Gimme That Old Time Religion

[fonfereksglen]

Drove past the Evangelical  Presbyterian Church near our house this morning.  The message board contained a quote by Chas. Spurgeon.  No matter what I do, I can't get away from the Duggars. 😬

[questionfear]

This, this, this is why the duggars are so dangerous: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/05/01/alleged-synagogue-shooter-was-churchgoer-who-articulated-christian-theology-prompting-tough-questions-evangelical-pastors/?utm_term=.49dc6e87922c

[louannems]

43 minutes ago, questionfear said:

This, this, this is why the duggars are so dangerous: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/05/01/alleged-synagogue-shooter-was-churchgoer-who-articulated-christian-theology-prompting-tough-questions-evangelical-pastors/?utm_term=.49dc6e87922c

I can see all the young men in Steve Anderson's church doing this evil thing.  But not JB's sons. 

The Duggars are more robotic in their beliefs.  Not ardently passionate like Anderson's ilk.

Edited May 2, 2019 by louannems

[Jeeves]

Over in the Boob and Michelle topic we've been discussing the oddball oversized house that JB has currently listed for sale at $1.8 million. We've wondered if he thinks someone could hold church services there, and the issue of zoning came up.

The subject of zoning laws and churches, synagogues, temples, and other houses of worship, is complicated. There's a federal law that prohibits local governments from discriminating against houses of worship on the basis of religion. The Atlantic published this long article about that. 

In Bible Belt Arkansas, I would expect that if someone wanted to have fundie Protestant Christian services and needed a zoning change or special use permit, the municipality would be unlikely to be hostile to the religion itself. It would handle zoning/permit issues on practical matters like traffic, etc. OTOH who knows if a much different religion were involved, especially if not Christian? That one is not my circus, not my monkeys. But could be interesting to watch, lol. 

[Ohiopirate02]

23 hours ago, Jeeves said:

Over in the Boob and Michelle topic we've been discussing the oddball oversized house that JB has currently listed for sale at $1.8 million. We've wondered if he thinks someone could hold church services there, and the issue of zoning came up.

The subject of zoning laws and churches, synagogues, temples, and other houses of worship, is complicated. There's a federal law that prohibits local governments from discriminating against houses of worship on the basis of religion. The Atlantic published this long article about that. 

In Bible Belt Arkansas, I would expect that if someone wanted to have fundie Protestant Christian services and needed a zoning change or special use permit, the municipality would be unlikely to be hostile to the religion itself. It would handle zoning/permit issues on practical matters like traffic, etc. OTOH who knows if a much different religion were involved, especially if not Christian? That one is not my circus, not my monkeys. But could be interesting to watch, lol. 

Interesting read, thanks.  I do think that JB wanted to make that home into some type of church building but I do wonder if there is a HOA in the area that would prevent this.  I don't see this as a pure zoning issue like what was mentioned in the article.  JB would be the one to buy this house, fix it up and then try to get it rezoned.  He would scoff at the established procedure for getting property rezoned and do it his way.  I don't know Arkansas law, but he potentially would have to sue the HOA and then the zoning board for this property to get rezoned.  Would JB pony up the legal costs for this while he was already paying for representation with the girls' suit and Josh's?  Is this why Derick is now going to law school?  

The Jehovah Witnesses in my area built a new place of worship a few years ago.  They had difficulty in getting their permits.  Part of the problem was that they do not use local contractors but bring in other JWs to do the actual work.  Almost like an Amish barn raising (PS. Jehovah Witnesses do not like it when you compare them to any other religious group, oopsie), but it can take a few months to get in all the JW contractors to do the job.    Reading that article where municipalities deny rezoning for churches because of traffic made me laugh because my area does not care about that at all.  My neighborhood is off a road that now has 5 churches within a 2 mile stretch.  I have to go out of my way to get into town on Sundays between 12-2 because of these churches.

[Jeeves]

21 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Interesting read, thanks.  I do think that JB wanted to make that home into some type of church building but I do wonder if there is a HOA in the area that would prevent this.  I don't see this as a pure zoning issue like what was mentioned in the article.  JB would be the one to buy this house, fix it up and then try to get it rezoned.  He would scoff at the established procedure for getting property rezoned and do it his way.  I don't know Arkansas law, but he potentially would have to sue the HOA and then the zoning board for this property to get rezoned.  Would JB pony up the legal costs for this while he was already paying for representation with the girls' suit and Josh's?  Is this why Derick is now going to law school?  

The Duggars' and Dillards' social media accounts don't demonstrate any closeness between Derick and JB. Even allowing for the TV show being a factor in what they post, or don't post, IMO Derick and JB are *not* close. No way JB would fork over money for Derick's law school education when for a fraction of that cost he can hire experienced competent local lawyers to take care of his legal business. 

JB may not be paying lawyers for the lawsuit(s) over disclosure of the police reports. The lawyers may have taken the case on a contingency fee basis, i.e., they get a percentage of any money their clients win in the case. Or, they may have assessed the likelihood of success in the case and told JB, we're taking this only if you pay us as we go. Hard to say.

[Portia]

Fairly frequently on these forums, a poster will quote something said/written by a Duggar or Duggar-adjancent individual, then add the comment "Who talks like that?"  Then someone like me will chime in with a timid, "Um, Evangelical Christians, that's who." Posted below are a couple of useful resources for those of you not yet inculcated in the mysterious language of Christianese.  My fellow "insiders" might enjoy them, as well!

First, an episode of the PRI podcast "The World in Words" on the special language of Christians.

Second, a website I learned about on that podcast: The Dictionary of Christianese.

Edited June 1, 2019 by Portia
syntax

[EAG46]

Thank you for posting those links Portia.  It will help make understanding this world a little easier. 

[Luvmy300zx]

I'm southern Baptist. Have been all my life. Y'all might call me fundie light but I would hope you would just call me Christian. At my church we look, dress, and act like everyone else. Just regular people. We wear normal clothes. in fact,  last night our pastors wife showed up at church in shorts, as did Mr ZX.  If I'm out with my friends, I have a social drink and I don't care who sees me. I sometimes buy lottery tickets if I'm somewhere they are being sold. It frustrates me when we regular Baptists get lumped in with the duggars because we are nothing like them or their ilk.

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, Luvmy300zx said:

I'm southern Baptist. Have been all my life. Y'all might call me fundie light but I would hope you would just call me Christian. At my church we look, dress, and act like everyone else. Just regular people. We wear normal clothes. in fact,  last night our pastors wife showed up at church in shorts, as did Mr ZX.  If I'm out with my friends, I have a social drink and I don't care who sees me. I sometimes buy lottery tickets if I'm somewhere they are being sold. It frustrates me when we regular Baptists get lumped in with the duggars because we are nothing like them or their ilk.

It is frustrating, but such is the nature of life.  I am Catholic and feel that groups like Church Militant are not worthy of the Catholic name, but I will always get lumped in with them in other peoples' minds.  I personally don't view people like the Duggars as Christians because I see them as people who follow the Old Testament and the Letters of Paul and rarely quote the Gospels.  They cherry-pick the Bible so much that they have no consistent theology.  It changes week by week in order to suit the Duggars' needs and fears.  And because of the SODRT, no Duggar could ever give a clear explanation of it.  

[Temperance]

45 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

It is frustrating, but such is the nature of life.  I am Catholic and feel that groups like Church Militant are not worthy of the Catholic name, but I will always get lumped in with them in other peoples' minds.  I personally don't view people like the Duggars as Christians because I see them as people who follow the Old Testament and the Letters of Paul and rarely quote the Gospels.  They cherry-pick the Bible so much that they have no consistent theology.  It changes week by week in order to suit the Duggars' needs and fears.  And because of the SODRT, no Duggar could ever give a clear explanation of it.  

I consider the Duggars Christian, because they talk about Jesus and reading the bible and generally identify themselves as Christian. In the Youth for Christ Conference video, they clearly state that they're Baptists although I would agree there's a difference between IFB baptists and other Baptists. 

I dislike the fact the Duggars are quick to decide who gets to be Christian and who doesn't, but it seems just as discriminatory to say the Duggars are not Christians. 

As for the Catholics, I am Catholic. The Catholic Church believes a lot of things that have nothing to do with the gospel. For example the ban on birth control, or the infallibility of the Pope etc. 

[Jynnan tonnix]

This (among a bunch of other reasons) is part of what finally drove me to atheism. Given that when it comes to various sects or various religions, there are so many interpretations and downright contradictions that it's obvious they can't all be right, but there's absolutely no reason they can't all be wrong. And the more I thought about it and weighed the possibility of any particular view or religion as being the correct one vs the number of things which needed no apologetics to wade through if one started with the assumption of there being no God, the more sense the world made.

[awaken]

Our friend Josh Harris is separated from his wife.  I guess that whole kissing dating goodbye thing didn't end up doing the trick for him.    https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/18/purity-culture-advocate-joshua-harris-announces-separation-from-spouse/?fbclid=IwAR0M3z3LRtoY6rgBSqeY1cTSQgRsGjx0uF9w9VCXicfua9AUa3CLcmrdVYE

[Churchhoney]

Divorce was just the first thing Josh Harris announced. Today he acknowledged that he is no longer a Christian. 

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/26/one-time-purity-culture-advocate-joshua-harris-now-says-i-am-not-a-christian/?utm_medium=webpush&utm_source=nonreligious&utm_campaign=FriendlyAtheist

People do change. In the Instagram post that appears in the above article, he says, among other things, the following:

… The information that was left out of our announcement is that I have undergone a massive shift in regard to my faith in Jesus. The popular phrase for this is “deconstruction,” the biblical phrase is “falling away.” By all the measurements that I have for defining a Christian, I am not a Christian. Many people tell me that there is a different way to practice faith and I want to remain open to this, but I’m not there now.

Martin Luther said that the entire life of believers should be repentance. There’s beauty in that sentiment regardless of your view of God. I have lived in repentance for the past several years — repenting of my self-righteousness, my fear-based approach to life, the teaching of my books, my views of women in the church, and my approach to parenting to name a few. But I specifically want to add to this list now: to the LGBTQ+ community, I want to say that I am sorry for the views that I taught in my books and as a pastor regarding sexuality. I regret standing against marriage equality, for not affirming you and your place in the church, and for any ways that my writing and speaking contributed to a culture of exclusion and bigotry. I hope you can forgive me.

To my Christians friends, I am grateful for your prayers. Don’t take it personally if I don’t immediately return calls. I can’t join in your mourning. I don’t view this moment negatively. I feel very much alive, and awake, and surprisingly hopeful. I believe with my sister Julian that, “All shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”

[floridamom]

The first thing Josh Harris should have realized was that his lifestyle was not Christian. It is an off-shoot OF Christianity..its' that Gothard, ATI, IBLP stuff. Those lifestyle rules aren't Christian IMO. 

[Jeeves]

Not that I knew who he was before I saw his name somewhere around here, or that I care what he does or says. I do agree with the closing para of the article that @Churchhoney linked about his latest statement:

Quote

There is, undoubtedly, more to the story. Maybe Harris will reveal all that in another book. Though at this point, whenever he’s ready, he should really stop selling his ideas and just let people know what he’s thinking.

That could be a problem, though, since he's made his living selling his ideas all his adult life. 

[Churchhoney]

3 hours ago, floridamom said:

The first thing Josh Harris should have realized was that his lifestyle was not Christian. It is an off-shoot OF Christianity..its' that Gothard, ATI, IBLP stuff. Those lifestyle rules aren't Christian IMO. 

Yeah. Very well put. When I read that paragraph about all the stuff that he thought was religion and that he's now repented of, all I see is fear of other people who are different from you, fear of sex, guilt about sex,, fear that he might possibly do something (sexual) wrong and burn in hell forever, and an overwhelming urge to keep heterosexual males on top of the power and privilege pile. To me, there's not a single thing in there that I'd call religion.  (and of course it's what all the Duggarlings and Duggarling connections think of as religion...)

But it's what Harris was raised all his life to believe. And, in his case, believing it got him a tremendous amount of praise and influence from the time he was a teenager and wrote his first ridiculous "kissed dating goodbye" book. And after that he just got further soaked in that world and further lionized by it. That world was his family's world and it gave him everything he had, including a very successful career and a lot of adulation as an adult. So I think it's no surprise at all that he continued to embrace it. 

The fact that he's now obviously listened to some other people and stepped away from all that stuff that literally was his life from infancy onward is pretty impressive to me, actually. Many -- maybe most -- of his ilk don't have the brains or courage to do that. (I mean the others who've gotten position in life and money, fame and respect from believing and preaching this stuff. It's not easy to step away from what has given you high status and respect in your world. )

So his ideas and feelings about religion will probably continue to evolve in some sensible direction, I would think  -- whether that's toward a more real religion or toward no religion -- based on what he's said here.

It's too bad he led so many other people in the wrong directions for so long. But he was brought up to do that and started down his destructive path as a teenager, looking to find a path in life that would raise him up in some way, just like most kids do. In his case, it was very unfortunate -- for a lot of people -- that he found that path.  I think he's to be respected for reaching these conclusions now and being honest about it. 

(Of course, it's possible that there's some weird ulterior motive going on here, I suppose. But for the moment, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. At least he's apologizing for giving people really bad advice and for wrongly and unfairly putting people down.)

Edited July 27, 2019 by Churchhoney

[Albanyguy]

Yes, I don't think he's faking anything here. He sounds sincere and it rings true. Coming to the realization that your whole life and belief system has been a lie must be incredibly painful and difficult to accept and take a long time to process. I find his statement easier to believe than the old Josh Duggar "Nothing is really my fault because Satan built a fortress in my heart and Jesus has forgiven me so now you have to forgive me, too" crap.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Albanyguy

[GeeGolly]

Sometimes reading the posts on here make me pause and feel grateful. I'm grateful my parents weren't religious zealots, grateful that questioning things is how my brain works, grateful that I walk through life with no agenda that might harm others.

I'm also grateful that I'm able to come on here and be fascinated, educated and entertained by a wonderful lot of folks.

[fonfereksglen]

According to the message board ...... our fun loving Reformed Presbyterian church a few blocks away is starting a new bible study classs.....The Futility of Life.  Must be a lot of depressed Calvinists in the area.  😁 

[Ohiopirate02]

5 minutes ago, fonfereksglen said:

According to the message board ...... our fun loving Reformed Presbyterian church a few blocks away is starting a new bible study classs.....The Futility of Life.  Must be a lot of depressed Calvinists in the area.  😁 

Will this song be featured 

Spoiler

 

[Churchhoney]

Seems like some people in this crowd just can't stop themselves from making women responsible for everything that goes wrong. 

Here's a new book gem from Focus on the Family in which a female author stresses that the cheated-upon wife needs to focus on her own role in causing the problem. (this is from an annoyed article written by somebody who disapproves of this, uh, principle...Which God himself apparently articulated to the author -- the cheated-upon wife, and a Christian marriage counselor) https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/30/a-new-book-from-focus-on-the-family-blames-women-when-their-husbands

"...The title says it all: How God Used 'the Other Woman': Saving Your Marriage after Infidelity. The book, by marriage counselor (!!!) Tina Konkin, is all about how you should respond to discovering your partner is having an affair by… taking a long hard look at your own flaws....

"Tina Konkin was devastated when she learned her husband was having an affair with her best friend. How could this happen to a couple who were Christian marriage counselors? But the surprises didn’t stop there, because God immediately asked Tina this question: 'What role did you play in this, Tina?'

"'I knew I had a choice to make. I could choose to stay in a “victim mode.” blaming everything on my husband and the “other woman,” or I could decide to shed the victim cloak and start exploring my part in this mess…

"'It was time for me to look at all the negative stuff I’d dragged into my marriage. I have to admit, though, that the question God was asking me was so difficult that I had to brace myself for what I would see. The thought that I had, in any way, participated in the affair or the degradation of my own marriage was like an emotional foreign invader. Holding this question in my mind elicited a nauseous gut reaction. It was almost too much to take. But one of the principles I had learned in working with hundreds of people on a very personal level was that the way out of this mess wouldn’t include blaming my husband or friend…'"

Long story short. She figures out the ways in which she's to blame. And FIXES THE MARRIAGE BY FIXING HERSELF.....So, thank DOG for the other woman! (and her husband's roving eye. 

Yeesh. 

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/30/a-new-book-from-focus-on-the-family-blames-women-when-their-husbands

[doodlebug]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

Seems like some people in this crowd just can't stop themselves from making women responsible for everything that goes wrong. 

Here's a new book gem from Focus on the Family in which a female author stresses that the cheated-upon wife needs to focus on her own role in causing the problem. (this is from an annoyed article written by somebody who disapproves of this, uh, principle...Which God himself apparently articulated to the author -- the cheated-upon wife, and a Christian marriage counselor) https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/30/a-new-book-from-focus-on-the-family-blames-women-when-their-husbands

"...The title says it all: How God Used 'the Other Woman': Saving Your Marriage after Infidelity. The book, by marriage counselor (!!!) Tina Konkin, is all about how you should respond to discovering your partner is having an affair by… taking a long hard look at your own flaws....

"Tina Konkin was devastated when she learned her husband was having an affair with her best friend. How could this happen to a couple who were Christian marriage counselors? But the surprises didn’t stop there, because God immediately asked Tina this question: 'What role did you play in this, Tina?'

"'I knew I had a choice to make. I could choose to stay in a “victim mode.” blaming everything on my husband and the “other woman,” or I could decide to shed the victim cloak and start exploring my part in this mess…

"'It was time for me to look at all the negative stuff I’d dragged into my marriage. I have to admit, though, that the question God was asking me was so difficult that I had to brace myself for what I would see. The thought that I had, in any way, participated in the affair or the degradation of my own marriage was like an emotional foreign invader. Holding this question in my mind elicited a nauseous gut reaction. It was almost too much to take. But one of the principles I had learned in working with hundreds of people on a very personal level was that the way out of this mess wouldn’t include blaming my husband or friend…'"

Long story short. She figures out the ways in which she's to blame. And FIXES THE MARRIAGE BY FIXING HERSELF.....So, thank DOG for the other woman! (and her husband's roving eye. 

Yeesh. 

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/30/a-new-book-from-focus-on-the-family-blames-women-when-their-husbands

Her husband was having an affair with her best friend!  She kept the husband but I wonder if she kept the friend. 

[madpsych78]

2 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Seems like some people in this crowd just can't stop themselves from making women responsible for everything that goes wrong. 

Here's a new book gem from Focus on the Family in which a female author stresses that the cheated-upon wife needs to focus on her own role in causing the problem. (this is from an annoyed article written by somebody who disapproves of this, uh, principle...Which God himself apparently articulated to the author -- the cheated-upon wife, and a Christian marriage counselor) https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/30/a-new-book-from-focus-on-the-family-blames-women-when-their-husbands

"...The title says it all: How God Used 'the Other Woman': Saving Your Marriage after Infidelity. The book, by marriage counselor (!!!) Tina Konkin, is all about how you should respond to discovering your partner is having an affair by… taking a long hard look at your own flaws....

"Tina Konkin was devastated when she learned her husband was having an affair with her best friend. How could this happen to a couple who were Christian marriage counselors? But the surprises didn’t stop there, because God immediately asked Tina this question: 'What role did you play in this, Tina?'

"'I knew I had a choice to make. I could choose to stay in a “victim mode.” blaming everything on my husband and the “other woman,” or I could decide to shed the victim cloak and start exploring my part in this mess…

"'It was time for me to look at all the negative stuff I’d dragged into my marriage. I have to admit, though, that the question God was asking me was so difficult that I had to brace myself for what I would see. The thought that I had, in any way, participated in the affair or the degradation of my own marriage was like an emotional foreign invader. Holding this question in my mind elicited a nauseous gut reaction. It was almost too much to take. But one of the principles I had learned in working with hundreds of people on a very personal level was that the way out of this mess wouldn’t include blaming my husband or friend…'"

Long story short. She figures out the ways in which she's to blame. And FIXES THE MARRIAGE BY FIXING HERSELF.....So, thank DOG for the other woman! (and her husband's roving eye. 

Yeesh. 

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/30/a-new-book-from-focus-on-the-family-blames-women-when-their-husbands

I want to write to this Tina Konkin person and ask her if this would still apply if the wife was the one cheating on her husband. Would the cheated-on husband still need to examine himself and his part in the infidelity, or would it be solely the cheating wife's fault, because she was cheating AND because she's a woman?

[Churchhoney]

5 minutes ago, madpsych78 said:

I want to write to this Tina Konkin person and ask her if this would still apply if the wife was the one cheating on her husband. Would the cheated-on husband still need to examine himself and his part in the infidelity, or would it be solely the cheating wife's fault, because she was cheating AND because she's a woman?

Excellent question! 

[FizzyPuff]

On 7/30/2019 at 5:16 PM, doodlebug said:

Her husband was having an affair with her best friend!  She kept the husband but I wonder if she kept the friend. 

She should’ve got rid of both, honestly this is just sad. Unfortunately I think there are mainstream councillors out there who when a partner cheats will ask the other partner if there was anything they did in the relationship which caused them to cheat, which makes me sick tbh but at least their not just picking on women here, although women do seemed to get blamed more. 

Why do I feel like Anna Duggar was probably told something similar though, I’m sure a part of her wanted to bolt when Josh cheated on her. I wonder what sort of “counselling” she got. I’m sure if no one was filling her head with BS she would’ve left him.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Puffin

[lookeyloo]

1 hour ago, Puffin said:

She should’ve got rid of both, honestly this is just sad. Unfortunately I think there are mainstream councillors out there who when a partner cheats will ask the other partner if there was anything they did in the relationship which caused them to cheat, which makes me sick tbh but at least their not just picking on women here, although women do seemed to get blamed more. 

Why do I feel like Anna Duggar was probably told something similar though, I’m sure a part of her wanted to bolt when Josh cheated on her. I wonder what sort of “counselling” she got. I’m sure if no one was filling her head with BS she would’ve left him.

Also, possible she felt trapped with no way to leave and live independently and support her children.  One of her brothers offered to take them all in, but, don't know if she thought that an alternative.  I am guessing if she left Josh her days as a member of the Duggar family would be over.  Kids, no education, no job, no place to go.  Lack of options.

[Albanyguy]

3 hours ago, lookeyloo said:

 I am guessing if she left Josh her days as a member of the Duggar family would be over.  Kids, no education, no job, no place to go.  Lack of options.

And if she left Josh, I wouldn't be surprised if Jim Bob and Michelle were utterly ruthless in cutting off all contact with her AND her kids. All the Smuggar "kiddos" completely cut off from their home, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins as if they never existed. Yes, I think the Duggars really are that cruel and selfish.

[lookeyloo]

4 minutes ago, Albanyguy said:

And if she left Josh, I wouldn't be surprised if Jim Bob and Michelle were utterly ruthless in cutting off all contact with her AND her kids. All the Smuggar "kiddos" completely cut off from their home, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins as if they never existed. Yes, I think the Duggars really are that cruel and selfish.

Yes, that's just what I meant when I said her days as a member of the Duggar family would have been over.  Plus, with no means of support I could see the Duggars going after custody of her children.

[cmr2014]

I think Anna is just that brainwashed. I'm sure that she felt that she had to "win Josh back" from Satan more than she thought about herself or her kids. Their thought processes are so alien to me, though, that I could be completely wrong about this.

I don't know what JB and J'chelle would have done, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't cycle through shame and guilt and being extra nice to Anna, and cruelty and derision and blaming her for failing to keep Josh in line. I don't think they would have completely cut her kids off, though, because I think that they would have faced backlash among their cult if they had gone that far.

[EAG46]

Here's another escapee from evangelicalism discussing her journey to find a better path to herself, why so many in her former faith are messed up on purpose, and how in her new book, people like the Duggars are shaping American culture: https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/god-land-author-lyz-lenz-interview  The article comes from a heavy leftist/feminist bend so you may want to skip it if it's not your cup of tea. 

[heckkitty]

14 hours ago, EAG46 said:

Here's another escapee from evangelicalism discussing her journey to find a better path to herself, why so many in her former faith are messed up on purpose, and how in her new book, people like the Duggars are shaping American culture: https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/god-land-author-lyz-lenz-interview  The article comes from a heavy leftist/feminist bend so you may want to skip it if it's not your cup of tea. 

Thanks, that’s a great read. Especially like this:

“What if we just let people be okay? If we let transgender people be okay, without having to justify their bodies all the time? If we let people of color be okay and not have to defend every action and every move? If we let women be okay in the way that men are allowed to be okay? Can you imagine the good sleep we would all be getting if we just let everybody be okay? It’s such a utopian idea that I can hardly get my head around it.”

[awaken]

I thought some of you here might be interested in this article, which I read in complete disbelief. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/09/749005287/american-with-no-medical-training-ran-center-for-malnourished-ugandan-kids-105-d

"The American cultural narrative is that these countries are basket cases."

And so, says Gostin, Americans assume that whatever their qualifications, they're sure to be of help.

The result, Gostin says, is that everyone from college kids to credentialed doctors routinely parachute into poor countries for medical missions that completely disregard local laws and conditions.

"People think that they're doing good. And they have no idea how much harm they can cause."

And people back home in the U.S. are often complicit, says Gostin. Because when these volunteers write blogs or post videos to share their exploits, "They're celebrated."

[doodlebug]

27 minutes ago, awaken said:

I thought some of you here might be interested in this article, which I read in complete disbelief. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/09/749005287/american-with-no-medical-training-ran-center-for-malnourished-ugandan-kids-105-d

"The American cultural narrative is that these countries are basket cases."

And so, says Gostin, Americans assume that whatever their qualifications, they're sure to be of help.

The result, Gostin says, is that everyone from college kids to credentialed doctors routinely parachute into poor countries for medical missions that completely disregard local laws and conditions.

"People think that they're doing good. And they have no idea how much harm they can cause."

And people back home in the U.S. are often complicit, says Gostin. Because when these volunteers write blogs or post videos to share their exploits, "They're celebrated."

So, Jesus told this 20 year old with no education or training that she needed to go to Uganda, set up a clinic for malnourished kids and treat them with absolutely no knowledge or training or even the slightest understanding of the cultural background of the place?  She deserves to be jailed.  

[latetotheparty]

2 hours ago, awaken said:

I thought some of you here might be interested in this article, which I read in complete disbelief. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/09/749005287/american-with-no-medical-training-ran-center-for-malnourished-ugandan-kids-105-d

"The American cultural narrative is that these countries are basket cases."

And so, says Gostin, Americans assume that whatever their qualifications, they're sure to be of help.

The result, Gostin says, is that everyone from college kids to credentialed doctors routinely parachute into poor countries for medical missions that completely disregard local laws and conditions.

"People think that they're doing good. And they have no idea how much harm they can cause."

And people back home in the U.S. are often complicit, says Gostin. Because when these volunteers write blogs or post videos to share their exploits, "They're celebrated."

I saw that. It made me glad Jill didn’t find too many victims for her “midwifery”. I can’t stop thinking of that young girl who died from a seizure but found Jesus so YAY!  It sounds like this was a similar kind of thing. 

[Albanyguy]

Interesting article about the new wave of young, hate-filled IFB preachers, with mentions of the Duggars and Steve Anderson.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/08/sarah-silverman-pastor-hate-comments-new-independent-fundamental-baptists.html

[Churchhoney]

47 minutes ago, Albanyguy said:

Interesting article about the new wave of young, hate-filled IFB preachers, with mentions of the Duggars and Steve Anderson.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/08/sarah-silverman-pastor-hate-comments-new-independent-fundamental-baptists.html

Steve Anderson launching a movement. There's a nightmare for you. 

[Lukeysboat]

How sickening. On one hand we have the arrogant and ignorant young woman, Bach, who saw so many die in her “care.” On the other are hate-filled preachers like Fannin and Anderson spewing their vile rhetoric. I suppose it’s the “pastors” who are worse since I believe that in her utter foolishness the Ugandan clinic woman at least wanted to help. What a disaster all around. So much stupidity, so much hatred. 

[Ohiopirate02]

14 minutes ago, TresGatos said:

I wonder what the message was that she taught and what sort of sin a 6 year old committed that convinced them they were headed for Hell? 

I always wonder at that whenever a fundy talks about being saved before losing their first tooth.  I wonder if it is because they do not do infant baptisms that they preach about hell at such a young age.  They can't wait like other Christians until the child can actually understand right from wrong because the child has lived years on earth without Jesus.  I know they don't believe in purgatory or limbo, but they are damning their kids to hell if the child passes away before being saved.  

[Lukeysboat]

10 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I always wonder at that whenever a fundy talks about being saved before losing their first tooth.  I wonder if it is because they do not do infant baptisms that they preach about hell at such a young age.  They can't wait like other Christians until the child can actually understand right from wrong because the child has lived years on earth without Jesus.  I know they don't believe in purgatory or limbo, but they are damning their kids to hell if the child passes away before being saved.  

I doubt this. I think even the Duggars ascribe to some age of accountability. An example is that they don’t believe their miscarried or stillborn babies are damned. Even King David in the Bible believed that he would one day be reunited with his dead son. 

[sleepysuzy]

12 hours ago, Lukeysboat said:

I doubt this. I think even the Duggars ascribe to some age of accountability. An example is that they don’t believe their miscarried or stillborn babies are damned. Even King David in the Bible believed that he would one day be reunited with his dead son. 

As an Evangelical myself, we do not believe that young children go to hell if they are not saved/baptized. We do believe that young children's faith can be genuine and that they can recognize sin at an early age. Jesus said that the kingdom of Heaven belonged to those with faith like children, and not to hinder children when they want to come to Him. I think the Duggars overemphasize the recognition of sin over the appeal of Jesus, which makes it seem like condemnation rather than salvation is the driving force. 

Jesus also said anyone who causes a little one to sin would be better off putting a millstone around his neck and drowning himself, which is often construed as a warning against anyone who might abuse  children and cause then to lose faith. This especially applies to religious leaders. Josh, Gothard, and others in their circle would do well to remember that scripture, along with any others who use religion and positions of power to hide abuse. Not to go too far off topic, but I think of this every time I hear about another abuse scandal in a church or religious organization. Jesus had harsher words for hypocrites and those who would harm children than He did for anyone else. 

[crazycatlady58]

2 hours ago, sleepysuzy said:

As an Evangelical myself, we do not believe that young children go to hell if they are not saved/baptized. We do believe that young children's faith can be genuine and that they can recognize sin at an early age. Jesus said that the kingdom of Heaven belonged to those with faith like children, and not to hinder children when they want to come to Him. I think the Duggars overemphasize the recognition of sin over the appeal of Jesus, which makes it seem like condemnation rather than salvation is the driving force. 

Jesus also said anyone who causes a little one to sin would be better off putting a millstone around his neck and drowning himself, which is often construed as a warning against anyone who might abuse  children and cause then to lose faith. This especially applies to religious leaders. Josh, Gothard, and others in their circle would do well to remember that scripture, along with any others who use religion and positions of power to hide abuse. Not to go too far off topic, but I think of this every time I hear about another abuse scandal in a church or religious organization. Jesus had harsher words for hypocrites and those who would harm children than He did for anyone else. 

I wish I could like this 1000 times.

[galaxychaser]

The battered wife will be told it’s her fault. Go back to your husband. Maybe the wife would be sent to alert/wife camp...

[Temperance]

I've known Catholics who stayed in abusive relationships, because the church says "divorce is a sin". Technically it's not the divorce, but the remarriage. However a lot of traditional Catholics interpet the church's teachings to mean no divorce ever.

I think Lawson and Nathan are still single, because they don't have stable jobs to financially support wives. 

Trace and Chaney are officially dating and calling it "dating".  Courtship was supposed to replace dating. 

[Ohiopirate02]

4 minutes ago, Temperance said:

I've known Catholics who stayed in abusive relationships, because the church says "divorce is a sin". Technically it's not the divorce, but the remarriage. However a lot of traditional Catholics interpet the church's teachings to mean no divorce ever.

I think Lawson and Nathan are still single, because they don't have stable jobs to financially support wives. 

Trace and Chaney are officially dating and calling it "dating".  Courtship was supposed to replace dating. 

I am constantly amazed when I hear stuff like this about Catholics.  The differences between parishes and dioceses are astounding.   I grew up in churches where separation and divorce were considered acceptable given the circumstances of the couple.  I have always had priests who would tell a woman that it is okay to leave a husband that is abusing them.  I had 3 aunts get divorced and all had kids who grew up in the church and went to Catholic school.  And there was not abuse in all of the marriages.   

[doodlebug]

On 9/13/2019 at 5:27 PM, Natalie68 said:

I think it would be handled the same way Josh's 'indiscretion' was handled.

Yep, the wife would be 'counselled' that it was her fault her husband was abusive and that she needed to try harder to be a good wife because, if he 'needed' to beat her, she was obviously not doing a good job.

[doodlebug]

22 hours ago, Temperance said:

I've known Catholics who stayed in abusive relationships, because the church says "divorce is a sin". Technically it's not the divorce, but the remarriage. However a lot of traditional Catholics interpet the church's teachings to mean no divorce ever.

In real life, the Pope and the Church itself have repeatedly said that abuse is never permissible in marriage and that if one spouse abuses another, that is a perfectly valid reason for divorce.  

Back in the 1950's-60's, there was a different mindset about abuse in marriage.  Anyone who ever watched I Love Lucy knows that Ricky would put Lucy over his knee and spank her when she got out of line and it was done for humor.  'It's Getting Better', a song by the Beatles, released in 1967, has the following lyric:

'I used to be cruel to my woman                                                                                                      I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved.'

John Lennon wrote those lyrics and admitted they were about him and he was ashamed that he had been abusive to women as a young man and that he'd worked hard to change and become a better person. He said that it was one of the reasons he was so vocal about the importance of peace in the world.

In any event, times have changed-for the better and no one should ever think it is acceptable for one partner to abuse another.

[GeeGolly]

Remaining a 'good' Catholic kept some folks from leaving their abusers.

Up until recently only divorced Catholics who also had their marriage annulled were permitted to receive Communion and Last Rites. And even now some churches still forbid it.

But religion isn't the only reason folks stay in abusive marriages. Money, fear, children, self-esteem, image, and family pressure are a few reasons why folks stay. And well educated and wealthy folks aren't immune from remaining in unhealthy marriages either.

[doodlebug]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

Remaining a 'good' Catholic kept some folks from leaving their abusers.

Up until recently only divorced Catholics who also had their marriage annulled were permitted to receive Communion and Last Rites. And even now some churches still forbid it.

But religion isn't the only reason folks stay in abusive marriages. Money, fear, children, self-esteem, image, and family pressure are a few reasons why folks stay. And well educated and wealthy folks aren't immune from remaining in unhealthy marriages either.

Being divorced has never prevented anyone from receiving the Sacraments in the Church,  Catholics are allowed to get a civil divorce.  It is the remarriage that causes them to be considered outside the Church and unable to receive the Sacraments.  Annulment by a Church tribunal after the civil divorce is the only way those who wish to remarry are considered ok for the Sacraments.

BTW, I have a priest friend and I asked him what he would do if someone he knew was not supposed to receive Communion, like a divorce who'd remarried without an annulment, got into line.  He told me he was not a cop, he believe that it was not his place to judge and that there are probably more than a few people in the Communion line that weren't supposed to be there.  He said he'd give them Communion and let it go.  He also said that if he ever had a chance to speak to them privately, he might mention it or maybe mention the Church' stance on the Sacraments, but, if they still came up for Communion, he'd give it to them.  He also pointed out that, in any large parish, the priest often only knows a fraction of the parishioners well enough to know their life story anyway.

[GeeGolly]

1 hour ago, doodlebug said:

Being divorced has never prevented anyone from receiving the Sacraments in the Church,  Catholics are allowed to get a civil divorce.  It is the remarriage that causes them to be considered outside the Church and unable to receive the Sacraments.  Annulment by a Church tribunal after the civil divorce is the only way those who wish to remarry are considered ok for the Sacraments.

BTW, I have a priest friend and I asked him what he would do if someone he knew was not supposed to receive Communion, like a divorce who'd remarried without an annulment, got into line.  He told me he was not a cop, he believe that it was not his place to judge and that there are probably more than a few people in the Communion line that weren't supposed to be there.  He said he'd give them Communion and let it go.  He also said that if he ever had a chance to speak to them privately, he might mention it or maybe mention the Church' stance on the Sacraments, but, if they still came up for Communion, he'd give it to them.  He also pointed out that, in any large parish, the priest often only knows a fraction of the parishioners well enough to know their life story anyway.

That's interesting. I don't belong to an organized religion, so I'm wondering how that works. Do the folks who still go up for Communion when they shouldn't, feel okay with that?