Gimme That Old Time Religion

[Portia]

Everyone in this conversation is giving me excellent food for thought. I am very much the liberal minority at my church, and I have been guilty of both extremes: being silent when I know I shouldn't be, and being vocal about my convictions in such an arrogant way that I lose my audience. I just joined a new Sunday school class, and I sincerely want to strike the right balance as I get to know my classmates and let them get to know me.  You guys are honestly raising issues that I need to pray about.  Thanks for that!

[Jellybeans]

Not to get on the legal bandwagon but the Supreme Court ruled hate speech is protected speech.  So if you are for free speech, it is difficult to figure out in your mind.  Free speech is important to me.  Hate speech is hateful but it is free speech.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Jellybeans
added last line even though I hate it

[questionfear]

30 minutes ago, Jellybeans said:

Not to get on the legal bandwagon but the Supreme Court ruled hate speech is protected speech.  So if you are for free speech, it is difficult to figure out in your mind.  Free speech is important to me.  Hate speech is hateful but it is free speech.

1) Absolutely, people can say what they want most of the time. I just don't think anyone should keep their mouth shut about it either. People can say hateful things but it is also up to everybody who disagrees to say so. 

2) Free speech is in fact limited. You cannot, for example, incite violence or use speech to create a violent situation (like creating a mass stampede by yelling fire in a crowded theater). Also remember that free speech means the GOVERNMENT can't stop what you say. Doesn't mean other people can't point out when something terrible is being said. 

3) There's something called the tolerance paradox that says you shouldn't be tolerant of hateful speech, because in the end the tolerant people lose while the intolerant ones are in control. Basically, if you see a group of white supremacists, it's ok to hate them, because tolerating them causes far more harm than letting them spread their vitriol. 

I am all for free speech. The Duggars can stand on every damn street corner and hold up signs about gays and Jews going to hell. But this gay Jew will cast a wicked side eye to anyone who hangs out with them, claims to dislike what they have to say, but doesn't speak up against it. That's what I am saying. 

And there are some things that I can't just agree to disagree with people about, like LGBT rights. If we agree to disagree, what happens is that the person who wants to strip my rights gets equal standing with my desire to have rights, and that is an unfair imbalance with far reaching, and extraordinarily expensive and painful impact for someone like me. 

[lookeyloo]

20 minutes ago, questionfear said:

1) Absolutely, people can say what they want most of the time. I just don't think anyone should keep their mouth shut about it either. People can say hateful things but it is also up to everybody who disagrees to say so. 

2) Free speech is in fact limited. You cannot, for example, incite violence or use speech to create a violent situation (like creating a mass stampede by yelling fire in a crowded theater). Also remember that free speech means the GOVERNMENT can't stop what you say. Doesn't mean other people can't point out when something terrible is being said. 

3) There's something called the tolerance paradox that says you shouldn't be tolerant of hateful speech, because in the end the tolerant people lose while the intolerant ones are in control. Basically, if you see a group of white supremacists, it's ok to hate them, because tolerating them causes far more harm than letting them spread their vitriol. 

I am all for free speech. The Duggars can stand on every damn street corner and hold up signs about gays and Jews going to hell. But this gay Jew will cast a wicked side eye to anyone who hangs out with them, claims to dislike what they have to say, but doesn't speak up against it. That's what I am saying. 

And there are some things that I can't just agree to disagree with people about, like LGBT rights. If we agree to disagree, what happens is that the person who wants to strip my rights gets equal standing with my desire to have rights, and that is an unfair imbalance with far reaching, and extraordinarily expensive and painful impact for someone like me. 

I am the mother of a Jewish gay son.  I agree with you.   Totally...

[latetotheparty]

8 hours ago, Portia said:

I checked this out at 3:00 this morning during a bout of insomnia, and I was stunned to see that a woman referenced in the article is an old friend from high school. No lie. I went to her wedding. She has a very distinctive name, but even so, I double-checked to make sure it's the same person. She's very pretty and sweet and devout, and apparently she's written her gay child out of her life. YIKES.

Edited to add: you know why I really can't understand someone making that decision?  Because my very devout Christian parents (who were born in the 1920s, mind you) never DREAMED of writing off my gay brother when he came out to them in the 1970s (when having an out gay child was very rare indeed in our community). They didn't consider it a compromise of their beliefs to remain in his life.  And you know, I think that is a major reason that he never abandoned the faith he was raised in. Today he himself is a very devout man and a strong leader in his church.

I agree. My mom came out in 1971. My devout grandmother (who was born in the 1890s) did not have the easiest time at first but abandon ger daughter?  Never. I've often wondered - she was a secretary for the YWCA in the 20s before she got married. I expect mom and her partner might not have the first lesbians she encountered. 

[kalamac]

From xkcd. (Not calling anyone here an asshole, just appreciate this comic, as many people out in the world seem to misunderstand 'free speech' as I can say anything I want and everyone has to listen to me.)

Edited September 6, 2017 by kalamac

[frenchtoast]

Let's get back to the focus of this topic, please. Discuss theology and doctrines of religions, especially specific to what the Duggars follow and how it compares to other faiths. 

[MunichNark]

Something that continues to puzzle me. Now bearing in mind that my own background is Catholic and I am not of the terribly "happy go lucky" persuasion.......but....why do these people always seem so particularly devasted when things go wrong or not their way? See Michaela Bates and her lack of pregnancy. It doesn't ever seem to take much to topple them from that faithful pedestal. And just WHY do the Duggars and their ilk keep writing things like "we can't wait to see what God has in store for you", etc? What on earth makes them think that each and every one of them has great things to expect? Regardless of the fact that none of them has done a darn thing to be proud of yet.

I would never ever expect that life is all shiny and happy and that God/your particular choice of Deity has "great plans in store". Obviously Catholicism doesn't think so either, we are fairly big on sacrifice and suffering and what not, but really? Does it not occur to them that about 99.9% of humanity will be humdrum normal average people with nothing special to show? Just where does this kind of thinking come from?

[Obsidian]

Maybe they have a book called something like Gothard's Big Book of Saying It Sweetly: God-Centred Phrases for Every Occasion that Mechelle and Blob use to compose their public congratulation videos. The children will have just learnt phrases from it since they (parents) don't seem to say much else. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Obsidian

[queenanne]

26 minutes ago, MunichNark said:

Something that continues to puzzle me. Now bearing in mind that my own background is Catholic and I am not of the terribly "happy go lucky" persuasion.......but....why do these people always seem so particularly devasted when things go wrong or not their way? See Michaela Bates and her lack of pregnancy. It doesn't ever seem to take much to topple them from that faithful pedestal. And just WHY do the Duggars and their ilk keep writing things like "we can't wait to see what God has in store for you", etc? What on earth makes them think that each and every one of them has great things to expect? Regardless of the fact that none of them has done a darn thing to be proud of yet.

I would never ever expect that life is all shiny and happy and that God/your particular choice of Deity has "great plans in store". Obviously Catholicism doesn't think so either, we are fairly big on sacrifice and suffering and what not, but really? Does it not occur to them that about 99.9% of humanity will be humdrum normal average people with nothing special to show? Just where does this kind of thinking come from?

My reckoning is:  Because the promise of wonder and mystery around every turn for people of faith who just put their trust in God, is in the Bible:

'Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know.'  (Jeremiah 33:3)

Secondly:  Someone has to convince them that a life of self-abnegation (and in some cases literal penury), is actually better than the soft and easy pleasures of the world, such as premarital sex and drinking alcohol.  A religion which basically teaches that the primary rewards appear after you're dead and you may never see them within your lifetime (and nobody can know for sure they'll come because nobody "knows" what happens after death), basically has to convince its potential followers that great and wonderful mysterious things await those on Earth around potentially every corner, as long as they doggedly and slavishly follow God's will.  If they didn't, the adherents would revolt like the Israelites making the golden calf to worship as soon as Moses turned his back, instead of working as dogged slaves.  

[satrunrose]

Do Gothardites believe in prosperity gospel (or, as far as I understand it, if you have enough faith God will send you lots of money)? I have a sneaky suspicion that the Duggars do on some level, which explains the "God has great ($$$) things for you" message, but I'm not sure how widespread that is among the Bateses, Rodrigui etc. 

[Sew Sumi]

Rodriguii are not Gothardites. They're just celeb hangers-on for the attention.

[Arwen Evenstar]

39 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

Rodriguii are not Gothardites. They're just celeb hangers-on for the attention.

The Rodriguii are looking to sit with The Cool Kids of the Fundy World.

[Sew Sumi]

Add the Pearls to that list. They're even worse than Gothardites. 

[Temperance]

How does Doug Wilson fit into Gothard, Pearl, etc.?

Edited September 9, 2017 by Temperance

[Sew Sumi]

I think more of a rival. I've never heard of the Gothardites mentioning *that* Doug. Phillips, yes. Wilson, nope.

[BetyBee]

I hope this is the right thread for this.  The similarities may have been discussed before, but I was listening to a podcast called "True Crime Obsessed" about Jon Krakauer's documentary about FLDS & that creep, Warren Jeffs.  Though of course Gothardites don't go for polygamy, but other similarities like "keeping sweet," total devotion to husband and molestation of children are all in evidence, along with strict rules on dressing modestly for women.  Jeffs even had all of the women on prozac as they were not surprisingly, quite depressed.  I've had about all I can take of these patriarchal "religions".  

 

ETA - the documentary is called Prophet's Prey and it's not done by Jon Krakauer.  Apparently it's streaming on Showtime.  I don't know if I can bear to watch it.  What I heard about it was chilling.  

Edited October 9, 2017 by BetyBee
correction

[MargeGunderson]

1 hour ago, BetyBee said:

I hope this is the right thread for this.  The similarities may have been discussed before, but I was listening to a podcast called "True Crime Obsessed" about Jon Krakauer's documentary about FLDS & that creep, Warren Jeffs.  Though of course Gothardites don't go for polygamy, but other similarities like "keeping sweet," total devotion to husband and molestation of children are all in evidence, along with strict rules on dressing modestly for women.  Jeffs even had all of the women on prozac as they were not surprisingly, quite depressed.  I've had about all I can take of these patriarchal "religions".  

 

ETA - the documentary is called Prophet's Prey and it's not done by Jon Krakauer.  Apparently it's streaming on Showtime.  I don't know if I can bear to watch it.  What I heard about it was chilling.  

Jon Krakauer's book, Under the Banner of Heaven, is really fantastic. There are some striking parallels between all of these patriarchal religions.

(Off to subscribe to True Crime Obsessed)

[kokapetl]

I don’t know what to say. 

[crazycatlady58]

Ok.. deep breath . ..as a ex sorta fundy, I think  this is cute. I would  have not used it in Sunday  School   mainly  because  I cannot  carry a tune in a bucket  with a lid on it. Please  don't  hate  me.

[kokapetl]

[crazycatlady58]

No that is wrong .  Did not even  need to watch  it.  

[doodlebug]

24 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

I swear I saw this as a sketch on SCTV about 35 years ago.  Love how the babies shriek in terror as she shoves a Bible in their faces.  I'd like to see a psych consult on this gal.

[Churchhoney]

11 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

I don’t know what to say. 

I think the tell here is that the leader is a robot. lol

[GeeGolly]

Are those real? Like they're not comedy sketches?

[Churchhoney]

44 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Are those real? Like they're not comedy sketches?

I think they've got to be phony. Not that I've seen any actual evidence of that. ... But why would the joker people have access to them without getting dinged for mean copyright infringement if they weren't phony? 

Okay -- turns out the robot one at least is NOT phony. And the jokester people probably were able to get hold of it because it's an old piece of Christian media -- As Wikipedia explains here (an old but persistent piece of Christian media, it turns out) -- 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colby's_Clubhouse

Dunno about the other horrifying one. But now I'm beginning to think it's real, too. Argh. 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

7 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

I think they've got to be phony. Not that I've seen any actual evidence of that. ... But why would the joker people have access to them without getting dinged for mean copyright infringement if they weren't phony? 

Okay -- turns out the robot one at least is NOT phony. And the jokester people probably were able to get hold of it because it's an old piece of Christian media -- As Wikipedia explains here (an old but persistent piece of Christian media, it turns out) -- 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colby's_Clubhouse

Dunno about the other horrifying one. But now I'm beginning to think it's real, too. Argh. 

Shit.

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

Shit.

Amen.

[Marigold]

I think that crazy Bible lady is real!!!  

(And I'm a total skeptic and think everything is fake.)  

[heckkitty]

Well now I'm traumatized 

[louannems]

2 hours ago, Marigold said:

I think that crazy Bible lady is real!!!  

(And I'm a total skeptic and think everything is fake.)  

I saw babies and toddlers being "taught the bible" in Cradle Roll, back when I was a Seventh Day Adventist. And babies were routinely spanked if they didn't hold still!  My own son was 18 months old when I joined the church.  I routinely breastfed him during the class, while the other moms informed me that he wasn't learning obedience!

[Marigold]

8 hours ago, louannems said:

I saw babies and toddlers being "taught the bible" in Cradle Roll, back when I was a Seventh Day Adventist. And babies were routinely spanked if they didn't hold still!  My own son was 18 months old when I joined the church.  I routinely breastfed him during the class, while the other moms informed me that he wasn't learning obedience!

I was IFB for many years and I have never seen a baby spanked, Thank God.  I never even heard of such nonsense until the Duggars and the Pearls. 

How traumatizing for everyone involved to spank a baby. Such sick and dysfunctional behavior. 

[Genevrier]

On 9/9/2017 at 5:03 PM, Arwen Evenstar said:

The Rodriguii are looking to sit with The Kool-Aid Kids of the Fundy World.

Fixed it for you. ?

[Temperance]

I'm confused what the connection between Gothardism/IFB and Calvinism. I keep reading the Duggars or Duggar  are going Calvinist or interested in Calvinist theology. I know Ben was raised Calvinist but why are Derick, Jill, Jeremy, and maybe Jinger trying to be Calvinist or interested in Calvinist theology? Any thoughts?

Edited October 11, 2017 by Temperance

[Churchhoney]

23 hours ago, Temperance said:

I'm confused what the connection between Gothardism/IFB and Calvinism. I keep reading the Duggars or Duggar  are going Calvinist or interested in Calvinist theology. I know Ben was raised Calvinist but why are Derick, Jill, Jeremy, and maybe Jinger trying to be Calvinist or interested in Calvinist theology? Any thoughts?

Calvinism seems to be the most active conservative Protestant fad today. Especially among younger people. I'm pretty sure it's just the usual Duggars-go-for-fads thing. For example, it looks as if a pretty large percentage of the ministers and theologians who are seen a lot on social media, get tweeted by younger people and so on are Calvinists today (Calvinists of certain stripes, anyway.) (Calvinism has even spread among traditional Southern Baptists and to leaders of Southern Baptist seminaries.)  So that's what the Duggs and Dugg adjacents see.

Plus, with Der, Bin and Jer all having an eye to careers as Christian hotshots, I expect they're particularly drawn to the branches of conservative Christianity that are the trendy ones -- bigger potential audience in their age group and thus, I expect they hope, more jobs! more money! more prominence! 

Edited October 12, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Triple P]

I have read and heard the phrase "bible-based preaching" in reference to Derick, Ben, and Jeremy's ambitions.

I am genuinely curious about this phrase and the seemingly negative connotation when used in reference to the Duggar sons-in-law. For Christians, wouldn't all preaching, sermons, etc. have a basis in the bible, even though some might disagree with the preacher's interpretation of the text? I am not Christian and I don't understand why bible-based preaching would be a negative. Maybe it is not and I am just misinterpreting it as a negative. 

[Arwen Evenstar]

3 hours ago, Triple P said:

I have read and heard the phrase "bible-based preaching" in reference to Derick, Ben, and Jeremy's ambitions.

I am genuinely curious about this phrase and the seemingly negative connotation when used in reference to the Duggar sons-in-law. For Christians, wouldn't all preaching, sermons, etc. have a basis in the bible, even though some might disagree with the preacher's interpretation of the text? I am not Christian and I don't understand why bible-based preaching would be a negative. Maybe it is not and I am just misinterpreting it as a negative. 

The simple answer is that yes, all preaching in Christianity is based on the Bible.  The differentiation “Bible based” is used to set apart liturgical readings that are rotated in some churches.  As an Anglican/ Episcopalian, I can say that you can look in the back of The Book of Common Prayer to see what Gospel reading (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John) and another reading from Old or New Testament for any given Sunday of the year.  These are rotated over a cycle of a few years.  The sermon delivered by the minister is at his/her pleasure. May be a series about a book of the Bible or life issues or questions.

Evangelical churches reject any structure or formality one would find at an Anglican or Catholic Church service. So, their idea of Bible based is teaching outside of those constructed liturgical reading frameworks. You can even go as far as to say that some of them “wing it “ and just go with whatever passage inspires them. Some of them have done a good job of convincing their flock that the Anglican and Catholic community “don’t read the Bible” or “don’t teach from the Bible” or “only allow certain things to be taught from the Bible”.  

This is horse puckey, and I called bullshit on it at a young age, because if any of that was true, then why on earth would these people even be allowed to own their own Bibles? (I knew Catholic families proudly displaying them and I remember my father’s beautiful gold leaf Bible).  Once the Bible was translated into the vernacular from Latin, all bets were off. People who could read could read for themselves and think for themselves.  

It was the early church that decided what went in the Bible out of all the manuscripts that survived, the very same KJV translated into English from the Latin Bible.  What got kept was referred to as ‘the Canon”.  My sister pretty much followed the evangelical route of Christianity, but now she’s showing an interest in looking at the more traditional routes.  I told my mom that I supported it fully, that even if her interest is only scholarly, that she would appreciate the history of how the Church of England fits into other Protestant denominations.

There were other philosophical and religious distinctions that caused other branches of Protestantism to form.  Varying views on the necessity of infant baptism, adult baptism by sprinkling or immersion, how often to take Communion, or if it’s even necessary are some of the things that are still debated among scholars, the clergy, and theologians.  The letter of the laws versus the spirit of the law, free will  (God gives us the freedom to choose) vs predestination (it’s already been decided for us) are also long time debates as well.

Hope this begins to answer your question.  For more, Wikipedia has some good nutshell topics for some scholarly understanding, if you’re curious.

[DangerousMinds]

Having grown up Catholic, we read the Bible. Often. No idea how only some churches can claim to be "bible based."

[Churchhoney]

13 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

Having grown up Catholic, we read the Bible. Often. No idea how only some churches can claim to be "bible based."

In some Protestant branches it even goes on within a tiny subdenomination. Near one of my home bases, there's a country intersection with two small churches on opposite corners. And both small churches have signs. One says something like "Independent Baptist Church" (or something similar), and the other has a BIG sign that says "Bible-Based Independent Baptist Church." 

In other words, my interpretation is the true one. And yours is just wrong, you heathen M*****f***er.

The "Bible-based" one was probably started by a previous congregant of the other one, I'm guessing. 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Churchhoney

[ariel]

I'm wondering if "bible based" means a strict following of the KJV bible with no questions asked?  I think many of the bible based don't believe in evolution, instead the young earth - the earth was created in X amount of days & humans lived with dinosaurs.

Edited November 2, 2017 by ariel

[doodlebug]

20 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

Having grown up Catholic, we read the Bible. Often. No idea how only some churches can claim to be "bible based."

Me, too.  And, as noted above, over a 3 year period, most of the Bible is read aloud in Catholic Churches.  Stuff like the begats gets skipped but, otherwise, everyone gets exposed to virtually all of it.  The first reading at every Mass is from the Old Testament, the second from Paul's letters or Acts at Easter and from the Old Testament or the rest of the New at other times. The Gospel comes from the 4 Gospels, of course.  We also sing one of the Psalms every Sunday between the first and second reading.

The same readings happen in every Catholic Church around the world.  I've followed along in my English missal while hearing Masses in Italy, Peru, El Salvador and Kenya.

Edited November 2, 2017 by doodlebug

[Sew Sumi]

John Shrader (Anna's BIL in Zambia) proudly proclaims his "church" as bible-based. Just to give you an idea about actual whackadoos who proclaim this theology. I'm pretty sure Jeremy's church is also "bible-based," allowing for his style of preaching (expository, or something like that).

[Arwen Evenstar]

33 minutes ago, ariel said:

I'm wondering if "bible based" means a strict following of the KJV bible with no questions asked?  I think many of the bible based don't believe in evolution, instead the young earth - the earth was created in X amount of days & humans lived with dinosaurs.

Yes and not necessarily to all your points. Many will denounce evolution, but don’t believe that Adam and Eve went to church on their brontosaurus, either, or in a 6000 year old earth.  It’s a spectrum of belief, and it’s all over the place, be it individual belief or the mission statement of the whole congregation.  It’s like nailing Jello to the wall.

[duggarshow]

On 11/2/2017 at 9:04 AM, Triple P said:

I have read and heard the phrase "bible-based preaching" in reference to Derick, Ben, and Jeremy's ambitions.

I am genuinely curious about this phrase and the seemingly negative connotation when used in reference to the Duggar sons-in-law. For Christians, wouldn't all preaching, sermons, etc. have a basis in the bible, even though some might disagree with the preacher's interpretation of the text? I am not Christian and I don't understand why bible-based preaching would be a negative. Maybe it is not and I am just misinterpreting it as a negative. 

The Protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible are not quite the same. The Catholic Bible contains seven books the Protestant Bible does not contain. In the context I've seen and heard, what many people believe when they say "Bible-based preaching" is the Protestant Bible. Additionally, some mean true to the Bible as opposed to one person's opinion.

[GeeGolly]

I've sat in many houses of worship and many, many sermons were a far reach from anything written in a Bible or other religious tomes.

[DangerousMinds]

I gre up Catholic and honestly don't remember which bible we used.

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I've sat in many houses of worship and many, many sermons were a far reach from anything written in a Bible or other religious tomes.

All the Catholic sermons I remember (it's been a while, but every week for 18+ years) were certainly based on the Bible.

[doodlebug]

6 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

I gre up Catholic and honestly don't remember which bible we used.

All the Catholic sermons I remember (it's been a while, but every week for 18+ years) were certainly based on the Bible.

Yeah, but they weren't based on the RIGHT Bible, so they don't count.  'Bible based preaching' is only Bible based if the preacher is using the Bible that these folks deem to be the correct one.  

[Churchhoney]

15 hours ago, doodlebug said:

Yeah, but they weren't based on the RIGHT Bible, so they don't count.  'Bible based preaching' is only Bible based if the preacher is using the Bible that these folks deem to be the correct one.  

And that that preacher is using that Bible correctly. As those dueling church signs near me demonstrate. lol

[Marigold]

I don't know if this is helpful or not but I will try

 All Christian based churches are Bible based but the phrase "Bible based preaching" is a particular style of preaching. It's very IFB (Independent Fundamental Baptist)

The minister chooses a particular verse or few verses and they preach for almost an hour on that ONE verse. Anything to back up that verse includes more verses.  There is very little "opinion" or "topic drift".  Hence, the word "Fundamentalist" fits here because they stick very fundamentally to the Bible. 

In contrast, another church might choose more of a topic and work some verses into the topic. There is some room for personal interpretation, opinion or personal comment by the minister/priest. 

 

Is that helpful at all? 

[Absolom]

Thematic approaches are probably the opposite of "Bible based" where church history, marriage, parenting, salvation, advent, etc could be sermon material for a series of sermons and would surely be approached with the Bible and Bible passages in mind, but would not be taken solely from say Psalm 1:1.