On The Duggars

[Raphael]

... growing up and living in one of those insanely anti-sex groups ...

In what world where his family celebrates the fact that they have lots of kids and that they advocate lots of healthy sex between husband and wife does that translate into "anti-sex"

I appreciate you have your issues with the man, I appreciate you're loving the irony that this particular chap has been seriously busted for being a hypocrite (and then some) but in your gloating you're now talking nonsense.

[tabibito]

So? You found someone that isn't living up to the standard they set for themselves. You think somehow this is a new phenomena? You must really be proud of yourself thinking you struck gold here. You not only don't see why it's tasteless, you also don't see how down right stupid it is. So you do know that Duggar is a bad apple no different from any other? And you are taking pleasure from his misdeeds just because you really are that low brow? Good to know.

OK - Jaecp's attitude is deplorable - mine might be considered in the same light, though Schadenfreude isn't involved: just that I get a chuckle out of irony.

All the downplaying of the actions of a false brother - and it is downplaying - in the argument against Jaecp's attitude - amounts to what?
Closing ranks in defence of a person who brings the name of Christ into disrepute by present and on-going action is approved by God?

When is standing in judgement over outsiders approved?
When is a failure to call a so called brother to account approved?

[Jesse]

OK - Jaecp's attitude is deplorable - mine might be considered in the same light, though Schadenfreude isn't involved: just that I get a chuckle out of irony.

All the downplaying of the actions of a false brother - and it is downplaying - in the argument against Jaecp's attitude - amounts to what?
Closing ranks in defence of a person who brings the name of Christ into disrepute by present and on-going action is approved by God?

When is standing in judgement over outsiders approved?
When is a failure to call a so called brother to account approved?

Huh? Who in this thread has downplayed anything? I do not know of anyone here that has said what Duggar did wasn't horrible. Nor have I seen anyone here defend Duggar or his actions. If you are reading that into anyone's posts, you might want to slow down and re-read. I've pretty much said what I wanted to about this. Those that want to gloat about it, go ahead. But Duggar's actions don't make the gloating any less tactless.

[KingsGambit]

Huh? Who in this thread has downplayed anything? I do not know of anyone here that has said what Duggar did wasn't horrible. Nor have I seen anyone here defend Duggar or his actions. If you are reading that into anyone's posts, you might want to slow down and re-read. I've pretty much said what I wanted to about this. Those that want to gloat about it, go ahead. But Duggar's actions don't make the gloating any less tactless.

It just seems some people are more upset about the reaction to it than about the sin itself (and, yes, there have been plenty of attempts to minimize his actions; not in this thread, but when Christians are just like "oh, he was just some TV star"). This is problematic in light of that I believe the biblical response to unrepentant sin is to abandon the person to the world (yes, including the vicious court of public opinion) until they are ready to return. Time will tell if his attempt at repentance is genuine. (I understand not just taking him at his word because his response to his first scandal several weeks ago does not appear to have been a full repentance at all.)

[tabibito]

Huh? Who in this thread has downplayed anything? I do not know of anyone here that has said what Duggar did wasn't horrible. Nor have I seen anyone here defend Duggar or his actions. If you are reading that into anyone's posts, you might want to slow down and re-read.

"Ah - other people do it, no-one complains when it isn't a Christian" ... Not downplaying? OK

I've pretty much said what I wanted to about this. Those that want to gloat about it, go ahead. But Duggar's actions don't make the gloating any less tactless.

Oh definitely, no doubt about it.

[Adrift]

"Ah - other people do it, no-one complains when it isn't a Christian" ... Not downplaying? OK

I must have missed those posts.

[Jaecp]

If you raped somebody I'd be picking my jaw off the floor cuz I don't think you have it in you.

I'm saving myself for someone special

So? You found someone that isn't living up to the standard they set for themselves. You think somehow this is a new phenomena? You must really be proud of yourself thinking you struck gold here. You not only don't see why it's tasteless, you also don't see how down right stupid it is.

Indeed I do. And I will still be waiting for the time you post about the low standards of someone from your group with the amount of glee you have shown here. I won't hold my breath.

Ehh?

This particular instance is really funny. Most of the rest of the conversation in this thread has been people like you being butthurt that I think it's funny.

Correct. And this is a point you seem to be wholly unaware of, or so I thought. So you do know that Duggar is a bad apple no different from any other? And you are taking pleasure from his misdeeds just because you really are that low brow? Good to know.

Your conclusion don't follow your premises there, pally.

Of course. I'm not certain why you keep repeating this as though it were news to everyone here. I mean, that IS the issue, isn't it? But as I've said before, this is something that those who hold to a moral standard ought to be more stirred up about than those who do not.

People have a tendency to quote my replies to other people (it has already happened in this thread) and I want relevant information to be present. I realize that this can get, on occasion, repetative.

Exactly my point. As I've been saying, unbelievers do not necessarily hold to any moral standard other than whatever standards they independently hold. They are free to be as immoral as they please with far fewer consequences. They are ultimately not expected to be held accountable to anyone except themselves.

Fewer consequences? From your perspective we're going to hell ;)

Still though, I don't think it's really fewer consequences. At least from a modern, American perspective, if an atheist did this the amount of slack given by the authorities would not have been nearly so... charming. Nor would this atheist have nearly as wide, nor powerful, group of people circling the wagons after being found out.

I believe there's a difference between an atheist and a liberal, but you're free to conflate the two.

Very little, at least in the states.

Should I expect better?

You should expect me to be me

[Jaecp]

In what world where his family celebrates the fact that they have lots of kids and that they advocate lots of healthy sex between husband and wife does that translate into "anti-sex"

I appreciate you have your issues with the man, I appreciate you're loving the irony that this particular chap has been seriously busted for being a hypocrite (and then some) but in your gloating you're now talking nonsense.

Because of all the other stuff associated with the Puritans that have gotten attached to fringe, conservative sects in the US?

[KingsGambit]

Because of all the other stuff associated with the Puritans that have gotten attached to fringe, conservative sects in the US?

The Puritans weren't anti-sex, though. And neither are the Duggars. Making specific claims about specific people based only on generalizations doesn't work.

The only Christian group within the time of, say, American history I can think of that really was anti-sex is the Shakers.

[Jaecp]

The Puritans weren't anti-sex, though. And neither are the Duggars. Making specific claims about specific people based only on generalizations doesn't work.

The only Christian group within the time of, say, American history I can think of that really was anti-sex is the Shakers.

Would yall prefer I use a different word to describe the all the weirdly negative stuff relating to sex in modern, conservative American Christianity? Anti-Sex or Sex-Negativity are the common names for it.

[lilpixieofterror]

It just seems some people are more upset about the reaction to it than about the sin itself (and, yes, there have been plenty of attempts to minimize his actions; not in this thread, but when Christians are just like "oh, he was just some TV star"). This is problematic in light of that I believe the biblical response to unrepentant sin is to abandon the person to the world (yes, including the vicious court of public opinion) until they are ready to return. Time will tell if his attempt at repentance is genuine. (I understand not just taking him at his word because his response to his first scandal several weeks ago does not appear to have been a full repentance at all.)

I don't care if he ends up in jail for a long time for his actions and has to face whatever consequences that happen as a result of his actions. He should have to face the music for whatever he did, from both his victims and from whatever criminal charges might end up against him. I just don't get the whole gloating thing and why anybody would feel the need to gloat about how somebody messed up. At least 5 little girls were molested and I don't see that as anything to gloat over anymore than the fact I see no reason to gloat over a gay man that murdered 2 people or a racist that murdered 9 people.

[lilpixieofterror]

Would yall prefer I use a different word to describe the all the weirdly negative stuff relating to sex in modern, conservative American Christianity? Anti-Sex or Sex-Negativity are the common names for it.

How about they dare to disagree with your sexual ethos, so you try to demonize them for daring to disagree with you?

[Jaecp]

How about they dare to disagree with your sexual ethos, so you try to demonize them for daring to disagree with you?

I demonize it for being stupid and contributing to bad outcomes because of all the repression. If you're going to keep sniping at me stop embarrassing yourself with these pathetic strawmen

[One Bad Pig]

Would yall prefer I use a different word to describe the all the weirdly negative stuff relating to sex in modern, conservative American Christianity? Anti-Sex or Sex-Negativity are the common names for it.

Anti-promiscuity would be accurate. Pro-monogamy would be even more accurate.

[Jaecp]

Anti-promiscuity would be accurate. Pro-monogamy would be even more accurate.

Labels labels labels,

The duggars, like many evangelicals, hold and advocate repressive views about sexuality and people that grow up in those environments can come out of it quite messed up.