DUGGERS and 3 questions

[Tess]

Guys, this isn't the point of the thread...

 

[High Fidelity]

I was afraid you'd think I had you in mind. I didn't. You were simply the object of the badgering.

My apologies.

 

[Cearbhall]

1. I do not know much about the Duggers except that I just read a little on Wikipedia. They seem to be a very conservative Christian family that seems to present a very high moral standard.

Eh. There's no single spectrum of moral standards. Their morals are high by their own standard (except for Josh).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I was afraid you'd think I had you in mind. I didn't. You were simply the object of the badgering.

There are two posts in which I ask the question directly (1, 2). In two other posts I noted a reluctance to directly address the question. I haven't reiterated the question again, except to ask you your thoughts on it (since you saw fit to take a side-swipe at it). So the assertion of badgering is unjustified, and it goes beyond the pale to call it "goading."

 

[HannahT]

Morally there's a difference, sure, but both are sin.

It's also important to remember that consent in the sense that two people are willing and legally free to do so under secular law doesn't excuse them from wrongdoing by biblical standard.

So yes, while one may be worse than the other, the repentance of one sin compared to the persistence of another is something to be considered.

You basically answered your own question! Secular society doesn't recognize the biblical standard that you quote. You may recognize his repentance, but the comparison between the two circumstances isn't going to be recognized.

Also, a rapist can repent...but that doesn't mean they will escape consequences.

Even Paul in the bible never escaped his actions of the past. He may have been forgiven in the biblical sense, but people still viewed him with suspicion due to his past.

The church also has a reputation of sweeping this kind of thing under the carpet, and the fact that the leader that they followed was removed due to basically the same thing? It doesn't make it much better.

 

[Cearbhall]

It's also important to remember that consent in the sense that two people are willing and legally free to do so under secular law doesn't excuse them from wrongdoing by biblical standard.

So yes, while one may be worse than the other, the repentance of one sin compared to the persistence of another is something to be considered.

So the inability to judge the severity is due to other factors, not the act itself. Fair enough. As long as consensual actions aren't being equated with non-consensual actions.

 

[High Fidelity]

So the inability to judge the severity is due to other factors, not the act itself. Fair enough. As long as consensual actions aren't being equated with non-consensual actions.

I'm sure they'll find out when they meet their Maker on how He views both sins and who repented, the sincerity of repentance or the absence of repentance.

 

[HannahT]

Could say that about everyone though Patrick. We will all be held to account.

 

[High Fidelity]

Could say that about everyone though Patrick. We will all be held to account.

Of course

 

[evoeth]

Yes, but many Christians also condone female ministers, drunkenness, lying and adultery.

I'm not responsible for their actions or opinions, misguided as they can be.

We aren't one and the same, even professing the same faith.

That's exactly why sin is a useless idea when seeking justice or defining social policy: eg what should be done about all this.

 

[High Fidelity]

That's exactly why sin is a useless idea when seeking justice or defining social policy: eg what should be done about all this.

That wasn't the discussion, though. The discussion was people refusing to accept that he admitted fault, repented and has gotten his life back on track.

People are throwing him under the bus by assuming he can't have changed in that time.

 

[Cearbhall]

People are throwing him under the bus by assuming he can't have changed in that time.

I think the argument here is that he never received proper treatment, much less criminal justice. It wasn't brought to the attention of the authorities until after the statute of limitations had passed, and they admit that the counselor they sent him to wasn't certified.

 

[Albion]

Eh. There's no single spectrum of moral standards. Their morals are high by their own standard (except for Josh).

Do you have even the remotest knowledge of what their moral standards and belief are? Or is this rather a case of "They say they're Christian, so that's good enough. We'll just think of them as 'Fundamentalists'...and you know what they are like!"

 

[Cearbhall]

Do you have even the remotest knowledge of what their moral standards and belief are?

Much more than a remote idea. I've done a fair amount of reading about them over the years. Their family's history, things they've written, videos, etc.

Or is this rather a case of "They say they're Christian, so that's good enough. We'll just think of them as 'Fundamentalists'...and you know what they are like!"

I have no idea how you found prejudice in what I said, and I'm not actually sure of where you're going with this accusation. All I said is that no one's moral standards are objectively higher, because there's no single measurement of morality. They live according to what they consider to be high morals. I do the same, though it's different for me in practice.

 

[Albion]

Much more than a remote idea. I've done a fair amount of reading about them over the years. Their family's history, things they've written, videos, etc.

Fair enough. I was wondering why none of that ever seemed to be incorporated into any post here.

I have no idea how you found prejudice in what I said, and I'm not actually sure of where you're going with this accusation. All I said is that no one's moral standards are objectively higher, because there's no single measurement of morality. They live according to what they consider to be high morals. I do the same, though it's different for me in practice.

I guess the vagueness of this kind of reply--or the very general nature of it ("consider to be high morals") --seemed odd, especially when contrasted with the level of animosity being voiced against the whole Dugger family, their religion, and more.

 

[Cearbhall]

I guess the vagueness of this kind of reply--or the very general nature of it ("consider to be high morals") --seemed odd, especially when contrasted with the level of animosity being voiced against the whole Dugger family, their religion, and more.

I was just responding to the observation that I quoted. Sorry if it seemed like anything else.

 

[ToBeLoved]

So they can never voice their religious views because something that their child did 12 years ago? Even the LGBT has many skeletons in their closets but have the right to voice their opinion regardless how flawed it is. Shouldn't we forgive and move on? Are condemn the family forever for the actions of one of their 19 kids did 12 years ago?

What does the fact that the LGBT may have skeletons in their closet or not matter with this situation?

It was the Duggers who said that the LGBT community should not be around young children because they pose a direct threat to children. It is obvious and documented how the Duggers used their position as a 'so called' wholesome Christian family to bring down and cast doubt and shame upon many innocent people, using God and the Bible to further their own biased opinon.

Why should the Duggars not reap what they have sown? They brought it upon themselves. They used their fame as a platform for hate and bigotry.

 

[High Fidelity]

I think the argument here is that he never received proper treatment, much less criminal justice. It wasn't brought to the attention of the authorities until after the statute of limitations had passed, and they admit that the counselor they sent him to wasn't certified.

Well with that I have no qualms with people discussing.

What I do take fault with is people comparing two sins and finding themselves seemingly flabbergasted that Christians repent and seek forgiveness and other Christians respect and understand that.

Yes, we have to appreciate that secular law could, should or would have dealt with him in a particular way under 'x, y or z' circumstance, but from the perspective of Biblical teaching, people aren't understanding the difference between a sin that has been repented and forgiveness sought and another sin perpetrated by a person(s) that sees no wrong in it, doesn't repent and doesn't seek forgiveness.
Of course Christians will take fault with that and differentiate.

For the most part, Christians aren't defending his actions. What they are defending, however, is that he has repented and that isn't something to be disregarded or ignored on behalf of the unceasing pressure from another, sinful agenda.

 

[High Fidelity]

What does the fact that the LGBT may have skeletons in their closet or not matter with this situation?

It was the Duggers who said that the LGBT community should not be around young children because they pose a direct threat to children. It is obvious and documented how the Duggers used their position as a 'so called' wholesome Christian family to bring down and cast doubt and shame upon many innocent people, using God and the Bible to further their own biased opinon.

Why should the Duggars not reap what they have sown? They brought it upon themselves. They used their fame as a platform for hate and bigotry.

The same could be applied to a lot of situations.

Guilt by association is a slippery slope.

Just because someone did something bad shouldn't forbid the family from having an opinion.

 

[Cearbhall]

Yes, we have to appreciate that secular law could, should or would have dealt with him in a particular way under 'x, y or z' circumstance, but from the perspective of Biblical teaching, people aren't understanding the difference between a sin that has been repented and forgiveness sought and another sin perpetrated by a person(s) that sees no wrong in it, doesn't repent and doesn't seek forgiveness.

Abusers apologize all the time. People know that this doesn't mean that they won't do it again, which is the most important issue. Obviously the people involved know more about how safe he is to be around than I do, but one of the kids said they didn't feel safe when he came back home.