Why Anna might have stayed....article

[Ottakee]

This is a good article.  Very real to life.  Warning though, it might be triggering to some.

 

https://www.wildernesstowild.com/community/public/posts/94965-why-does-anna-duggar-stay

[Melissa Louise]

Glad to see the article mentioned Family Court. 

[gardenmom5]

33 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

This is a good article.  Very real to life.  Warning though, it might be triggering to some.

 

https://www.wildernesstowild.com/community/public/posts/94965-why-does-anna-duggar-stay

I think what makes me most angry - these "wolves in sheeps clothing" are not Christians.  They just pretend to be to gain power and influence.  Christ condemned such, but non-christians on the outside don't' know the difference.

[Murphy101]

#4 on that list would be enough for me. 

[MooCow]

 

But I also don't want her to read anything because I don't want that kind of pain anywhere near her. She is good.

Edited December 16, 2021 by MooCow
Deleted

[Rosie_0801]

There's nothing stupid about your post, @MooCow

[Tanaqui]

6 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I think what makes me most angry - these "wolves in sheeps clothing" are not Christians.  They just pretend to be to gain power and influence.  Christ condemned such, but non-christians on the outside don't' know the difference.

 

Don't "no true Scotsman" this. A Christian is somebody who calls themself a Christian, period. That's the only definition that works. If you don't like that some Christians are bad people, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Frances]

4 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I think what makes me most angry - these "wolves in sheeps clothing" are not Christians.  They just pretend to be to gain power and influence.  Christ condemned such, but non-christians on the outside don't' know the difference.

The Duggars or Gothard or others like them are not unique. And I don’t think all Christians have some unique ability to spot who are “true” Christians and who are “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. In fact, I’d venture to say there is likely less agreement within Christianity than outside of Christianity as to who are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” vs true Christians.

[Melissa Louise]

To be fair, none of these people sound Christian to me, if being Christian is being a follower of Christ. I've got no problem saying they might call themselves Christian but they don't embody Jesus's teachings. 

But anyway, a bit of a diversion from the OP. 

OP, I really appreciate that you share your perspective here. 

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, Tanaqui said:

 

Don't "no true Scotsman" this. A Christian is somebody who calls themself a Christian, period. That's the only definition that works. If you don't like that some Christians are bad people, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

My grandmother engaged in this type of crap, so I have lived it.  She used religion as a cudgel to coerce us to do what she wanted.  (My therapist actually asked me how I escaped the typical outcome).  I understand why my (only child) mother wanted nothing to do with religion of any kind, or God.   She predated these "founders", but probably came from a similar background that created them.  She was not a nice person - no matter what kind of person she presented herself as to outsiders.

I have come to greatly appreciate those who are sincerely trying (both christian from whatever denomination, from whatever other religion, and non-religious) to be a good person - and falling short because - humans fall short.  c'est la vie.  But then there are those who use christianity as a cloak but are "ravening wolves", and they can do a lot of damage to people under their influence.  (There's a reason Jim Baker went to jail - and it wasn't because he was "trying to be a good christian and falling short."  he was trying to get rich off the backs of people who fell for his schtick.)

I've read way too many comments on other sites where people judge, and lump, all christians into the same pot as the likes of JB & M Duggar (et. al) and their very slimy behavior.  It's very frustrating.

I have purposely NEVER stated what my grandmother's 'religious denomination" was (very different from mine) because I don't want to assume she was typical of their membership.  I sure would hope she was a one-off!

[Resilient]

Christ Himself said that there would be those who called Him Lord, but He would send them away--"I never knew ye."

He made very strong statements about those who harm children, too.

I can call myself a dolphin but that doesn't make it true.  

[Pawz4me]

7 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

  Christ condemned such, but non-christians on the outside don't' know the difference.

LOL! Sorry, but if it weren't so sad/ironic that would truly be a great laugh to start my day. I almost spit coffee.

IME having been a Christian for 40+ years and having left organized religion (and happily shaken the dust off of my feet) about 18 years ago, non-Christians are MUCH MUCH MUCH better educated about what the Bible actually says and what "real" Christianity should look and sound like than practicing Christians. This board is a huge, vast, 180 degree difference to what I see in real life. I'm in the Bible Belt, absolutely surrounded by show-up-every-time-the-church-doors-open evangelicals. I absolutely guarantee you 90+ percent of those people would swear to their graves that the Duggars are great Christians, and they'd certainly never ever never believe that Mike Huckabee has most likely been complicit in protecting people who committed CSA.

I understand it hurts to have all Christians lumped together. But it's the Christians who are going to have to work hard to fix that, if it can be fixed at this point (I have serious doubts). It's not much different than the refrain we heard after 9/11 that the"good" Muslims needed to step up. Like it or not, fair or not, the people I know IRL are currently much more the face of Christianity that most Americans see (mostly due to politics over the past few years, I'd guess) than the "good" Christians. Your religion has been co-opted, just as Bin Laden and his cohorts co-opted Islam. I'm sorry if that's offensive or hurtful to anyone, but I'm calling it like I see it from the bleachers. It's a hard truth.

[Carrie12345]

I appreciate the inclusion of the POW experience. It isn’t that I haven’t understood the existing factors, because I think most of us have been learning more about the realities of abuse (of all kinds), but that it’s sometimes still hard for many of us to imagine the intensity and degree of paralysis that can be at play.
When you think about strong, young, brave, highly trained men who have found captivity to be the safest option… I don’t know. For me, the concept clicks a bit tighter.

I do think she has neglected to do what’s best for her children, but that doesn’t rise above the people who have CAUSED her children, or her, to be at risk.  When we cheer for people who escape abuse, we don’t (I hope) cheer for them “doing the right thing”. We cheer for their safety. Period.

[mmasc]

I usually really refrain from posting on these threads even though I always read along, but I just keep reading and seeing over and over and over about all this s$x stuff, and I’m just like WHAT.THE.HELL. I have seriously never seen or heard of people placing so much emphasis on s$x!!! It’s no wonder they’re so messed up. The article mentioned that Anna ( and those raised like her) would have been hearing about her “role” as a wife since early childhood from books, friends, family, etc. Who talks to their small child about men’s s$xual appetites?! Seriously so gross and disturbing.  

[Janeway]

Long ago, in the ancient times, when I was young, before I had children, I worked at an abuse shelter. And we were taught that the abused stay with their abusers because they still love them. This is not mentioned in this article. Additionally, there is a lot of fear and unknown when leaving. They are in crisis mode and it is hard to do a big change when in crisis mode. And, fact is, if she had left him before now, her children would have been in more danger, not less. 

As long as she is living with Jim-Bob, I doubt she will feel free to leave him. She will be scared to what will happen to her and her children, she will be worrying.  She cannot support herself or make it on her own. 

[Faith-manor]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

LOL! Sorry, but if it weren't so sad/ironic that would truly be a great laugh to start my day. I almost spit coffee.

IME having been a Christian for 40+ years and having left organized religion (and happily shaken the dust off of my feet) about 18 years ago, non-Christians are MUCH MUCH MUCH better educated about what the Bible actually says and what "real" Christianity should look and sound like than practicing Christians. This board is a huge, vast, 180 degree difference to what I see in real life. I'm in the Bible Belt, absolutely surrounded by show-up-every-time-the-church-doors-open evangelicals. I absolutely guarantee you 90+ percent of those people would swear to their graves that the Duggars are great Christians, and they'd certainly never ever never believe that Mike Huckabee has most likely been complicit in protecting people who committed CSA.

I understand it hurts to have all Christians lumped together. But it's the Christians who are going to have to work hard to fix that, if it can be fixed at this point (I have serious doubts). It's not much different than the refrain we heard after 9/11 that the"good" Muslims needed to step up. Like it or not, fair or not, the people I know IRL are currently much more the face of Christianity that most Americans see (mostly due to politics over the past few years, I'd guess) than the "good" Christians. Your religion has been co-opted, just as Bin Laden and his cohorts co-opted Islam. I'm sorry if that's offensive or hurtful to anyone, but I'm calling it like I see it from the bleachers. It's a hard truth.

This is my experience as well. Sunday School and other programs do an excellent job of teaching children and adults a twist, a view, a side, an interpretation of this cherry picked verse and that cherry picked verse, and so on. Critical thinking is not encouraged. Ancient history, languages, and culture are tossed to the wind, so there is no basis of even understanding the circumstances being addressed. The emphasis became on the pastor and the sermon, one person's opinion, instead of not only individual study but group study as well as looking at two thousand years of theological discussion. Ultimately, when a single religion has several thousand versions of what it means to be of that religion, it is clear there is no consensus among the people claiming that religion of what it really means.

So yes, I have actually found secular bible scholars to be much more honest about the Bible itself says and much much more knowledgeable of its background and languages than the pastors and church leaders I have met.

Christianity has been weaponized. It has been a weapon for a very long time. I don't know what Christians can do about it, but it is undeniable and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of push back or any attempts to route that mess out. One thing is for sure, it is not the responsibility of non-Christians to play the "no true scotsman" game. That probably hurts a lot of feelings, but that is also not our responsibility.

My mother no longer claims the mantle of "Christian". She says it has no real meaning anymore except one rooted firmly in things contrary to the life of Christ. If asked, she will use the term Jesus Follower. I don't think that is much of a help in the grand scheme of things, but if it makes her feel better, she's 78 and we can roll with that.

The very public face of Christianity is mostly the corruption, and the Bible used as a weapon to try to force religion down secular society's throat. It is up to Christians to either take back their religion from those they see as " posers" or start a new one, and since there is really no way at this point to unify theology and doctrine from the mess it has become in modern society, that probably lane happening.

[Faith-manor]

25 minutes ago, mmasc said:

I usually really refrain from posting on these threads even though I always read along, but I just keep reading and seeing over and over and over about all this s$x stuff, and I’m just like WHAT.THE.HELL. I have seriously never seen or heard of people placing so much emphasis on s$x!!! It’s no wonder they’re so messed up. The article mentioned that Anna ( and those raised like her) would have been hearing about her “role” as a wife since early childhood from books, friends, family, etc. Who talks to their small child about men’s s$xual appetites?! Seriously so gross and disturbing.  

It is VERY disturbing. They tell little girls as young as two and three that they are tempting men by not being modest. So just think about that. They are telling the little boys it is natural to be tempted by the sight of a toddler with her skirt up! 

It is designed that way though so that the men have ready made victims/sex slaves. IBLP/Stay at Home Daughters, Purity Culture, is a sex cult.

I remember the story of Kelly (Brown) Bradrick that her first husband Peter Bradrick told about being on a chaperoned walk with her when they were "courting" and coming up to a fence, and realizing she could not climb over the fence without her long skirt riding up over her knee so since she didn't want to "defraud" him, she laid onto the ground pulling her skirt up tight against her legs, and ROLLED under the fence, then had to clean all of the grass and junk out of her hair. He thought that was wonderful.

Puke! What kind of evil jackass gets horny because she had to haul herself over a fence? But, that is how they were raised. Every damn thing is about sex.

Same for Anna. Be joyfully available at all times. 😠 And if hubby is unfaithful, can't keep it in his pants, gets porn addicted, molests his sisters, downloads CSAM, it is all the evil women's fault. Soooo  convenient! 😠

[Katy]

It isn’t universally true that Christian denominations discourage critical thinking.  But all cults do. Obviously everything is simplified for small children in Sunday School. But id you’re in a church that discourages critical thinking in teens and adults, you need to evaluate if you’re in a cult. 

Many denominations, from very liberal (Methodist, several others) to very conservative (Wisconsin Synod Lutheran) encourage critical thinking. 

[Ann.without.an.e]

Just a general question - 

Do you think that a legalistic religious bent appeals to a certain type of person, one who is hoping to control their fleshly desires using rules and control or do you think that a legalistic sort of religious bent creates the problem in the first place?  I hope my question is clear. I'm genuinely curious what y'all think because I can see arguments for both sides.

 

Warning: Christian Content starts here

As a believer who seeks a relationship with God, the relationship is what is important and no amount of legalism, control, or rules can help you, in fact it says right in the Bible that it will only make it worse. But they are attempting to control something using legalism and rules that only a relationship with God and the spirit can help you with. Rules and control not only don't work but they aren't Biblical. They only show us how much more we can't do it (ie the whole point of the law). 

[Ottakee]

I think the big thing so many of these are missing is that the Bible says sin comes from the heart (inside) and not outside (others).....they just want to blame others for their sins, not recognizing and addressing their own heart issues.

My neighbor is a pastor, a conservative evangelical bent...who is also great at critical thinking, says he doesn't even want the name Christian at times due to the practices of some who call themselves Christian.   I love having him and his wife and family over for supper as we really talk and debate and research stuff.

[thewellerman]

15 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Just a general question - 

Do you think that a legalistic religious bent appeals to a certain type of person, one who is hoping to control their fleshly desires using rules and control or do you think that a legalistic sort of religious bent creates the problem in the first place?  I hope my question is clear. I'm genuinely curious what y'all think because I can see arguments for both sides.

I'm not sure, but my observation is that some people are drawn to it because they are insecure and seeking approval.  Since the rules are so clear, simply living by them gives a person a solid place in their community and entrance to Heaven, and thus gives them confidence in themselves. 

[OH_Homeschooler]

That's a great article. There are so many things people just don't understand or consider until they've lived this hell.

Edited December 16, 2021 by OH_Homeschooler

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

It isn’t universally true that Christian denominations discourage critical thinking.  But all cults do. Obviously everything is simplified for small children in Sunday School. But id you’re in a church that discourages critical thinking in teens and adults, you need to evaluate if you’re in a cult. 

Many denominations, from very liberal (Methodist, several others) to very conservative (Wisconsin Synod Lutheran) encourage critical thinking. 

Well, I think we have a different idea of critical thinking skills as it pertains to scholarship of scripture. I taught in a Missouri Synod K-8 as well as the high school. It was not encouraged. Spoon feeding all the way to the day they turned 18. The Sunday School curriculum for adults was very over simplified and stated as fact, don't question it. I have been in a variety of denominations, United Methodist, Free Methodist, USA Presby, Missouri Synod Lutheran, large evangelical independents, SBC, and no, what may have been considered "critically thinking about the bible" was absolutely not, and when anyone approached the line of having an actual, legitimate question that MIGHT challenge the status quo, it was put down with prejudice. There was no room for anything but the party line.

[Faith-manor]

And the purity movement is a cult, and that has infiltrated a huge array of churches who would not be considered "cults" otherwise. It is pushed HEAVILY in Wesleyan, Free Methodist, etc. rural churches though they do tend to shy away from the marriage ceremonies where 12 year old girls pledge their virginity to daddy win a wedding, wearing a wedding dress, and then having wedding photos that look, well, like daddy is the groom! 😱

[Katy]

17 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Well, I think we have a different idea of critical thinking skills as it pertains to scholarship of scripture. I taught in a Missouri Synod K-8 as well as the high school. It was not encouraged. Spoon feeding all the way to the day they turned 18. The Sunday School curriculum for adults was very over simplified and stated as fact, don't question it. I have been in a variety of denominations, United Methodist, Free Methodist, USA Presby, Missouri Synod Lutheran, large evangelical independents, SBC, and no, what may have been considered "critically thinking about the bible" was absolutely not, and when anyone approached the line of having an actual, legitimate question that MIGHT challenge the status quo, it was put down with prejudice. There was no room for anything but the party line.

I’m sorry to hear that.  I was confirmed WELS and our pastor was very clear that this was an adult decision, that if we didn’t interpret the scripture the same way they did we should not join either that church or any church that we disagreed with.  He also did a surprisingly good job at cult-proofing us, even though I think most of it went over my head at the time. He was very open to questions, though he did tell my parents he thought I should be a lawyer because he hadn’t heard so many tough ones since grad school.  In most areas we’ve lived there weren’t a lot of Lutheran churches, but the ones we visited seemed very much the same, except the evangelical one. 

[kbutton]

11 hours ago, Resilient said:

Christ Himself said that there would be those who called Him Lord, but He would send them away--"I never knew ye."

He made very strong statements about those who harm children, too.

I can call myself a dolphin but that doesn't make it true.  

I think these statements are there so that we'll be warned by them about our own selves and about who we follow. So while I agree that some of these people are not really Christians, that doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't want us to clean house.

5 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

I understand it hurts to have all Christians lumped together. But it's the Christians who are going to have to work hard to fix that, if it can be fixed at this point (I have serious doubts). It's not much different than the refrain we heard after 9/11 that the"good" Muslims needed to step up. Like it or not, fair or not, the people I know IRL are currently much more the face of Christianity that most Americans see (mostly due to politics over the past few years, I'd guess) than the "good" Christians. Your religion has been co-opted, just as Bin Laden and his cohorts co-opted Islam. I'm sorry if that's offensive or hurtful to anyone, but I'm calling it like I see it from the bleachers. It's a hard truth.

It is a hard truth. There are people inside Christianity trying to expose these things, and they routinely get called out in the comments as liberals, not really Christian, divisive, etc. (Julie Roys, for instance.) I am grateful for the efforts of people like her. 

 

[Carrie12345]

3 hours ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Do you think that a legalistic religious bent appeals to a certain type of person, one who is hoping to control their fleshly desires using rules and control or do you think that a legalistic sort of religious bent creates the problem in the first place?  I hope my question is clear. I'm genuinely curious what y'all think because I can see arguments for both sides.

I think it can be both.

And I think there are many people in the fringe groups that believe their particular “desires” are universal experiences. And that they think very many of us who aren’t seeking that kind of “protection” are engaging in those desires.

[annandatje]

On 12/15/2021 at 11:40 PM, gardenmom5 said:

 (There's a reason Jim Baker went to jail - and it wasn't because he was "trying to be a good christian and falling short."  he was trying to get rich off the backs of people who fell for his schtick.)

 

People are still falling for his schtick.  He hawks some sort of prepper goods on a Christian religion tv channel. 

James Randi outed the "faith healer" Peter Poppof on the Johnny Carson show back in 70s but Poppof continues to have audience on a Christian tv channel. 

Edited January 8, 2022 by annandatje

[Faith-manor]

52 minutes ago, annandatje said:

People are still falling for his schtick.  He hawks some sort of prepper goods on a Christian religion tv channel. 

James Randi outed the "faith healer" Peter Poppof on the Johnny Carson show back in 70s but Poppof continues to have audience on a Christian tv channel. 

Bakker also got in trouble in New York State at the beginning of the pandemic for hawking a cure. Sigh. Always grifting!

[Ottakee]

I am a bit bothered by the headlines (which I know are supposed to be attention getting)...ones like      

Josh denied visits (ok...so is everyone in the jail he is in....due to COVID)

Anna Trying to Decide What to Do (I will say that when your entire life is turned upside down it takes time to think through options, etc.  When the lawyer first mentioned the word DIVORCE to me I bristled.  In the End that is what I did.

Anna Still Loves Josh....again, her whole world has been turned upside down and everyone has been lying to her.   He is someone she spent many years married to and having kids with....you don't just turn off those feelings like a switch.  That does NOT mean as she processes things that she still supports him, etc.

Anna Visits Josh....I don't know the nature of these visits, but I was slammed (and lost my foster care license over my visits to my now ex after he was arrested)...but what people didn't realize is that I had financial and legal matters to take care of and that involved talking to him.  My visits weren't a lovely dovey thing, bit a very business like "what do you want done with all of your stuff" type thing.

I still don't know what Anna will end up, but again, let's give her some time to process and think.  Where I was right after the arrest and trial is NOT where I am now.

 

 

 

 

[Faith-manor]

7 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

I am a bit bothered by the headlines (which I know are supposed to be attention getting)...ones like      

Josh denied visits (ok...so is everyone in the jail he is in....due to COVID)

Anna Trying to Decide What to Do (I will say that when your entire life is turned upside down it takes time to think through options, etc.  When the lawyer first mentioned the word DIVORCE to me I bristled.  In the End that is what I did.

Anna Still Loves Josh....again, her whole world has been turned upside down and everyone has been lying to her.   He is someone she spent many years married to and having kids with....you don't just turn off those feelings like a switch.  That does NOT mean as she processes things that she still supports him, etc.

Anna Visits Josh....I don't know the nature of these visits, but I was slammed (and lost my foster care license over my visits to my now ex after he was arrested)...but what people didn't realize is that I had financial and legal matters to take care of and that involved talking to him.  My visits weren't a lovely dovey thing, bit a very business like "what do you want done with all of your stuff" type thing.

I still don't know what Anna will end up, but again, let's give her some time to process and think.  Where I was right after the arrest and trial is NOT where I am now.

 

 

 

 

I didn't read the article. But I do agree. He hasn't been sentenced yet, and she will have to be interviewed for the reports the judge receives and reads before the sentencing. Then he will likely be sent out of state. So that makes logistics of anything difficult. They have seven kids, he has only "lost custody" by virtue of being incarcerated so that has complications. Visits are by zoom right now and all those kids are minors so until the court makes some determinations and guidelines, he is probably entitled to communication with his children. She has so many mind boggling life complications at the moment. 

[Terabith]

19 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

 

Anna Visits Josh....I don't know the nature of these visits, but I was slammed (and lost my foster care license over my visits to my now ex after he was arrested)...but what people didn't realize is that I had financial and legal matters to take care of and that involved talking to him.  My visits weren't a lovely dovey thing, bit a very business like "what do you want done with all of your stuff" type thing.

I still don't know what Anna will end up, but again, let's give her some time to process and think.  Where I was right after the arrest and trial is NOT where I am now.

 

 

 

 

I'm appalled that people would slam you and that you would lose your foster care license over visiting your ex.  I would think that anyone would realize that visiting does not necessarily equal support or approve of, and that practical things have to be resolved.  

[Pam in CT]

re folks of a certain "bent" self-selecting into particular religious associations

On 12/16/2021 at 9:26 AM, Ann.without.an.e said:

Just a general question - 

Do you think that a legalistic religious bent appeals to a certain type of person, one who is hoping to control their fleshly desires using rules and control or do you think that a legalistic sort of religious bent creates the problem in the first place?  I hope my question is clear. I'm genuinely curious what y'all think because I can see arguments for both sides.

 

Warning: Christian Content starts here

As a believer who seeks a relationship with God, the relationship is what is important and no amount of legalism, control, or rules can help you, in fact it says right in the Bible that it will only make it worse. But they are attempting to control something using legalism and rules that only a relationship with God and the spirit can help you with. Rules and control not only don't work but they aren't Biblical. They only show us how much more we can't do it (ie the whole point of the law). 

I think it is possible.

It's also possible that the self-selection process can function in the opposite direction: that folks who can see the advantages -- fleshly and otherwise -- of a "legalistic" religious tradition in which men have near-absolute control and women are expected to serve, fleshly and otherwise, joyfully and instantly without complaint.  It is a heady thing, for nearly absolute male dominance to be sanctioned by God and faith community, and it surely attracts those who find it attractive. 

In the same way that pedophiles are attracted to occupations and places where they will find children, and etc.

 

[ktgrok]

On 12/16/2021 at 9:22 AM, Katy said:

It isn’t universally true that Christian denominations discourage critical thinking.  But all cults do. Obviously everything is simplified for small children in Sunday School. But id you’re in a church that discourages critical thinking in teens and adults, you need to evaluate if you’re in a cult. 

 

Agreed. 

On 12/16/2021 at 11:19 AM, Faith-manor said:

Well, I think we have a different idea of critical thinking skills as it pertains to scholarship of scripture. I taught in a Missouri Synod K-8 as well as the high school. It was not encouraged. Spoon feeding all the way to the day they turned 18. The Sunday School curriculum for adults was very over simplified and stated as fact, don't question it. I have been in a variety of denominations, United Methodist, Free Methodist, USA Presby, Missouri Synod Lutheran, large evangelical independents, SBC, and no, what may have been considered "critically thinking about the bible" was absolutely not, and when anyone approached the line of having an actual, legitimate question that MIGHT challenge the status quo, it was put down with prejudice. There was no room for anything but the party line.

Oh, that's sad!!! The UCC church we are at teaches the kids about metaphor from the very beginning, and by 3rd grade they are taught that there are many translations and that when trying to understand what was written long ago we may get it wrong. And that some things are meant to be history, but others are true in a more metaphorical sense, or written only to a certain people, and that we can try to understand it all but we may not get it right and there are different opinions. 

In one sermon the pastor, after reading a scripture, said, "who here agrees withwhat Jesus appears to be saying in this passage" and very few hands went up, which was expected. No one there expects you to be in lock step, and it is understood that some stuff in the bible is confusing!

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Agreed. 

Oh, that's sad!!! The UCC church we are at teaches the kids about metaphor from the very beginning, and by 3rd grade they are taught that there are many translations and that when trying to understand what was written long ago we may get it wrong. And that some things are meant to be history, but others are true in a more metaphorical sense, or written only to a certain people, and that we can try to understand it all but we may not get it right and there are different opinions. 

In one sermon the pastor, after reading a scripture, said, "who here agrees withwhat Jesus appears to be saying in this passage" and very few hands went up, which was expected. No one there expects you to be in lock step, and it is understood that some stuff in the bible is confusing!

It sounds like you have found a real gem! If your children are being taught to take the hard look in order to reject or accept faith as truly their very own, that is awesome sauce!

[Ottakee]

3 hours ago, Terabith said:

I'm appalled that people would slam you and that you would lose your foster care license over visiting your ex.  I would think that anyone would realize that visiting does not necessarily equal support or approve of, and that practical things have to be resolved.  

Their thought was that it appeared like I was supporting him, etc.