Okay Josh Duggar....

Post Reply New Topic

Evidence, please.


meh…don't care.


It's a free country. Lobby for whatever you like. You're allowed.

Powerful? I dunno about THAT. Comments like that reek of hatemongering, a bias against those evil, hateful, antiquated, conservative CHRISSSSSTIANSSSSSSSS.
Please, you don't know these people and you don't really know what they're like. All that victim-blaming stuff that supposedly spews forth from ATI? I read the supporting pdf quoted by gawker and I completely missed where it says anything about blaming the victim. Could be I didn't take enough time or look closely enough, but if you want me to take this seriously you're going to have to point me exactly to where ATI literature expressly promotes victim-blaming. Maybe I'm wrong but…I dunno…evidence please? And POWERFUL? REALLY?!?! If they're so powerful, why DON'T we live in a Christian theocracy? Face it, you've got nothing except you just think these people are weird.


No, I can't "bet every Duggar will do their best to cover it up." Here we go again, building a case based on pure speculation. You're just making stuff up because you think the Duggars are weird and you don't like them as evidenced by your statements in this thread. And yes, it IS discipline. Counseling, correction, whatever you want to call it… Maybe not "punishment" per se like when I spank my children when they misbehave, but it's a corrective action nonetheless that falls under the disciplinary rubric.

Look, I can't stress enough that I don't completely agree with everything the Duggars do, and I've stated I think there may be some theological issues with ATI. My contention is not that the Duggars are pure as driven snow or right about everything. My issue is that I'm not seeing any merit to what has been brought against them in this thread. I could realistically be convinced one way or the other IF some actual facts are brought out. Right now all I'm getting from this thread is "the Duggars creep me out, therefore Josh Duggar was a victim of abuse and in turn abused his sisters, and because of THAT, it logically follows everybody else was abused and just aren't coming forward." In a very rough nutshell, that's the vibe I get out of all this, that the Duggars are just weird, etc. If they're weird, so what? I'm weird, too. Doesn't mean anything. That anyone else was abused or that Josh was abused does NOT logically follow. And I don't care about what MIGHT have happened or not happened. What REALLY happened is what's important here, and anything less is just imaginative fiction to waste our time.

That's what the Duggar family have done so far and YES I have looked at the confusing jargon ATI publishes about sexual abuse counseling. Did you know if whomever sent the email to Oprah never had, no one would know anything about any of this meanwhile they point the finger at all us unrighteous folk and lukewarm Christians, telling us hopeless sinners how to live our lives as in, what bills we should and shouldn't allow.

ATI asks the abuser if inappropriate clothing was involved because if it was, that has to be it! He did it because of clothes.

There are, apparently numerous others who feel the same way as and do not feel like being bullied by the religious right, who are so often the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

If you search you can find testimony of former ATI members who have spoken out against the Duggars and the It's up to you whether you want to agree with the way the Duggars raise their children.

Also, I don't believe in spanking. You can do your own researching on that. I don't want to provide a whole bunch of links since I have faith that you can look it up for yourself and come up to your own conclusions.

I don't believe in it either.

Evidence please.

Whether spanking is right or not isn't the point. The point was that a means of correction was used to get Josh to change his behavior.

And no, I'm not going to do a search for testimony against ATI or Duggars. I'm unconvinced that there is a problem. Anyone who wants to convince me otherwise has to cite testimony, literature, etc., wherein a problem becomes apparent. I will be glad to look into it from there and refute it. But I'm not doing someone else's work for them (and no, I'm not talking about you specifically. You actually seem to be making an effort at fairness, and I respect that even if we do disagree on some things).

Out of pure curiosity, I reread the wiki article on Bill Gothard. Very interesting… He was indeed the founder of IBLP, though by no means does that means he just made all this stuff up. Obviously he had a lot of support to begin with. It's pretty clear he failed in upholding the very teachings he taught.

As far as I can tell, Gothard has not been charged with anything or everything has been settled out of court (I guess, I dunno). IBLP determined that Gothard DID indeed act inappropriately with regard to their teachings, yet did nothing criminal.

So…despite Gothard doing something IBLP considered improper, he didn't do anything illegal? Am I understanding this right?

If Gothard isn't breaking the law, merely violating the high standards of his own organization, then what exactly is the problem here?

Okay, my last message was either deleted or didn't post.

My point is children model their behavior by how their adults act. First off, I don't like spanking because it models aggression. You can research for yourself anti-spanking and pro-spanking arguments. Personally, I don't like it. Think about how your child feels when they are subject to spanking? Do they feel small? Helpless? Why would you do this to a small child? Why would you do something to a small child that you wouldn't do to an adult? I'm sorry to call you out on this but it's important to me. I realize 50% of Americans think spanking is okay, but that doesn't mean it's right. I'm trying to help you even if it sounds like I'm trolling, I'm not. My intent is sincere.

Please don't join ATI. It's a cult.

Well, if you are a moral Christian holding everyone around you to a high standard hell yeah Gothard did something wrong. If you are going to put yourself up on the Christian pedestal, you have pretty high standards to keep or go home! At least have the wisdom to know something about yourself before being so demanding of others. And, the Duggars worship Bill Gothard and surprise! Lo and behold Josh Duggar comes down with a bad case of the Gothards! What an alarming coincidence, eh?

You don't have to worry about me every joining any of the fundie bs because I am down with the game. I am wise to them.

As for being hit, slapped, and spanked, I know all too well from my own life it doesn't help everyone. It certainly never helped me and in fact made me even worse. Gave me PTSD, too. Now I am a nervous, high strung, highly vigilant adult, always on guard. I have all kinds of flashbacks to my treacherous past, too. I was mostly a bored and lonely child which is why I got into trouble. I would get into stuff and wander away in search of friends. Wandering away was something I would get hit for doing but all my mother wanted to do was sleep all the time and I got bored. She also got angry when I wouldn't go to bed but I had to transition into sleep. Getting to sleep was extremely difficult for me. Hitting was not going to cause me to fall asleep any faster and often it meant staying up even later after a tantrum and prolonged crying spell. Moral of the story: seriously consider before hitting. What is it, exactly, you hope to accomplish?

OoooOoo...etc I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Angel Rho and basically everyone else who is viewing this thread. I take a hard stand on this issue having experienced bullying in my teens. I wasn't spanked but I feel bad for those who were. I know there are some parents who advocate "softer types of spanking" but this line of reasoning is dangerous in my opinion. If the spanking is controlled perhaps the effect might be less but I don't think spanking of any type is appropriate.

I'm trying to be as fair as I possibly can but when someone reads that advice on how to "counsel" victims of sexual abuse and doesn't find it appalling (minimizing victim blaming), I have to wonder what their frame of reference is. People view the world differently based on how they were raised. If a person was spanked as a child the tendency is to think "oh, I turned out okay" it must have been right for me. The truth is the person doesn't want to admit that the spanking was indeed harmful. It is painful to admit that their parents have made a mistake. And so the cycle is repeated from generation to generation and it's dangerous. The same thing goes for this Quiverfull cult. It's dangerous. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, but I don't find cults cute. Even the Amish, this cult may look cute but it is still a cult and harmful to many of its members.

Sorry for the rambling, but this issue gets me worked up.

HeavenlyAbyss,

I am also not a fan of the Amish and never watch shows about them, which are most likely fake anyway. Basically, they are off my radar. I don't see eye to eye with the way they live but I can understand it has value. They never lose touch with doing things the old way and this could be an advantage if something were to happen to the majority of new ways. I give them credit for that. Adjusting to nearly anything will be easier. It is harmful to the lost ones who must leave the Amish because they cannot make it in the Amish scheme of things. No one wants to build them a house, buy or give them some land or build them a barn so they take off for greener pastures and it's very difficult because all they know, pretty much, is how to build stuff and it's all wood framed structures. I wouldn't deny them the right to live that way though. I think they should be more inclusive and let outsiders who want to join them in more easily.

Don't worry about me joining ATI. I'm totally not interested. My thing is, I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They have a lot of ideas I think are good, healthy, and perhaps even ideal and strongly compatible with my own attitudes and how I want to raise my own family. What worries me about ATI is I think theologically they are not always on a good path. If you are going to do something for religious reasons, first understand WHY religious people of the past did things. I never read the Bible and insist my family do things "because the Bible said so." I love the Old Testament. But Old Testament law has two strikes against it that make much of it inappropriate for ME to follow. First, it was written for the Israelites. To my knowledge, I'm not an Israelite. So I have no reason to observe dietary laws and other identity laws. Second, much of it is ceremonial. I wouldn't be allowed in the Temple anyway since I'm not a Jew, and even if I were a Jew the Temple is gone. So I couldn't offer sacrifices even if I qualified for it. So what do ceremonial purity laws mean for me? Nothing. So the conclusion I have to draw from all this is if I choose to observe a wide degree of OT teaching and customs, it has to be for my own reasons. If I do it for any other reason, it's empty legalism because I'm doing these things without any kind of understanding of what those laws were originally for. That's what worries me about ATI/IBLP.

Now they do have a lot of very strong points I agree wholeheartedly with: Courtship preferred to dating/fathers heavily involved in daughters' relationships with other men. When two people get married, it is the joining together of two FAMILIES. It's bigger than just two people. If there's going to be conflict between my family and whoever my son or daughter marries into, it's best I do everything I can to discourage that. Dating for most people is a distraction from school/career goals and something everyone can live without. So, yeah, I think they are on the right track. IBLP has a strong aversion to accumulating debt. Absolutely agree with this. When you owe someone money, that person owns you. When you go to work, you don't get to keep your money. You have to give it to someone else and you cannot enjoy the benefits of what you earn. Not to mention risk--what if you borrow money, circumstances change, and you can't pay it back? I can tell you from painful experience what happens when you don't pay debts, and I'm one of the lucky ones. Aversion to debt is wise and yes, I'm passing that one along to my children.

Re spanking: It's a distraction from the point of this thread, so I don't intend to dwell on it much. If you dislike or are uncomfortable with physical punishment, don't do it. If you have a violent history and don't understand the boundaries between something that is simply painful and something that is damaging/abusive, don't do it.

Here's why I do it. The single most effective form of communication we have with children is through touch. That goes all the way back to mothers nursing their babies. It's the first thing we really understand. We don't fully understand that there is this big world out there and the most innocent slip-ups can be harmful and even deadly. And this loud voice yelling at me is probably just being playful, anyway. There is no connection between my will as a child and things that can hurt me. But…wait…the last time I pulled that stunt, dad dropped the hammer on the back of my leg. That really hurt. I'm going to run back to dad because my leg didn't hurt the last time I did what he said.

Something else I noticed early on with my oldest child that had a pretty big emotional impact on me was no amount of verbal correction or timeouts seemed to help him understand how is actions affected those around him and how hurtful he could be. I had an epiphany that day. I realized that kids, just like they don't have an immediate sense of danger, also don't feel sympathy--they don't look at the pain of others, especially when they are the cause of that pain (emotional pain), and share in that experience. They don't understand WHY they should feel sorry for others or why they should feel bad about having caused that pain. My son picked up early on that the proper response to everything was to say "I'm sorry." But his repeating nice words didn't change the behavior. He said it. But he didn't mean it. And that was my epiphany. When I spanked my oldest back then, it was THEN that he actually FELT sorry for his actions. Omigoodness the change was almost immediate--he connected his actions towards others with the physical pain of having done or said those things, which in turn he associated with his own feelings of being hurt (emotionally).

It's been nothing but emotional growth and maturity ever since. It progresses from me being the big, mean, ugly, scary dad who is moments away from bringing about the end of the world to "Good people don't act like that, so we don't do it." In other words, they avoid bad behavior NOW not because they are afraid of me, but because they have an intense desire to prefer doing the right thing for its own sake. Why don't you slap your sister? Uh…because she's my sister! We don't do that! Why don't you misbehave on long trips to the grocery store? Because there are other people there who don't deserve to be annoyed by me.

So do you think I spank my oldest two kids much? I have no need to, and more importantly, THEY don't need me to. We've grown past that. For them, my facial expressions are enough for them to know they've done something wrong and need to correct their own behavior. My oldest son is almost too old for it, anyway. My daughter is NOT too old, but she follows so closely in her brother's example there's just never much need for correction. SOMETIMES, yes, but it's rare. It's my 3 year old's turn to show a rebellious, defiant streak, and yesterday was one of those days it seemed the poor kid just couldn't get a break. It happens. He'll learn. And he has the advantage of having two older siblings who are good models and can correct his behavior without me getting involved at all (no, they aren't allowed to spank him, and that's not what I mean).

Also, and I can't stress this enough--spanking is a last resort. Verbal communication is the front line. Right behind that is diplomacy and the usual round of conflict resolution, as in "No, that's a big-kid toy and you might break it, and you'll make your sister cry if you break it. You'll like THIS toy better, and you can't break it." Next is a series of verbal warnings through old-fashioned counting and an associated non-verbal hand sign. There are two sets of these. The one I use most often is a fast 5-count. I almost never make it to 5. It's just a communication that they need to stop what they're doing IMMEDIATELY, do what I say, stop an undesired behavior that I'm trying to correct, and HURRY UP. 5 is not a good number because it means you have needlessly delayed, you are being defiant, and you WILL without exception be punished.

The other count is a slow 3-count we refer to as "the Steps." It's a trick I learned as a public school teacher. We don't have codified, posted, "official" rules in our home. But they do know we expect obedience at ALL times, to treat everyone in the home including siblings with respect, that we DO enforce the few rules we DO have, and to expect the end of the world if they defy us. So the first thing that happens when they disobey is we tell them they have not done what they were supposed to do. Let's be honest here…most of the time when people fail to comply, it is the person giving the order who has made the mistake by failing to fully communicate expectations. So we repeat instructions, have the kids repeat back those instructions in their own words, and send them on their way. We may give them one more chance…they are kids, after all. So we assess that the child understand instruction and is making a conscious choice to disobey.

Of course, children forget. So that's Step One: Reminder. Please stop the behavior. You're "on 1," don't get "on 3." Continued misbehavior means they are choosing to misbehave without regard for consequences. They aren't taking us seriously. But, again, we don't rush to punishment. Step Two: Warning. You are misbehaving, you KNOW you are misbehaving, PLEASE STOP. You're "on 2," PLEASE DON'T GET "on 3."

There's really no such thing as Step 3. There's no "3 strikes and you're out." It just means you've understood instructions, you've been reminded that a certain behavior is wrong, you've ignored warnings, and I as your parent am compelled to punish you. You have taken this out of my hands, there is nowhere left to go with this.

DEPENDING, of course, on the infraction itself, the severity of a child's defiance, the time/place this occurs, etc., Step 2 might mean time out (we use time outs most often for something else, not really discipline, but it IS an option for discipline. Time out for us is more "you're upset, go to your bed until you calm down, come out when you feel better." We don't do the 5-minute egg timer thing). Sometimes Step 3 means time out, taking away a toy, or whatever. But when Step 3 means a spanking, the kids are well aware of what's coming and why. Believe me when I say I/We do NOT want to go to 3, and our kids will even tell you we practically BEG them not to go there--you'd think the opposite, that they'd be the ones begging. We're trying to tell them we DO NOT WANT to punish them and that they are responsible for what happens to them, not us.

The message we try to send is we're not big, bad, evil monsters out to get them. We're not looking for something to bust them for. I feel that they have largely responded positively to that philosophy, which has led them to doing good things for the pleasure of doing good things rather than being afraid of us. We started all this when they were 2 years old. The pattern all our children have followed is increasing defiance through 3 years and tapering off within about 6-9 months. We've been very firm, fair, and consistent. We've been tested often, and we've responded the same way each time. Our kids can't say they don't know what to expect, because our response is ALWAYS the same. Don't let us count to 5. Don't get on Step 3. Do what you're told WHEN you're told. Treat others the way you want to be treated. We have wonderful children. Most of that is they have a sweet nature. The other part is consistent correction. Sure, I'd do some things differently knowing some things I know now. But for the MOST part I regret very little and am pleased with how my children have turned out thus far.

Angelrho, I can see why you wouldn't join the Evangelicals because if they read what you are writing, they would call you a lukewarm Christian straight away.

That's not saying I think you are one. I wish all Christians would think about what they are reading instead of believing all of it was written by God Himself and they have to follow most of it, although they do not sacrifice animals to the temple anymore but that could actually start again once the temple is rebuilt. Why is it they can see they shouldn't sacrifice animals but they can't understand other parts of it. They have it figured out, in our culture, we don't sacrifice animals to God just because it's in the Bible but the rest of it we must follow to a T except for the dietary laws which they say have already been righteously fulfilled and all we must follow as Christians are the ten commands.

Just please do not let anyone try to manipulate you with the lukewarm Christian accusation. They try to do that. If you don't follow their interpretation and become as fanatical as they, you are a lukewarm Christian and Jesus hates you. I have seen WBC use this line of reasoning many times, in fact, they protest other churches accusing them of this.

I had someone try to indoctrinate me once but I am able to see through what they say. I just tell them they are too judgmental. They start piling on the Bible verses that back up everything they do. It's like standing in quicksand.

Who says I'm not an Evangelical? I AM an evangelical Christian. I think everyone should put their faith in Christ and repent.

But being a conservative evangelical doesn't mean you can't think for yourself and make up your own mind about things. Like I said, there are some things they say that I like, some things I don't.

I only have a minute, but there are some other things I'll respond to when I get home. You bring up some good points, especially the thing about "lukewarm."

Got more time now...

Depends on the evangelical. I follow a different interpretation of what "lukewarm" means. I'd say THEY are the lukewarm ones, and I'll save my explanation for the end.


Yes, but I reject the premise that God didn't write all of it. The Torah indicates that God spoke the law to Moses and Moses passed it along to the people. Every law had a purpose--ceremonial, identity, and establishing basic law and order. Well, ceremonial law don't apply to non-Iraelites/non-Jews. Foreigners are INVITED to take part, SOME laws that separate goyim from Hebrew rituals DO affect foreigners, but largely not REQUIRED. Laws that set Hebrews apart from other nations are not required of foreigners. Those laws cannot be changed or questioned. Law-and-order laws are required from EVERYONE in Israel BUT may be changed as circumstance and need dictates.

Now, any Christian can look at God-breathed law and decide what, if any, he feels led by conscience to follow. For the Christian, this has a different purpose than for the Jew. Jews are looking ahead to the promise God will one day fulfill. Christians believe that promise has already been fulfilled, therefore righteousness comes from Christ and not from the Law. There is no longer any reason for man to be separated from God or men to be separated from each other.

I will say I think it's dangerous to completely disregard the Law. Worshiping idols and other false deities along with associated other behaviors are human expression of dissatisfaction of God's established natural order. We largely don't worship idols, but we are guilty of behaviors associated with ancient cults that have been expressly forbidden for a good reason. So, yeah, I'll admit that I do fear that God could unleash His wrath against us at any time because of how far we've gone down that path. I don't think we're so far gone as to be irredeemable as a society quite yet, but I strongly feel we're on shaky ground (perhaps literally, if you know your OT history. ). I admit sometimes I wonder if something like ISIS is not God using a group of wicked people somewhere to send us a message, that if we don't correct ourselves or seek God to correct us Himself, something like ISIS or even worse will take hold here.

Anyway, back on topic re God writing the Bible… Many times in the prophets the scriptures are described as "the word of the Lord" or some such, indicating that it is not a prophet's agenda but rather God Himself who is speaking through the prophet. If you interpret the names of the prophets, you'll see why scholars believe that the prophets were using pseudonyms, along with the possibility that given what the prophets were trying to say to various kings, they could be put to death. Probably some of them were. Regardless, I believe the prophets spoke and wrote what God wanted them to speak and write. So I accept that the Bible is literally true and that God Himself oversaw its writing.


*sigh*

Well…the 10 Commandments are summary statements of the spirit of the Law as a whole. First, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, love God with heart, mind, spirit, and strength…essentially, with your whole being. Secondarily, with man being created as image-bearers of God in the same sense that lifeless idols supposedly bore the image of other gods, we are commanded to do more for others than for ourselves. That's where sexual purity, contentment with what God provides you with (i.e. don't covet your neighbor's things), and fairly balanced distribution of justice (no false testimony, no murder, etc.) among other items within the 10 commandments come in. The 10 Commandments expand on the Greatest Commandment: Love God with all your being; do more for others than for yourself. All other commandants within the OT are application and clarification of those 10 commandments. Love God and be good to people and you never, EVER have to worry about breaking any commandments. It's that simple.


Cutting you off right there, because I think this is important (no offense meant). This is what I wanted to get to earlier. Look, here's the deal with "lukewarm."

According to the New Testament, God wants His followers to be hot or cold, but will "spew" the lukewarm from His mouth. The way I always heard this was you had believers who were on fire for God and you had unbelievers who are cold. That always confused me. Why would God PREFER unbelievers to "lukewarm" believers? So I think this interpretation I grew up with is incorrect.

Think about it…

Back in those days, it was thought that mineral water coming from hot, volcanic springs had healing properties and the Romans were well known for their public bath construction programs. Even now people prefer a hot shower or bath to a cold or lukewarm one.

On the other hand, people would prefer drinking cold water because it's refreshing.

In that day and time, people would prefer drinking the hot water they believed would bring healing and good health, or they'd want cold, refreshing water if they were hot and thirsty. Lukewarm water sources likely would have picked up added mineral content that would have turned it bitter and possibly made people sick who drank it.

So Christians are supposed to be spiritual healers like the hot springs, or we are to be spiritually refreshing like cold wells and streams.

Lukewarm people make claims to do one or the other (they're still "water" after all). But when it comes right down to it, they are useless and maybe even harmful.

THAT is what is meant by Hot/Cold/Lukewarm.

And I'm not worried in the least what people who purposefully misinterpret those saying have to say about me. I know where I'm going.