Josh Duggar And The Message Of Forgiveness

[TrinityPower]

You are missing the fact that most of what he did was ill intent in his own heart and both children were from the same parents not a neighbor girl

 

[Foxfyre]

For the left/libs "forgiveness" is only for those WHO they deem should get it

and that means. everyone who is a Democrat. No matter they are: an adulterer, a drowner of women, a Former KKK member, a homosexual who ran a underage brothel out of his home. AND their sick judgment of all Mankind goes on and on

oh did I mention. Anyone who is Conservative/Republican gets NO FORGIVINESS from them. they think they should automatically be sent to hell

that's a two faced hypocrite

If Josh Duggar owned up and paid his debt to society and served his time, I'd let him vote. Conservatives wouldn't.

Did you demand the same for Barney Frank? For Bill Clinton? For Gerry Studds? For Ted Kennedy and/or his nephew who he defended? Etc. etc. etc. Once we get on the slippery slope of demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case. It seems to me that Josh Duggar has suffered huge public embarrassment and significant consequence for his past sins. If his sisters can forgive him and assure us that all is well, what is it to the rest of us to allow him to get on with his life? What purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something stupid he did in his youth that caused no lasting harm?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are missing the fact that most of what he did was ill intent in his own heart and both children were from the same parents not a neighbor girl

lol, so 10 year old sisters are fair game. How Arkansas of you.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You are missing the fact that most of what he did was ill intent in his own heart and both children were from the same parents not a neighbor girl

Well, I guess that the Duggars must have told him when he was growing up that it is a lessor sin to molest your own younger siblings than to molest somebody else's child.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If this family weren't rightwing 'Christian' nuts they would get ZERO support from the RWers of the world.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the left/libs "forgiveness" is only for those WHO they deem should get it

and that means. everyone who is a Democrat. No matter they are: an adulterer, a drowner of women, a Former KKK member, a homosexual who ran a underage brothel out of his home. AND their sick judgment of all Mankind goes on and on

oh did I mention. Anyone who is Conservative/Republican gets NO FORGIVINESS from them. they think they should automatically be sent to hell

that's a two faced hypocrite

If Josh Duggar owned up and paid his debt to society and served his time, I'd let him vote. Conservatives wouldn't.

Did you demand the same for Barney Frank? For Bill Clinton? For Gerry Studds? For Ted Kennedy and/or his nephew who he defended? Etc. etc. etc. Once we get on the slippery slope of demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case. It seems to me that Josh Duggar has suffered huge public embarrassment and significant consequence for his past sins. If his sisters can forgive him and assure us that all is well, what is it to the rest of us to allow him to get on with his life? What purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something stupid he did in his youth?

I don't remember a lot of RWnut recommendations of counseling, understanding, and forgiveness for Bill Clinton having an affair with a consenting adult.

 

[Vandalshandle]

If this family weren't rightwing 'Christian' nuts they would get ZERO support from the RWers of the world.

Actually, I had not thought about that. If this family was atheist, the RW would have already bought the ropes and found the tree that they would use. I don't see 'forgiveness' in that scenario.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the left/libs "forgiveness" is only for those WHO they deem should get it

and that means. everyone who is a Democrat. No matter they are: an adulterer, a drowner of women, a Former KKK member, a homosexual who ran a underage brothel out of his home. AND their sick judgment of all Mankind goes on and on

oh did I mention. Anyone who is Conservative/Republican gets NO FORGIVINESS from them. they think they should automatically be sent to hell

that's a two faced hypocrite

If Josh Duggar owned up and paid his debt to society and served his time, I'd let him vote. Conservatives wouldn't.

Did you demand the same for Barney Frank? For Bill Clinton? For Gerry Studds? For Ted Kennedy and/or his nephew who he defended? Etc. etc. etc. Once we get on the slippery slope of demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case. It seems to me that Josh Duggar has suffered huge public embarrassment and significant consequence for his past sins. If his sisters can forgive him and assure us that all is well, what is it to the rest of us to allow him to get on with his life? What purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something stupid he did in his youth?

I don't remember a lot of RWnut recommendations of counseling, understanding, and forgiveness for Bill Clinton having an affair with a consenting adult.

So that makes quid pro quo honorable? If we use the 'they did it first' or 'they do it too' as legitimate argument for attacking people, it is no wonder this is an increasingly sorry world we live in.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If this family weren't rightwing 'Christian' nuts they would get ZERO support from the RWers of the world.

Actually, I had not thought about that. If this family was atheist, the RW would have already bought the ropes and found the tree that they would use. I don't see 'forgiveness' in that scenario.

It's ironic to see on the board this outpouring of compassion and forgiveness from the conservatives in this specific case,

when elsewhere on USMB you can see them all in for the returning of 'shaming' as a remedy for dealing with the sins of certain people.

Weird.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the left/libs "forgiveness" is only for those WHO they deem should get it

and that means. everyone who is a Democrat. No matter they are: an adulterer, a drowner of women, a Former KKK member, a homosexual who ran a underage brothel out of his home. AND their sick judgment of all Mankind goes on and on

oh did I mention. Anyone who is Conservative/Republican gets NO FORGIVINESS from them. they think they should automatically be sent to hell

that's a two faced hypocrite

If Josh Duggar owned up and paid his debt to society and served his time, I'd let him vote. Conservatives wouldn't.

Did you demand the same for Barney Frank? For Bill Clinton? For Gerry Studds? For Ted Kennedy and/or his nephew who he defended? Etc. etc. etc. Once we get on the slippery slope of demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case. It seems to me that Josh Duggar has suffered huge public embarrassment and significant consequence for his past sins. If his sisters can forgive him and assure us that all is well, what is it to the rest of us to allow him to get on with his life? What purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something stupid he did in his youth?

I don't remember a lot of RWnut recommendations of counseling, understanding, and forgiveness for Bill Clinton having an affair with a consenting adult.

So that makes quid pro quo honorable? If we use the 'they did it first' or 'they do it too' as legitimate argument for attacking people, it is no wonder this is an increasingly sorry world we live in.

That's what you did. You brought up Clinton.

 

[Ravi]

If this family weren't rightwing 'Christian' nuts they would get ZERO support from the RWers of the world.

Yep. If they were black, atheist, liberal, muslim, gay, etc., they would offer it up as proof of how deviant those groups are. it's almost comical watching them defend a child molester.

 

[Ravi]

For the left/libs "forgiveness" is only for those WHO they deem should get it

and that means. everyone who is a Democrat. No matter they are: an adulterer, a drowner of women, a Former KKK member, a homosexual who ran a underage brothel out of his home. AND their sick judgment of all Mankind goes on and on

oh did I mention. Anyone who is Conservative/Republican gets NO FORGIVINESS from them. they think they should automatically be sent to hell

that's a two faced hypocrite

If Josh Duggar owned up and paid his debt to society and served his time, I'd let him vote. Conservatives wouldn't.

Did you demand the same for Barney Frank? For Bill Clinton? For Gerry Studds? For Ted Kennedy and/or his nephew who he defended? Etc. etc. etc. Once we get on the slippery slope of demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case. It seems to me that Josh Duggar has suffered huge public embarrassment and significant consequence for his past sins. If his sisters can forgive him and assure us that all is well, what is it to the rest of us to allow him to get on with his life? What purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something stupid he did in his youth?

I don't remember a lot of RWnut recommendations of counseling, understanding, and forgiveness for Bill Clinton having an affair with a consenting adult.

Clinton may be a Christian but he's also a democrat and RWNJs would never forgive a democrat.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the left/libs "forgiveness" is only for those WHO they deem should get it

and that means. everyone who is a Democrat. No matter they are: an adulterer, a drowner of women, a Former KKK member, a homosexual who ran a underage brothel out of his home. AND their sick judgment of all Mankind goes on and on

oh did I mention. Anyone who is Conservative/Republican gets NO FORGIVINESS from them. they think they should automatically be sent to hell

that's a two faced hypocrite

If Josh Duggar owned up and paid his debt to society and served his time, I'd let him vote. Conservatives wouldn't.

Did you demand the same for Barney Frank? For Bill Clinton? For Gerry Studds? For Ted Kennedy and/or his nephew who he defended? Etc. etc. etc. Once we get on the slippery slope of demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case. It seems to me that Josh Duggar has suffered huge public embarrassment and significant consequence for his past sins. If his sisters can forgive him and assure us that all is well, what is it to the rest of us to allow him to get on with his life? What purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something stupid he did in his youth?

I don't remember a lot of RWnut recommendations of counseling, understanding, and forgiveness for Bill Clinton having an affair with a consenting adult.

So that makes quid pro quo honorable? If we use the 'they did it first' or 'they do it too' as legitimate argument for attacking people, it is no wonder this is an increasingly sorry world we live in.

That's what you did. You brought up Clinton.

Yep and some other folks who have been in the public eye over these kinds of messes over the years and I could have listed many dozen more. But I'm not the one suggesting the right thing to do is force all these people to incur the full penalty of the law. I point them out to show the hypocrisy in singling out one person's sins as somehow more sinister or unacceptable than another person's sins. The hypocrisy of making an example of the one we hate or hold in contempt when, if we are honest, we do not attach the same importance to the sins of those in our own group.

 

[Ravi]

If Josh Duggar owned up and paid his debt to society and served his time, I'd let him vote. Conservatives wouldn't.

Did you demand the same for Barney Frank? For Bill Clinton? For Gerry Studds? For Ted Kennedy and/or his nephew who he defended? Etc. etc. etc. Once we get on the slippery slope of demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case. It seems to me that Josh Duggar has suffered huge public embarrassment and significant consequence for his past sins. If his sisters can forgive him and assure us that all is well, what is it to the rest of us to allow him to get on with his life? What purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something stupid he did in his youth?

I don't remember a lot of RWnut recommendations of counseling, understanding, and forgiveness for Bill Clinton having an affair with a consenting adult.

So that makes quid pro quo honorable? If we use the 'they did it first' or 'they do it too' as legitimate argument for attacking people, it is no wonder this is an increasingly sorry world we live in.

That's what you did. You brought up Clinton.

Yep and some other folks who have been in the public eye over these kinds of messes over the years and I could have listed many dozen more. But I'm not the one suggesting the right thing to do is force all these people to incur the full penalty of the law. I point them out to show the hypocrisy in singling out one person's sins as somehow more sinister or unacceptable than another person's sins. The hypocrisy of making an example of the one we hate or hold in contempt when, if we are honest, we do not attach the same importance to the sins of those in our own group.

It doesn't get more sinister that molesting a child.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Did you demand the same for Barney Frank? For Bill Clinton? For Gerry Studds? For Ted Kennedy and/or his nephew who he defended? Etc. etc. etc. Once we get on the slippery slope of demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case. It seems to me that Josh Duggar has suffered huge public embarrassment and significant consequence for his past sins. If his sisters can forgive him and assure us that all is well, what is it to the rest of us to allow him to get on with his life? What purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something stupid he did in his youth?

I don't remember a lot of RWnut recommendations of counseling, understanding, and forgiveness for Bill Clinton having an affair with a consenting adult.

So that makes quid pro quo honorable? If we use the 'they did it first' or 'they do it too' as legitimate argument for attacking people, it is no wonder this is an increasingly sorry world we live in.

That's what you did. You brought up Clinton.

Yep and some other folks who have been in the public eye over these kinds of messes over the years and I could have listed many dozen more. But I'm not the one suggesting the right thing to do is force all these people to incur the full penalty of the law. I point them out to show the hypocrisy in singling out one person's sins as somehow more sinister or unacceptable than another person's sins. The hypocrisy of making an example of the one we hate or hold in contempt when, if we are honest, we do not attach the same importance to the sins of those in our own group.

It doesn't get more sinister that molesting a child.

People convicted of this have to serve their time in isolation. Even the other cons want to teach them a lesson.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did you demand the same for Barney Frank? For Bill Clinton? For Gerry Studds? For Ted Kennedy and/or his nephew who he defended? Etc. etc. etc. Once we get on the slippery slope of demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case. It seems to me that Josh Duggar has suffered huge public embarrassment and significant consequence for his past sins. If his sisters can forgive him and assure us that all is well, what is it to the rest of us to allow him to get on with his life? What purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something stupid he did in his youth?

I don't remember a lot of RWnut recommendations of counseling, understanding, and forgiveness for Bill Clinton having an affair with a consenting adult.

So that makes quid pro quo honorable? If we use the 'they did it first' or 'they do it too' as legitimate argument for attacking people, it is no wonder this is an increasingly sorry world we live in.

That's what you did. You brought up Clinton.

Yep and some other folks who have been in the public eye over these kinds of messes over the years and I could have listed many dozen more. But I'm not the one suggesting the right thing to do is force all these people to incur the full penalty of the law. I point them out to show the hypocrisy in singling out one person's sins as somehow more sinister or unacceptable than another person's sins. The hypocrisy of making an example of the one we hate or hold in contempt when, if we are honest, we do not attach the same importance to the sins of those in our own group.

It doesn't get more sinister that molesting a child.

They tried to claim Monica was a child.

 

[TrinityPower]

You are missing the fact that most of what he did was ill intent in his own heart and both children were from the same parents not a neighbor girl

Well, I guess that the Duggars must have told him when he was growing up that it is a lessor sin to molest your own younger siblings than to molest somebody else's child.

You missed the point but apparently that is your goal and I see no one has addressed what they would have done differently. Keep in mind that both are your own children.

 

[Valerie]

Foxfyre

demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case.

none of our opinions have the power of any law to 'give passes' or 'severe' punishment..in our heart?


what does it mean to DEMAND when you are merely giving your opinion, you can't demand others agree with you..?


laws exist which seek to protect children like those sisters from any harm as clinically defined within the law.

their personal forgiveness is typical and does not preclude the law yet the law has not demanded penalty.


the reason duggar is being highlighted lately is because the creep did what he did and still has the nerve to politically pontificate over what is supposedly harmful to children...

maybe you could search your heart for understanding why others soundly rebuke his agenda.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

remember karla faye tucker and all those fundy weasels christer leaders crying that she shouldn't get the death penalty after butchering people because she found "jebus" in prison

Despicable people

Karla Faye Tucker took someone's life and the State made the right decision in going forward with the death penalty, Guno. My husband said that Karla Faye Tucker said that the death sentence she was given was just. So she herself did not disagree with you on the matter of her sentence.
But let me ask you a question I heard (read) from someone else recently. How wicked do sinners have to become before God gives up on them? Can a serial murderer be forgiven? Yes, serial murderers have been forgiven although they remain behind prison bars - they are living in greater liberty than some people living on the outside because of their relationship with Jesus Christ.

There are many people who have been forced into murder because they were involved in a satanic cult. Others may look at them and say everyone can be saved except for that one! And yet that is the very one the LORD is seeking to save! Because He knows the heart of that person and sees their desperation. His compassion is very, very great!

We cannot ever count anyone out. Remember the mercy you refuse to give others today is the same mercy you may need for yourself in the future. With God all things are possible.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre

demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case.

none of our opinions have the power of any law to 'give passes' or 'severe' punishment..in our heart?


what does it mean to DEMAND when you are merely giving your opinion, you can't demand others agree with you..?


laws exist which seek to protect children like those sisters from any harm as clinically defined within the law.

their personal forgiveness is typical and does not preclude the law yet the law has not demanded penalty.


the reason duggar is being highlighted lately is because the creep did what he did and still has the nerve to politically pontificate over what is supposedly harmful to children...

maybe you could search your heart for understanding why others soundly rebuke his agenda.

Sorry, but I am of the school that a good idea is a good idea, a good concept is a good concept regardless of who thinks it up or who promotes it. I can appreciate that he has been a strong advocate for children while at the same time I have not, will not, cannot excuse or defend what Josh Duggar did. I don't expect anybody else to.

He has been publicly humiliated. He has resigned his professional position because of all the negative publicity and because he would be a detriment to the organization. But I simply refuse to pile on and join personal attacks on a person who has openly confessed and repented of his bad acts as a young teenager and for who there is no indication that he has ever continued in those bad acts.

If the victims of those bad acts now say there was no lasting harm, who say they have forgiven him and love him very much, who are we to continue to demand--"demand" defined as "an insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right:" or the insistence that he must now pay for his crimes--that he continue to be punished?

At what point can any person be allowed to live as the person he/she has become rather than as the person he/she once was?