Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good. Maybe they're not all robots, then. I wonder if the ones who have spoken up are part of Josh's immediate family.
Anna's own brother has been publicly denouncing his sister's husband. He said something about Josh being a pig that needs to be out of his family, Anna should leave him, and he has offered to take care of Anna and the children if she will leave Josh.
I don't have a link to any articles about her brother right now, but many are out there with his direct quotes and screenshots of his social media postings.
LOL!!! I read the Bible meticulously and am still a man of faith. But the difference between me and the Duggar types is the difference between being a man of faith and a man of judgment about others.
I read an article over a year ago that said the surest way to make a liberal Christian is to have them read the Bible very carefully!!
We're gonna getcha, Areq, either in this life or the next!
Too soon to rep you again, but
As always...the wish... Yes it doesn't always work, but the next most common deconverter to the problem of Evil is reading the thing.
Yes you do. You just don't like the way they approach the bible because it's not as easy to refute as the inerrantist, literalist view you and I were raised with.
I have to agree with him. The inerrantist or literalist is easy to understand. Everything in the Bible is true, give or take some poetic similes.
The one who maintains their faith in the face of doubts they can't push aside has to explain what they can't reinterpret to fit the facts (and Literalists often do that, too) as symbolic or metaphorically true.
We like that fine because metaphorically true means NOT true -except in a metaphorical sense. In other words, Not true, but we believe it anyway. So then we just get onto a debate about the parts of the Bible they maintain ARE literally true. If not the Flood, then Exodus. If not the Star, Shekel -eating fish and walking on water, then the raising of Lazarus, Crucifixion and resurrection.
I suppose the feeding of 5,000, cursing the fig -tree and the transfiguration involves a bit of metaphor or symbolically true thinking while the healing at a distance, death of Judas and the anointing at Bethany requires some re-writing to fit the facts - that they are glaringly discrepant.
So non -literalists are back where they started. And we are dealing with them in just the same way we deal with inerrantists and literalists - except that they have already admitted that not everything in the Bible is literally true. That's a way to approach the Bible that we like fine. But it doesn't make it any easier for them.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-31-2015 at 04:18 AM..
Reason: a bit of goalpost -shifting
Anna's own brother has been publicly denouncing his sister's husband. He said something about Josh being a pig that needs to be out of his family, Anna should leave him, and he has offered to take care of Anna and the children if she will leave Josh.
I don't have a link to any articles about her brother right now, but many are out there with his direct quotes and screenshots of his social media postings.
I saw that, Love. I'm glad she has one person to turn to who is in her corner - her father certainly is not. I hope her brother's comments have given the rest of the family shame for their behavior and attitude.
I read the bible very carefully and became an atheist. The bible clearly teaches things that are impossible for an educated person to believe, like the ascension of Jesus, the creation and flood stories, and pretty much the entire book of Revelation.
I don't know how liberal Christians explain away these problems. But humans are very good at rationalizing the irrational beliefs that make them feel better, so I assume there is a whole industry dedicated to liberal Christian apologetics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
Yes you do. You just don't like the way they approach the bible because it's not as easy to refute as the inerrantist, literalist view you and I were raised with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I have to agree with him. The inerrantist or literalist is easy to understand. Everything in the Bible is true, give or take some poetic similes.
The one who maintains their faith in the face of doubts they can't push aside has to explain what they can't reinterpret to fit the facts (and Literalists often do that, too) as symbolic or metaphorically true.
We like that fine because metaphorically true means NOT true -except in a metaphorical sense. In other words, Not true, but we believe it anyway. So then we just get onto a debate about the parts of the Bible they maintain ARE literally true. If not the Flood, then Exodus. If not the Star, Shekel -eating fish and walking on water, then the raising of Lazarus, Crucifixion and resurrection.
I suppose the feeding of 5,000, cursing the fig -tree and the transfiguration involves a bit of metaphor or symbolically true thinking while the healing at a distance, death of Judas and the anointing at Bethany requires some re-writing to fit the facts - that they are glaringly discrepant.
So non -literalists are back where they started. And we are dealing with them in just the same way we deal with inerrantists and literalists - except that they have already admitted that not everything in the Bible is literally true. That's a way to approach the Bible that we like fine. But it doesn't make it any easier for them.
So, you just said you agree with Freak that you don't know how liberal Christians explain things, then proceeded to tell me how they do it. Like I said. "Yes you do" know how they do it.
That gave me a chuckle. For all we know, he may already be an atheist who won't acknowledge it because Christianity is his gravy train. If he can figure out a way to make money off of being an atheist, he might do it. Were he to break with his family and write a kiss-and-tell book (pun intended), it would sell, but after that money runs out, he'll be back to having to make a living. He's 27 with a high school equivalency certificate, a wife and four kids to support. I don't think the atheists are going to rush to contribute to a gofundme campaign called "Help Josh Duggar be an Atheist." Any allowance from his family (out of "kindness to his wife and children") would be only enough to survive and closely monitored, i.e. no fun for Josh, and not enough to be worth renouncing his faith.
While I think it unlikely he's a closet atheist, if he is and is living a lie that permeates his life, it's just one factor that would contribute to his addictive behavior. It would also make it very difficult for him to get the help he needs. The "treatment" for his pedophilia was faith based, as is his current rehab. These aren't good places to explore doubts about god. Another possible difficulty for any remaining pedophile desires or actions are new laws in some states that require therapists to report any instances of pedophilia to authorities. This is an ongoing controversy within the therapeutic community. Some think it drives pedophiles who want help underground because there is nowhere they can discuss their urges and past actions while trying to get help, unless the abuse was long enough that the statue of limitations has passed.
I have seriously wondered if that is the case, that Josh (and others in the family) know that they don't believe what they preach, but it is their livelihood. I have read many accounts of pastors who, at some point in their career, stop believing, but they have no other marketable skill, so they keep on preaching and pretending. Very sad, both for the pastor who feels so trapped, and for the people he is deceiving.
And we are dealing with them in just the same way we deal with inerrantists and literalists - except that they have already admitted that not everything in the Bible is literally true.
You have to "deal with" us? Really?
Oddly enough, I've never felt I had to "deal with" a non-believer. If they don't believe I accept that. No "dealing" needed.
p.s. It's not an "admission" to say you think that not everything in the Bible is literally true. It's a statement of what someone thinks. Are we liberal Christians supposed to be leery of saying what we think? (I'm flunking that one if we are.) Is there someone from the Department of Fundamentalism keeping track? Is a Duggar going to be knocking on my door because I think the flood myth in the Bible is one of many flood myths? They'll be disappointed to find I also expose my knees and think the whole chaperoned dates thing is kind of creepy strange.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 08-31-2015 at 12:43 PM..
I saw that, Love. I'm glad she has one person to turn to who is in her corner - her father certainly is not. I hope her brother's comments have given the rest of the family shame for their behavior and attitude.
She needs to get away from the Duggars... escape, like the poor girls do from Polygamy. These people just don't see that their religion/cult is toxic!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
