Okay Josh Duggar....

Post Reply New Topic

Very interesting! I can't imagine the Duggars fighting a literal war but they could very well fight a political one. Josh has already been involved as a lobbiest.

Everyone has needs and God supplies those needs.

Some people possess natural abilities or talents and are good stewards of the talent and resources God gives them. To whom much is given, much is expected. People who responsibly and wisely assess risk aren't guaranteed success every time, but they are better positioned to gain more. It comes as no surprise that the Duggars have done well with what they had to begin with, so they have been given more. Luck has nothing to do with it. They just happen to have a TV show…or, well, they HAD a TV show. There are other people out there more successful than the Duggars who aren't on TV. And there are people who have not been given as much, nor have they really done the best anyone could with the little they have. To be frank, if you cannot handle the responsibility of wealth, God isn't going to burden you with it.

But what God WILL do is make sure your basic needs are met.

BTW…having a reality show is NOT a big deal. I'm on TV every week, albeit a small market, and reach an internet audience as well. I'm active on G+ and YouTube. And I think I mentioned that I had a brief appearance on a nationally broadcast reality show on TruTV. I'm a member of BMI and working towards getting music ready for possible TV and film placement…still a long way out on that one, but working towards it anyway--nothing ventured, nothing gained. So I fail to see why having a lot of money or being on TV is really all that special. Even if I didn't have the part-time job I have as part of, among other things, a television ministry, God took care of me before and would continue to do so even if I left my current position. As a matter of fact, I've lost good-paying jobs and mostly abandoned my piano teaching studio, and by raising my youngest by myself and not having to pay daycare, we're making less money but keeping more of what we make. So…yeah, God takes care of our basic needs whether you're rich and famous or dirt poor. In that regard, we are all equal.


Abusive husband? So, basically she was a Quiverfull mother part of a family that did NOT put God first? It's no surprise she felt this way. It always helps to put God FIRST.

To be clear--putting God first means caring for those God puts in your charge. If the husband is not meeting the needs of his wife and in fact is abusing her, he isn't doing what God meant for him to do. Families succeed when they consistently put God FIRST. If you love God, you'll care more for others than for yourself. That's what God does. That is what we must do.

But don't you see how this can result in a circular argument? Women are disempowered because they think "this is God's plan". But meanwhile, the husband gets to do whatever the hell what he wants to do for precisely this same exact reason - because it is "God's plan." Don't you see how God can't just explain things away like this? Don't you see how men are given special privilege?

I don't know what to say. These arguments upset me. In your response you show defensiveness and little empathy for the woman whose husband was abusive. This is telling to me. You can argue it all you want, but it's telling to me.

I don't know what to say about bringing up God in arguments of morals. I think it's a cop-out frankly, and this is why I think religion is dying. I read this s**t about debating Bible versuses, but more important truths get left out of discussion. The Bible is fiction. I don't understand why people feel the need to treat it as absolute truth.

And yes, I'm angry, but I'm entitled to be angry at times.

Well, that's not usually what is meant by "circular argument." A circular argument is a logical error when one assumes something they are trying to prove. Something like "The scientific method works. I know it works because when I use observation techniques and collect data, it gets results." You don't get to use what you're trying to prove and say it proves itself. Not how it works.

Getting past that, the Bible doesn't indicate that disempowering women is part of God's plan. The Bible indicates that men jump to disempowering women and proceeds to make unfair or unjust institutions livable for women.

No, the Bible tells us that Eve was taken from Adam's side. Had Eve been taken from Adam's head, she'd have ruled over him. From Adam's foot, he'd have ruled over her. Eve was taken from Adam's side so she'd walk beside him and share equally in God's purpose for both of them.

This same concept of plays out in feminism. In order for feminism to fully achieve its goals, it requires men to consciously step aside and actively work to elevate women. It's a demonstration of women's dependence on men to allow a change of status since men inherently have greater physical strength. Men inherently have the power to empower or disempower women, so certain incarnations of modern feminism is just another way of women asking permission to compete at the same level as men.

The Biblical response is to ask the question why do men choose to dominate women in the first place? Would it not just be better if men treated women as equals in the first place?

I do believe, though, than men were meant to be the spiritual head of the household. If a household fails, it is the man that God holds primarily responsible. Wise leaders listen to their advisors. So while I'm officially "in charge" of my family, I usually defer to my wife for most decisions because she's a lot smarter than I am. One of our rituals is we set aside time at the end of every Tuesday, synchronize our calendars, set a game plan for whatever is coming up in the next week. Once a month we review any changes that need to be made throughout the remaining year. And if there are any issues affecting one or both of us or any part of our family, we talk about it during these "meetings," and we have time set aside pretty much every day to talk about what actually happened as opposed to what we planned for. And we make adjustments moving forward day by day. We stay on the same page and no one is superior to the other.

Besides, with regard to how men are supposed to treat women, have you actually read the Bible? How are husbands and wives supposed to relate to each other? How are men supposed to treat women?


I think you've grossly misunderstood. I'm not defending anything, nor do I feel the need to be defensive. I'm just trying to shed light on my point of view.

It's not that I lack empathy for the woman who was abused. More like I have no sympathy for a man who made his wife miserable and had to experience God taking her away. To whom much is given, much is expected. It's the parable of the talents. Two servants where given various amounts of money. They wisely managed risk and got a return on their investment. One servant did nothing, since he knew his master was just going to take the profit, anyway. So because he did nothing with what he was given, he lost EVERYTHING. The Bible also tells us that God won't task us with anything that is more than what we can endure. This man you're talking about (and btw, I have know idea who this guy is or if we're just being hypothetical) obviously was incapable of caring for his wife so God gave them both some relief.

The last thing I have to say about this is when you're dealing with people like that, or even with people in general, you really have to take the time to try to understand what it is you're getting into. People too often marry for what they think is "love," but it ends up being a lot more selfish than that. My plan for handling my kids dating when they get out of college is to strongly impress on them the importance of marrying into families that are compatible with our own. People ignore this aspect of marriage, respective families don't work together to support the next generation, and it ends up causing a lot of conflict for the families, not just the newlyweds. A prevalence of divorce and multiple marriages should come as no surprise to anyone. And though I feel terribly for the woman in this scenario, she got there in no small part due to a choice she willingly made. You can cry "victim blaming" all you want, but you cannot change the fact that at some point she made a free will choice to be with this guy and to accept everything that went with it.

My wife and I, just so you know, briefly had a really good situation with our families. Her entire immediate family is now deceased, and I have no one left but my mother. All that happened within the first few years of our marriage. We really are on our own, which is why it's so important that we have several children and instill a strong sense of corporate solidarity, i.e. take care of each other and understand what happens to one of us affects us all.

We're not a quiverfull family, either, and 20+ children are not in the cards for us. My daughter was born through an emergency C-section, which meant we'll never have another natural childbirth. We're open to the possibility of having a 4th child because despite the risks, her 3rd pregnancy went beautifully and she made a quick recovery. But knowing the risks to my wife's health and even her life, I'm not pushing for it. I'll spare the details, but will just say that we were trying NOT to have our 3rd child.


Well, it IS absolute truth. If you want me to believe that it's fiction, you're going to have to prove that.


Perhaps. But…look, it's not worth getting angry about. I look at these conversations as merely discussions about topics I know something about or have personal experience with. Neither you nor Ana have angered me at all. I'll be happy to just go away for a few days if it's that troubling for you. Getting people upset isn't why I'm here.