phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" with 100% sincerity. You're not telling me anything new when you earnestly explain that no, you don't hate anyone, you just hate their sin (which apparently necessitates nagging and harassing people about it lest anyone think that you don't really hate the aforementioned sin).

[Aja]

It's such an utterly toxic, condescending form of "love."

Yes. What a great way of putting it. I, too, was brought up in the church, and even as a little kid, I had a very hard time understanding this. In retrospect I was observing the glaring inconsistency of being told, on the one hand, to love thy neighbor and judge not, but on the other hand, you should view everyone not currently in this room as suspicious and evil. But I was instilled with so much fear that I never dared to question anything. Fear and mind control is all it is, in my opinion and experience. Love does not play any role whatsoever in many current forms of Christianity, and this was the main problem I had with it, and why I simply cannot be a part of it. I need love in my life. I don't need my guiding principles to be based on hate and fear of other people.

 

ETA: And speaking of love, I LOVE coming here and reading yous guyses discussions. You are all so smart and have such interesting things to say! Seriously, TLC should film all of you and pay for your new McMansions, because I'd watch you talk about stuff all day long.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Aja

[galax-arena]

Love does not play any role whatsoever in many current forms of Christianity

Yes, this. And I do know some incredibly kind, loving Christians, but none of them are the type to talk about "speaking the truth in love" or "loving the sinner but hating the sin." They don't need to pay lip service - because that's all it really is - with trite platitudes about loving everybody, because they're actually living it. 

 

Some links that I think do a much better job of explaining a lot of people's issues with "love the sinner, hate the sin" -

A problem with speaking "truth in love":

That is, whenever we try to practice “judgmental truth in love,” our secret “love for judgment” tilts the scales, and the “judgmental end” far outweighs the expressed patience, compassion, understanding, mercy, and tenderness.

No, Adam really really doesn't hate you:

There’s a term for telling people that the things they are experiencing as attacks aren’t, that they should instead take them as signs of love, and that they should doubt their entire perception of the world. It’s called gaslighting. And it’s mental abuse.
...
This is why all of the “love” rhetoric that has suddenly become the focus of younger evangelicals is toxic: because it redefines “love” as something that happens on a theoretical level, and not on a real one.
...
They love the potential that your soul has to go to heaven. They love you in a theoretical way, while hating everything about the actual you. Remember “love the sinner, hate the sin”? Your soul (which exists only on a metaphorical level) is “the sinner.” Everything else is “the sin.”

3 reasons I quit loving the sinner and hating the sin:

“Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin” is made of 25% Love and 75% Sinner, Hate and Sin. And that ratio should tell us something. In fact, that ratio is the antithesis of Jesus’ life, Jesus’ words, Jesus’ actions, and Jesus’ friendships.

 

Does it really come as a surprise to us Christians that a phrase made of 1 Part Love and 3 Parts Sinner, Hate and Sin has failed rather spectacularly to deliver a love message? Because it’s not a love message, of course, despite what we tell ourselves. It’s a Standards message. A Moral Code message. And a big, giant BUT. We will love you, it says, BUT we will call you Sinner and watch you carefully to determine which of your actions are Sin so we can call you out and Hate those things.

 

Is it any wonder to us that the love message gets lost in there? Or that we’re missing the mark when we’re more concerned with holding people to a high moral standard than we are with loving them?

The Duggars fail at, like, all of this. 

[Pixie Chicken]

Here's the thing -- "love the sinner, hate the sin" is not a cop-out when it's applied as originally intended. Christians believe we are all sinners, which is why we all need Jesus for our salvation. NONE of us is perfect or blameless.

At the same time, we are called to love one another-- though we're all sinful by nature. We lie, we gossip, we lust, etc etc etc. We're also reminded not to judge others unless we're prepared to be judged by the same measure. Somewhere along the way, gay people became this extra-terrible class of super sinners, worse than the rest of us. That's not a Biblical perspective, and "love the sinner" has been twisted into a justification for that attitude.

All it really means? We can hate sinful behavior OF ANY KIND, and still love the people who commit those sins.

Even within the Christian community, there's a lot of variation as to whether homosexuality is a sin. For those who believe it is, a more Christian approach would be to love those people (really-- not just say so and act like jerks) and to pray for them, not to write hateful missives on Twitter, a la the Duggars.

There's an old saying that the Duggars and their ilk would be wise to remember: "Don't judge someone for sinning differently than you."

[galax-arena]

We can hate sinful behavior OF ANY KIND, and still love the people who commit those sins.

Yeah, I mean, I agree with the idealized concept/theory behind "love the sinner, hate the sin." We all have people we love but whose actions we don't necessarily agree with. However, the only time I've ever heard "love the sinner, hate the sin" trotted out has been to justify relentlessly calling out people for their sin. There is just way too much emphasis on hate and not enough on love, because god forbid anyone thinks that you're going soft on sin. The people who use this phrase are, IME, less concerned with the sin itself and more concerned with the appearance of being righteous. So in theory, the phrase might have merit, but reality (i.e. how the phrase is applied) is a different story. It doesn't help that the people who typically resort to this phrase generally mischaracterize the other side's position and act condescending and patronizing about it, as though the rest of us aren't already familiar with the idea and simply don't get it. We get it, we just think it's bullshit.

 

At this point, the phrase and its variants serve as a dogwhistle for me in letting me know that I probably will not like the person who says it.

 

I know a few people who live out the idealized theory... but they never actually say the words. They don't have to.

[Pixie Chicken]

It's not a phrase I use much, either. Frankly, I don't get the laser-like focus on ONE sin when there are so many that are so much more harmful and pervasive. The hand-wringing over gay marriage is too much for me.

People like the Duggars and groups like the FRC are quick to point out that people pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow, and that's bad bad bad, but is it really any better to zero in on ONE group of "sinners" and blame them for all society's ills? That's "picking and choosing," too.

It's behavior like this that makes the general public think poorly of Christians as an entire group. I think the Duggars enjoy the martyrdom that comes from their "persecution," but their actions don't resemble those of Jesus, IMHO.

[galax-arena]

It's not a phrase I use much, either. Frankly, I don't get the laser-like focus on ONE sin when there are so many that are so much more harmful and pervasive. The hand-wringing over gay marriage is too much for me.

 

People like the Duggars and groups like the FRC are quick to point out that people pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow, and that's bad bad bad, but is it really any better to zero in on ONE group of "sinners" and blame them for all society's ills? That's "picking and choosing," too.

It's funny that you mention the idea of singling out and focusing on one group of sinners, because to me it seems like the phrase is usually followed up with some sort of hasty reassurance that we're all equal sinners in the eyes of the Lord. But it does seem to be more lip service than anything else. Sure, they say that we're all equally unworthy sinners, but they still spend more time focusing on the speck in someone else's eye than the plank in their own.

 

There's this one pastor I know who rails against homosexuality and talks about how you can't be gay and a Christian at the same time. However, he also rails against divorce and remarriage and adultery and pre-marital sex and feminism with equal vehemence. He also has no problem saying that babies are going to hell. And even though I find his positions abhorrent, a part of me can't help but think, "Well, props for not thinking that gay people are a special class of evil then?" (Because he really hates divorce, lmao.) The funny thing is that he actually wrote a blog post justifying why Christians single out homosexuality, even though he's one of the few anti-gay pastors I've come across who doesn't seem to be completely preoccupied with it.

[DangerousMinds]

At least he's consistent.

[kokapetl]

It's funny that you mention the idea of singling out and focusing on one group of sinners, because to me it seems like the phrase is usually followed up with some sort of hasty reassurance that we're all equal sinners in the eyes of the Lord. But it does seem to be more lip service than anything else. Sure, they say that we're all equally unworthy sinners, but they still spend more time focusing on the speck in someone else's eye than the plank in their own.

There's this one pastor I know who rails against homosexuality and talks about how you can't be gay and a Christian at the same time. However, he also rails against divorce and remarriage and adultery and pre-marital sex and feminism with equal vehemence. He also has no problem saying that babies are going to hell. And even though I find his positions abhorrent, a part of me can't help but think, "Well, props for not thinking that gay people are a special class of evil then?" (Because he really hates divorce, lmao.) The funny thing is that he actually wrote a blog post justifying why Christians single out homosexuality, even though he's one of the few anti-gay pastors I've come across who doesn't seem to be completely preoccupied with it.

Who the hell is showing up to his church on Sundays?

[Defrauder]

With everything going on in the world today the Duggars are so self centered and conceited in my opinion to think that God has nothing better to do than sit around figuring out who to match up the latest Duggar with.  It's not like they were born without brains, emotions, the ability to experience and figure these things out for themselves.  It's like they're saying - I can't do it - you do it.  They don't get it, they're turning any gifts they have into useless liabilities.  It's so backwards.  Maybe God has better things to do than to figure out who you should marry.

 

While the Duggars raise their children - God forbid they should trust them out of their site for 10 minutes.  They're incapable of morality on their own - according to them.

[GEML]

Well, I think who you should marry is a pretty big decision, and it's one I actually (speaking for myself) WOULD rely on God for. Not that I didn't rely on my "worldly" gifts, but it was a two way communication as I made the decisions.

[Defrauder]

Well, I think who you should marry is a pretty big decision, and it's one I actually (speaking for myself) WOULD rely on God for. Not that I didn't rely on my "worldly" gifts, but it was a two way communication as I made the decisions.

Yes I can understand that - but they're not allowed to even explore (innocently and decently - and modestly) who they may like and who they may not.  I just don't believe limiting oneself to letting it be entirely "God's decision' or mommies or daddies is healthy for an adult.   If they reach adulthood and they can not even trust their own instincts and morality to date or even text someone privately something is wrong.  

If you can't kiss a guy before your wedding day or even have a private conversation with them it's really bad because all of this information would help someone know if the person was right for them, not just pimp daddy's OK.

[Defrauder]

The Duggars claim to follow Jesus yet I don't remember Jesus taking a chaperone with him in the desert for 40 days,  Untested metal is weak but they don't even trust their own morality enough to take the test.  Good thing Jesus didn't have JB and Mechelle as parents.  Gothard is the Duggars god.  Could one of the Duggars handle an unchaparoned date?  We'll never know.  

[Adiba]

Don't know if this has been covered before, but do the Duggars believe that God gave each of us free will? Aren't things like chaperones and " accountability partners" ( especially after the person has turned 18) taking away a person's free will to make their own choices about life?

I mean, you can put someone in solitary confinement to ensure that they will do no wrong-- but does that mean that they are " good" in the eyes of God? --Just wondering about the Duggar/fundy perspective on this

[Defrauder]

Don't know if this has been covered before, but do the Duggars believe that God gave each of us free will? Aren't things like chaperones and " accountability partners" ( especially after the person has turned 18) taking away a person's free will to make their own choices about life?

I mean, you can put someone in solitary confinement to ensure that they will do no wrong-- but does that mean that they are " good" in the eyes of God? --Just wondering about the Duggar/fundy perspective on this

I believe the Duggars see free will as having the free will to give your free will to God to do with what is best.  

[galax-arena]

but they're not allowed to even explore (innocently and decently - and modestly) who they may like and who they may not.  I just don't believe limiting oneself to letting it be entirely "God's decision'

Oh, you know for a lot of these people, "God's decision" just so happens to conveniently line up with what they personally want. God laid it on their hearts, indeed.

[GEML]

The Duggars live in total fear that your life will be destroyed if you make a mistake/sin. They are especially worried about sexual and money mistakes and sins. Of course, this view will only be reinforced with the Josh situation.

For awhile, it kind of looked as if they were moving somewhat away from Gothardism for everything. Still quiverful Fundy, but you could tell the show had given them a confidence (actually an arrogance) that had caused them to spread out a little. The children from about James down weren't being raised with the same strict teachings as those above him. I'm not sure they could be with so many cameras.

But I'm wondering if all this sends them back.

[Defrauder]

The Duggars live in total fear that your life will be destroyed if you make a mistake/sin. They are especially worried about sexual and money mistakes and sins. Of course, this view will only be reinforced with the Josh situation.

For awhile, it kind of looked as if they were moving somewhat away from Gothardism for everything. Still quiverful Fundy, but you could tell the show had given them a confidence (actually an arrogance) that had caused them to spread out a little. The children from about James down weren't being raised with the same strict teachings as those above him. I'm not sure they could be with so many cameras.

But I'm wondering if all this sends them back.

I think very superficially they seemed to distance themselves from Gothard (for the show's sake probably) but didn't they ship Josiah off to one of the camps recently?  Plus all of Gothard's vocab still runs through their blood like holy wine or in their case holy soda.  It was Gothard's rule that decided - no kiss before wedding day because according to him he decided to never kiss someone before his wedding day - and he has never kissed a girl.  Gothard's laws of the land still apply in Duggarland.

[GEML]

A lot of the language and the kissing stuff aren't Gothard specific. But some of the allowances they've made with the younger children were encouraging. Gothard is very isolating, strict and totally parent driven. (He wouldn't condone their buddy system.). The young children's clothing choices allow them far more physical freedom than the older children's ever did. They are less accounted for, etc.

[Defrauder]

Oh, you know for a lot of these people, "God's decision" just so happens to conveniently line up with what they personally want. God laid it on their hearts, indeed.

Since they deceive themselves into believing that their will is given to God than whatever they decide is actually what God decided for them.  "God decided". "Laid it on our hearts".  

A lot of the language and the kissing stuff aren't Gothard specific. But some of the allowances they've made with the younger children were encouraging. Gothard is very isolating, strict and totally parent driven. (He wouldn't condone their buddy system.). The young children's clothing choices allow them far more physical freedom than the older children's ever did. They are less accounted for, etc.

If you check out Gothard's own website you will see words like 'purposing' 'defrauding', etc.  He also get's very specific in explaining the story of how when he was a young man one of his older sister's told him a story of a friend of hers who had gone out on a date and a guy kissed her so she gave her heart to him and then he went out with another girl.  It was all the way back then that he decided that he would never kiss a girl before his wedding day and being that he never married he claims to have never kissed a girl.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Defrauder

[mbutterfly]

Love the sinner, hate the sin is a good thing to say to oneself. You remind yourself that you are fully aware you've morally messed up, but that you still feel love and understanding for your feeble stumbling self.

Period. 

[GEML]

Given that THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE was a major best seller even outside of religious circles, I'm in pretty safe ground when I say that a LOT of the language the Duggars use is pretty standard evangelicalese/Fundyisms with a few specific Gothardisms thrown in. And plenty of Fundy groups are doing the "courting" and "save the kids" type stuff. None of that has ever been Gothard specific.

[kokapetl]

The Duggars claim to follow Jesus yet I don't remember Jesus taking a chaperone with him in the desert for 40 days, Untested metal is weak but they don't even trust their own morality enough to take the test. Good thing Jesus didn't have JB and Mechelle as parents. Gothard is the Duggars god. Could one of the Duggars handle an unchaparoned date? We'll never know.

Jesus is his own father, he would be his own chaperone.

[Defrauder]

Jesus is his own father, he would be his own chaperone.

I thought the Duggars always carry God within them in their hearts.  Do they not trust God to chaperone them?  A mortal father capable of sin, such as JB, would not be the same as Jesus.  Untested metal is weak.  Was Jesus tested in the desert?  So the story goes. 

A lot of the language and the kissing stuff aren't Gothard specific. But some of the allowances they've made with the younger children were encouraging. Gothard is very isolating, strict and totally parent driven. (He wouldn't condone their buddy system.). The young children's clothing choices allow them far more physical freedom than the older children's ever did. They are less accounted for, etc.

Just wondering how you know that he wouldn't condone their buddy system, is it in one of his writings or instructions?

[Defrauder]

Given that THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE was a major best seller even outside of religious circles, I'm in pretty safe ground when I say that a LOT of the language the Duggars use is pretty standard evangelicalese/Fundyisms with a few specific Gothardisms thrown in. And plenty of Fundy groups are doing the "courting" and "save the kids" type stuff. None of that has ever been Gothard specific.

Not speculating why, but the author of The Purpose Driven Life had 3 children, one of whom killed himself.  Could have been anything but I wouldn't feel comfortable taking his life advice or philosophy.  Regardless of that the entire homeschool lessons the Duggars use to educate their children from kindergarten through high school are Gothard based.  Not to mention the Journey to the Heart the girls go to and the ALERT camps the boys go to all stem back to good ole Gothard.  Maybe they read the Purpose Driven Life but their entire lives revolve around Gothard's teachings.

[kokapetl]

I posted this in the Smuggar thread, about a sample 'Wisdom Booklet'

'Wisdom Booklet'

The Case of the Foreigner Who Turned Out to Be a Coroner

A young attorney was defending his client in a murder case. He claimed that the death was a result of suicide and not homicide. An old German doctor had performed the autopsy and was convinced that the fatal bullet wound could not have been self- inflicted.

Cross-Examiner: “Doctor, you seem very certain about your findings in this case. You do

not give it as your opinion that the wound in this case could not have been self-inflicted, but you state it as a matter of fact—swear to it as a matter of fact. Now, I would like to ask you—by any chance is this the first autopsy you have ever made? I don’t find your name anywhere in our local medical directory.”

Doctor: “No, I can say that I have made a previous autopsy.”

Cross-Examiner: “Well, can you go as far as to say you have made five autopsies?”

Doctor: “Yes—yes, I think I can say that I have made five autopsies.”

Cross-Examiner: “Well, sir, why beat about the bush? Let’s put it this way: Can you say you have made a thousand autopsies?”

Doctor: “Well, I think I can truthfully say I probably have. You see, I was coroner for forty years for the city of Berlin before I came to this country!”

Biblical ramblings follow, but I don't see the logic of that story.

I found most of it impenetrable (I'm not religious), but there is something wrong with the anecdotes

Edited July 10, 2015 by Kokapetl

[Defrauder]

I posted this in the Smuggar thread, about a sample 'Wisdom Booklet'

My theory is is that they make up a story such as this that doesn't make sense, they then quote biblical verses that attempt to 'explain' the story therefore making the bible the great book of answers to life.  If it still doesn't make sense - that works for them too because the person (a kid, somewhat impressionable) thinks wow I can't understand this on my own, I need the bible to explain it to me and if I still don't understand it I'm not smart enough and I need church authority to guide me.  It's a win-win.  The kid loses confidence in their own ability to make sense of things and 'submits' their very intellect to the authorities.

[anony mouse]

Not speculating why, but the author of The Purpose Driven Life had 3 children, one of whom killed himself. Could have been anything but I wouldn't feel comfortable taking his life advice or philosophy. Regardless of that the entire homeschool lessons the Duggars use to educate their children from kindergarten through high school are Gothard based. Not to mention the Journey to the Heart the girls go to and the ALERT camps the boys go to all stem back to good ole Gothard. Maybe they read the Purpose Driven Life but their entire lives revolve around Gothard's teachings.

This sounds like you're blaming the author for his son's suicide. That's pretty horrible.

[galax-arena]

Not speculating why, but the author of The Purpose Driven Life had 3 children, one of whom killed himself.  Could have been anything but I wouldn't feel comfortable taking his life advice or philosophy.

I loathe Rick Warren but I don't think it's right to blame him for his son's suicide. We don't know what happened there. 

[Sew Sumi]

I loathe Rick Warren but I don't think it's right to blame him for his son's suicide. We don't know what happened there. 

I'm pretty sure the son suffered from severe depression, something that Warren had dismissed in the past, saying God would cure him, blah blah blah...

 

Warren really only came around after the fact, but to his credit, now speaks out on issues regarding mental illness. 

[GEML]

Look, I'm not saying that they are Gothardites, just that unless you are really in the subculture weeds it's really difficult to tangle out what is Gothard and what is general evangelicalese/Fundy. And Gothard LOVES to take ideas that are out in the air and claim that he invented them or has made them "extra special" for his followers, so even an idea that comes from his teaching has to be checked against Fundy thought and sermons and writings to see if he's telling the truth.

My point is that the younger children aren't being raised as isolated and strictly as the older children. The Duggars don't NEED the Gothard community the way they once did. (Case in point, they attended a mainstream denominational church in Little Rock which Josie was in the hospital. Early Duggars would NEVER have done that.)

[Julia]

According to Warren, his son was diagnosed as clinically depressed at age six, and received treatment for it all his life.

 

I do think you can make the case that for Warren to have that personal experience of how hard it is to deal with mental illness and not use his pulpit to speak out and destigmatize treatment until after his son's death was a poor choice (he told CNN he was trying to let his son live with "dignity" by not discussing it). I think, though, that the reason it was a poor choice is that mental illness is not a weakness and not a reflection on the family it appears in.