Jessa, Ben & Spurgeon - Those Smug Seewalds

[happy atheist]

Doesn't sound stupid at all, not to me anyways - I've been having similar issues for awhile now when it comes to navigating the site and finding recent threads about different fundie families, but it looks like recent threads are being made in the general snark forum now. I could very well be wrong, but that's where I found the latest JillRod thread.

The current threads have always been in Snark. That's what Snark is.

The old ones get filed to the archive. Because it's an archive. For old threads.

[CuttySark]

little kids just see Caillou acting like a little asshole with zero consequences for his behavior, and think they should act like that.

For the record, my headship worked on Caillou (he's an animator), and this was the general attitude of everyone at the studio. They all hated that "whiny little turd," and he was always coming home with stories of awful script meetings where they tried to change the stories so things would actually make sense, only to get shot down.

(I still remember his rant about some episode where Caillou walks around the block by himself... "how old is this little shithead? Is he two? Then why is he outside on his own and where the hell are his idiot parents? Is he five? Then why does he HAVE NO HAIR? Is he a cancer patient? Then he definitely shouldn't be let out to wander alone. My only answer is that his parents are equally sick of him and they're passively trying to kill him off.") 

The design team wrote some really salty lyrics to that theme song, though I can only remember the first verse.

"This show's a piece of shit / I am so sick of it / I want to punch and kick / Caillou..."  

[nastyhobbitses]

Point taken - I can understand how that in and of itself could make the show worthy of criticism if positive discipline isn't being effectively demonstrated. It just bothers me when that criticism comes in the form of, "I would be in jail if Caillou were my child," rather than being like, "WTF is up with Caillou's parents being complicit in his poor behavior?" 

Ugh, I'm glad I'm not the only one... thank you for saying something! 
I'm always keeping an eye out for good books about children and parenting (and anything related) -- so I'll definitely give that book a read!

I think a lot of it is the dark humor element, and a lot of it is that Caillou is the scapegoat/poor role model that parents and children see, not his parents (who barely register as characters -- as one reviewer put it, they seem like they're "on Valium"). I agree that more of the criticism of Caillou should be focused on how his parents enable his bad behavior (and will eventually do a "he was always such a good boy" interview with some Canadian news show after Caillou is arrested for being a serial killer) and how the show doesn't do enough to illustrate that how Caillou acts is not socially acceptable or a good way to get what you want.

[nausicaa]

I just know I love that little grey cat puppet with the blue spot over one eye. I've always wished the whole show were about him and the dog in that sandbox. 

[formergothardite]

Caillou is right up there with Ruby from Max and Ruby when it comes to annoying cartoon characters. I decided long ago that Caillou's parents weren't actually human because no human could remain as calm as they do.

 

[mizandry]

The current threads have always been in Snark. That's what Snark is.

The old ones get filed to the archive. Because it's an archive. For old threads.

Holy condescending. Could you please mind the way you're speaking to me? It genuinely upsets me whenever I'm spoken to like I'm stupid - even if it's online. I can understand feeling annoyed by my confusion, but that doesn't warrant the contemptuous 'splaining you're giving me right now. 

I know exactly what an archive is. For old threads. And - what the fuck - I know what Snark is (and where it goes). 

That's not where my confusion was, at all. It had to do with my understanding of how Snark was categorized and a whole bunch of other shit I'm not going to ass myself to explain, since that's apparently going to make me deserving of blatant disrespect. I figured it all out with time, but I was just trying to relate to another user about their confusion with where to find things. You could very well have just sent me that first and third sentence. 

Just, okay. I get it now. Jesus.

[HeadshipRegent]

I was the target audience for Caillou when it was airing and I hated that little shit so much even at that age.

[enigmata]

The current threads have always been in Snark. That's what Snark is.

The old ones get filed to the archive. Because it's an archive. For old threads.

What I was trying to say was that I thought that, previously, if you chose a particular family from the drop down box it showed both old and current threads but I guess I was mistaken.  Things always seem obvious if you already know them but can be confusing when the layout of a site changes and you're not sure how to find something that you knew how to find previously.

[hockeymoo]

There is a cute pic on Ben's Instagram of Israel and Spurgeon facetiming - sounds so weird saying that as Israel and Spurgeon are such old fashioned names and don't r.ally seem to go with the word facetiming but it is cute

they sound like mormon prophets.  Dum dum dum dum dummmmm...b. 

[happy atheist]

What I was trying to say was that I thought that, previously, if you chose a particular family from the drop down box it showed both old and current threads but I guess I was mistaken.  Things always seem obvious if you already know them but can be confusing when the layout of a site changes and you're not sure how to find something that you knew how to find previously.

 

The dropdown on the old site was a link to the archive section, so old threads only. We like to keep Snark down to about 4 or 5 pages because nobody looks further than that before starting a new thread on a topic.

Quiverful of Snark was the ur-forum. The rest are offshoots. The Duggar threads all used to be in Snark, too, not so long ago.

[iweartanktops]

Point taken - I can understand how that in and of itself would make the show worthy of criticism if positive discipline isn't being effectively demonstrated. It just bothers me when that criticism comes in the form of, "I would be in jail if Caillou were my child," rather than being like, "WTF is up with Caillou's parents being complicit in his poor behavior?" 

Ugh, I'm glad I'm not the only one... thank you for saying something! 
I'm always keeping an eye out for good books about children and parenting* (and anything related) -- so I'll definitely give that book a read!

(* = I'm aware this book isn't necessarily about parenting and is focused on the ways black boys are treated in the public school system, but my statement doesn't make that clear and comes across like I didn't actually look into what this book is about. I did though, and I'm really interested in reading it, so thank you!)

Hmmm... I've never heard of this book. It sounds interesting. I'm intrigued. 

*goes to search in Kindle*

I have some stories pertaining to the subject, although my brothers were mostly in private school. 

[EmCatlyn]

what is this elect stuff - if you are referring to Jessa being saved by God therefore Ben stalked her - because he somehow "knew" because of who she was - then they would have a child together and that child would be the new creation of "god" is just SO FUCKING CREEPY and shows you and US that at least my eyes were covered 

And I say it again - at least JB was at least not SO blatant where Ben is just So Blatant about it and it is not not cool and a little frustrating and gross 

am I on the right track with what you were thinking or am I way out there because of my obvious dislike of this theory 

I don't know enough about Ben's beliefs, but what Spurgeon was writing about in the material I was browsing through, was plain old Calvinist predestination. As you probably know, the doctrine of predestination  teaches that Christ died on the cross to save "the elect" -- not all humankind.  The idea, if I understand it correctly, is that humans are so sinful that nothing we can do will save us unless God decides to save us.  God chose whom He would save, "the elect," and if we are saved it is not because of anything we did but because we are "elect."

This is definitely at odds with evangelical teachings and the idea that repenting and praying will save you. As I understand it, the Duggars believe that sinners can be saved through lots of prayer.  In contrast, Spurgeon, and presumably Ben, believe that it doesn't matter whether you pray or not: if God has chosen you to be one of the Elect, you are saved, if not, then not.  

This doesn't mean one shouldn't pray.  On the contrary, I gather that believers in predestination see prayer as a sign that you may be among "the elect."  In fact, the Godlier you act, the more likely it is that you are indeed one of the "elect."  

Anyway, if Ben believes what Spurgeon believes, then he probably occasionally wonders if he is one of the "elect" or not.  But more to the point, since he is so arrogant and smug that he probably doesn't doubt for long that God has not only chosen him for salvation but to preach about salvation, maybe he wonders if Jessa is among "the elect."  (Either way, he probably believes that they are together because God willed it.)

Then there is the question of Baby Spurgeon, the SeeFishy.  In naming him after the Victorian theologist, Ben is trying to claim for his son (and for himself) the salvation that no believer in predestination can be sure of.  Giving Spurgeon's name to his son may be a sign that Ben is saved. Having the name may be a sign that Baby Spurgeon is saved.  But all of this is happening through God's will and God's plan because people have no free will at all.  

The whole idea of predestination is confusing to me, but if I am on the right track, Ben is using his son's weird name as a way to reassure himself of his own godliness.  Where Jessa fits in Ben's view of "the elect" is an interesting question.  Did he stalk her because he believed God had chosen her for him?  I don't know.  My guess is he sees himself as following God's will and all that, but how he (or any other Fundie) figures out what God wants is a mystery to me.

[iweartanktops]

For the record, my headship worked on Caillou (he's an animator),  and this was the general attitude of everyone at the studio. They all hated that "whiny little turd," and he was always coming home with stories of awful script meetings where they tried to change the stories so things would actually make sense, only to get shot down.

>Snip<

That's cool, my fiancé is an animator! He animated the Tomb Raider game that released last week 

[CuttySark]

Sweet gig! Given how small the industry is, we probably know people in common. XD 

[Inky]

I think one of todays "Blind Gossip" items is about Jessa & Ben.

[HeadshipRegent]

I think one of todays "Blind Gossip" items is about Jessa & Ben.

Links?

[nst]

I don't know enough about Ben's beliefs, but what Spurgeon was writing about in the material I was browsing through, was plain old Calvinist predestination. As you probably know, the doctrine of predestination  teaches that Christ died on the cross to save "the elect" -- not all humankind.  The idea, if I understand it correctly, is that humans are so sinful that nothing we can do will save us unless God decides to save us.  God chose whom He would save, "the elect," and if we are saved it is not because of anything we did but because we are "elect."

This is definitely at odds with evangelical teachings and the idea that repenting and praying will save you. As I understand it, the Duggars believe that sinners can be saved through lots of prayer.  In contrast, Spurgeon, and presumably Ben, believe that it doesn't matter whether you pray or not: if God has chosen you to be one of the Elect, you are saved, if not, then not.  

This doesn't mean one shouldn't pray.  On the contrary, I gather that believers in predestination see prayer as a sign that you may be among "the elect."  In fact, the Godlier you act, the more likely it is that you are indeed one of the "elect."  

Anyway, if Ben believes what Spurgeon believes, then he probably occasionally wonders if he is one of the "elect" or not.  But more to the point, since he is so arrogant and smug that he probably doesn't doubt for long that God has not only chosen him for salvation but to preach about salvation, maybe he wonders if Jessa is among "the elect."  (Either way, he probably believes that they are together because God willed it.)

Then there is the question of Baby Spurgeon, the SeeFishy.  In naming him after the Victorian theologist, Ben is trying to claim for his son (and for himself) the salvation that no believer in predestination can be sure of.  Giving Spurgeon's name to his son may be a sign that Ben is saved. Having the name may be a sign that Baby Spurgeon is saved.  But all of this is happening through God's will and God's plan because people have no free will at all.  

The whole idea of predestination is confusing to me, but if I am on the right track, Ben is using his son's weird name as a way to reassure himself of his own godliness.  Where Jessa fits in Ben's view of "the elect" is an interesting question.  Did he stalk her because he believed God had chosen her for him?  I don't know.  My guess is he sees himself as following God's will and all that, but how he (or any other Fundie) figures out what God wants is a mystery to me.

Ben has repeatedly said he was a sinner who was saved over and over again. He never says as Jinger always says that she is not worthy.  I think he thinks he is worthy yet a sinner.    I think this is his way of saying that he thinks his son has now been saved and he as an extension has now been saved because he is the father and of course Jessa gave birth to the saved.    As for Christ dying on the cross to save the elect and not humankind I don't believe that.   But really great response on your end - thank you 

[AngelGirl8811]

Thanks guys for reminding that I was deep in the Rodrigues/Rodrigi rabbit hole before Moody Spurgeon showed up! Back to the green eyeliner!  

 

[EmCatlyn]

Well, yeah, I guess so. But then that would be in pretty stark contrast to what the rest of her family believes. And we all know they think they have a direct line to God and clearly their theology is the only correct one..

Yes, if Jessa were to think about it, there are some important contradictions between what her family seems to believe and what her husband preaches. But will Jessa be capable of thinking about it?  How much, other than the certainty of her own Godliness has she learned/understood about her family's theology. Will she see the differences or just look at Ben's views as a variation on what her parents teach?

[Inky]

Links?

http://blindgossip.com/?p=74953#more-74953

 

The other blind quoted at the bottom (She tried to jump ship) is also reputed to be Jessa or maybe Jill.

[HeadshipRegent]

http://blindgossip.com/?p=74953#more-74953

 

The other blind quoted at the bottom (She tried to jump ship) is also reputed to be Jessa or maybe Jill.

Thanks for the link. Just read it, and yeah, it sure sounds like Blessa.

[nst]

http://blindgossip.com/?p=74953#more-74953

 

The other blind quoted at the bottom (She tried to jump ship) is also reputed to be Jessa or maybe Jill.

you think this is Jessa or JIll - doesn't sound like it to me - Jessa or Jill don't know who the Kardashians are lol 

[singsingsing]

That honestly sounds absolutely nothing like any Duggar. Do you really think Jessa would be telling people that she wanted her family to be 'a classier version of the Kardashians'? And with more money? This sounds like it's referring to someone who already has multiple children. Most likely it's completely made up, but if there's any truth to it, I'm 100% sure it's not about a Duggar. 

[EmCatlyn]

So...when Ben's father blogs that Josh is a faux Christian, it suggests Pops Seewald may view Josh as irredeemable?  As in, Josh shows clear evidence through his hypocrisy that he is not among the elect--?  

I never thought of the Duggars as actually doing theology beyond their promotion of a cult of purity and legalistic fundamentalism.  They always struck me as "living samples" as opposed to thinkers.  

That is what I think Papa Seewald believes.  As for the Duggars, I agree. critical thinking is beyond them and their theology is of the "If you know the rules you are saved," variety.

[EmCatlyn]

It will never cease to amaze me that they would actually hope to „save“ a single soul by being so extremely rude. I mean, I know by experience that they do believe it.

Considering, though, that basic knowledge of psychology would inform them that most people will rather not take a dork without empathy and without manners as their role model, I´ll probably never be able to really grasp it...

Don't you think that one of the requirements for being a certain type of Fundie is total lack of empathy and complete disregard for human psychology?  They think that if they can only make you share their feelings/beliefs then you will be saved.  Your feelings are irrelevant.