JinJer and Felicity 43: No Homebirth, No Problem

[Bad Wolf]

It's always good to be reminded that Jeremy is just as bad as the rest of the fundies.

[Rachel333]

1 minute ago, Firebird said:

@Rachel333

I don't even want to pretend like I have answers, but I've gone to a Jewish Messianic church that definitely believed that the Old Testament needed to be followed. The current church I go to believes that Jesus's coming fulfilled the Old Testament, and the biggest commandment to follow now is to love. My current pastor states that the most important thing to do is to pray and to listen to God and to follow Him as He directs you. Me personally, I'm not sure...I'm still working on letting go of alot of anger and have had a hard time differentiating between my parent's beliefs that echo alot of the Duggar's and the truth.

The thing is, Jesus himself said multiple times that everything in the Old Testament is still valid as scripture. Here's a post citing a bunch of those verses. The idea that the Old Testament doesn't matter and all Jesus wants you to do is love is nice, but it isn't biblical (which, to be fair, isn't a problem for everyone).

Even if fulfilling the OT means the laws no longer apply, if you believe the Bible then those laws did all come from God and were affirmed by Jesus, and I find that extremely disturbing given what is in the OT.

Don't get me wrong, there are definitely parts of the New Testament that show that women had a much larger role in the early church than they have in fundamentalist churches today (don't get me started on Junia!) but I think it's important not to whitewash the Bible, and honestly I think liberal Christians can be as bad as fundamentalists about picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that they like and ignoring the rest then claiming that their interpretation is the right one and all others are wrong.

[SilverBeach]

32 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

The idea that the Old Testament doesn't matter and all Jesus wants you to do is love is nice, but it isn't biblical (which, to be fair, isn't a problem for everyone).

Not a problem for me at all, I don't give two shits about being "biblical". Being "biblical" is often an excuse for being hateful and un-Christ like. Jesus said the law was summed up in two commandments: to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself. I believe that all Jesus wants me to do is love and that is how I live my Christian life. Then again, I don't worship the bible, view it as an idol, clobber people with it, or think that it is inerrant. People have made Christianity so complicated and unloving that many want nothing to do with it. If I didn't focus on Christ, I wouldn't want anything to do with it.

 

32 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

 

 

[CatholicLite]

1 hour ago, Firebird said:

@CatholicLite

Didn't the proverbs 31 woman work outside the home too? The Bible also promotes boundaries. I just read a verse that said Jesus healed many (not all) then he took the evening to himself to pray and recharge. ( I am paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it.) It made me realize that I don't have to do everything for everyone and I can take me time! 

She did things "like work" outside of the home, for example buying a field, selling her wares. Note: the proverbs 31 woman is called strong, too.

[Rachel333]

2 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

People have made Christianity so complicated and unloving that many want nothing to do with it.

This is true, but not for as many people as Christians often think. The people aren't really the problem for me; I know many Christians who I think are wonderful people. For me and most of the ex-Christians I know it simply comes down to not believing in the claims of Christianity and its Christ. I think a lot of Christians blame people leaving Christianity solely on Christians behaving badly because it allows them to ignore the problems with Christianity itself.

And by the way, I might disagree with liberal Christians but I'm glad they exist. I'm glad there are Christians who see their main purpose as simply to love, and that there is no shortage of Christians who condemn what people like the signers of this statement have to say.

[just_ordinary]

40 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

Don't get me wrong, there are definitely parts of the New Testament that show that women had a much larger role in the early church than they have in fundamentalist churches today (don't get me started on Junia!) but I think it's important not to whitewash the Bible, and honestly I think liberal Christians can be as bad as fundamentalists about picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that they like and ignoring the rest then claiming that their interpretation is the right one and all others are wrong.

The bible is contradicting itself from time to time (if you don’t start interpreting the meaning) which makes it impossible to not cherry pick in my eyes.

What I find highly irritating with our Fundies is when they go AGAINST the words or actions of their Saviour Jesus Christ that are written in the bible but rather follow the words of Paul the Apostle. That is some serious swapping and I wonder if they ever fear to go to hell for worshiping the wrong idol?

to clarify: I couldn’t care less- but as a true believer I would be very careful who to listen to or what „truths“ to get out of the bible and actually promote them as truths. I mean God (and Jesus iirc) had some very uncomfortable things to say about those people.

[Rachel333]

11 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

The bible is contradicting itself from time to time (if you don’t start interpreting the meaning) which makes it impossible to not cherry pick in my eyes.

I totally agree but it's not just that, it's also insisting that their interpretation is the only right one, especially when they criticize others for doing the same thing. It's one thing to say "this is what I think the Bible means" but so many go further than that. So many times, including many times on FJ, I've seen people talk about how certain teachings from the Bible hurt them and then liberal Christians come in and say, "Oh, that's wrong, what the Bible actually says is [x]," not realizing (or not caring) that if someone is talking about how, say, anti-gay verses or misogynist verses were used hurtfully it's not always that helpful to come in and insist the Bible doesn't actually say that. 

[BernRul]

2 hours ago, Firebird said:

 I used to think that according to the Bible women are meant to be subservient to men, but a lot of Jesus's ministry included women. In fact the first people he revealed his resurrected self to was women. My pastor pointed out that in that time women weren't allowed to give testimony in court, and if Jesus really worried about proving himself to the people of that time he would have gone to men, but that fact that he went to women first indicated that once again he was elevating the individuals that at that time were considered lesser. My pastor used this to point out that Jesus was putting women on equal footing with men and essentially erasing the gender divide. I am really butchering his sermon. He worded it so much better.

I heard something similar at my Catholic school. 

[Rachel333]

Also, I do think the criticisms of the Statement that are coming from a Christian perspective have a better chance at being effective here.

[BernRul]

1 hour ago, Firebird said:

The current church I go to believes that Jesus's coming fulfilled the Old Testament, and the biggest commandment to follow now is to love.

Different Christian sects believe different things. I don't know what branch you follow, but this line of thinking also lines up with Catholicism. I was taught the same thing. Of course, the Catholic Church does not believe in a solely "biblical" reading. I was explicitly told that the truth was a mix of the bible and sacred tradition. And because early Christians gave up many Jewish practices and teaching (like a lot of the stuff in Levitticus), it's not a part of our "tradition." Personally I like this philosophy more, because I can focus on Jesus's core teachinga (which I value, even if I don't always believe in his divinity) instead of getting bogged down in the contradictions of the bible. 

7 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

Also, I do think the criticisms of the Statement that are coming from a Christian perspective have a better chance at being effective here.

True, but not all Christian perspectives believe that. The one I was taught sure didn't. 

[Rachel333]

8 minutes ago, BernRul said:

True, but not all Christian perspectives believe that. The one I was taught sure didn't. 

Believe what?

If you're talking about the beliefs held by the writers and signers of the Statement, I'm saying that criticisms from Christians who do hold different beliefs are more likely to be effective than the simple "fuck you, bigots" comments. (Which are a totally valid reaction!  They just probably aren't going to change many minds.)

[BernRul]

1 minute ago, Rachel333 said:

Believe what?

If you're talking about the beliefs held by the writers and signers of the Statement, I'm saying that criticisms from Christians who do hold different beliefs are more likely to be effective than the simple "fuck you, bigots" comments. (Which are a totally valid reaction!  They just probably aren't going to change many minds.)

 I thought you were talking about the Jesus and the Old Testament discussion. What you said makes more sense lol. 

[Jinder Roles]

Jeremy retweeted some bs about there being so such thing as social justice, only “justice”, (he was arguing semantics...go figure) a while back so I’m not surprised. 

This is a good reminder though. More proof he’s part of that trendy pseudo-intellectual counter-Christian group who believe they’re intellectual heavy-weights. All neatly packaged with charisma and eloquent speech. 

I don’t understand how you can understand entire volumes dedicated to dense theology, but you can’t comprehend basic sociological principles like systemic racism and intersectionality. It’s so disingenuous. 

Edited to say: That entire letter is extremely gaslight-y!! Basically anytime anyone who isn’t a straight white male tries to talk about their experience, they are deemed asagainst God and being sinful for “following the world” 

Jeremy has a congregation of majority brown Latinx people. That is extremely worrisome to me. 

[seraaa]

22 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

Quote

We reject any teaching that encourages racial groups to view themselves as privileged oppressors or entitled victims of oppression. While we are to weep with those who weep, we deny that a person’s feelings of offense or oppression necessarily prove that someone else is guilty of sinful behaviors, oppression, or prejudice.

Quote

O...kay

My god, this whole thing is exhausting. 

[Rachel333]

They do seem especially concerned with racism, specifically denying that it's a legitimate thing to be concerned about.

[seraaa]

11 hours ago, TakingBibleClasses said:

This is fascinating, if true: "...we revealed that Dr. Albert Mohler had been forbidding Southern Baptist Theological Seminary faculty from signing the forthcoming document."

Mohler and SBTS aren't exactly bastions of liberalism. Sincerely glad to see them take a stand against this statement. (LOL that this article calls Mohler and Russell Moore "influential leaders in the Social Gospel movement.)

. Those jumping on the bandwagon of Social Justice, which is a political philosophy contrived in leftist academia and is a conglomeration of Critical Race Theory, Cultural Marxism, Rauschenbuschism and Intersectionality, include top-tier evangelicals like Albert Mohler, Mark Dever, Matt Chandler, Michael Horton, Thom Rainer, Ed Stetzer, and (one of these things is not like the other) Beth Moore

 

Presented with out comment

[Jinder Roles]

You can tell in the letter they’re just throwing around terms they don’t really understand and using big words to sound official. 

When addressing systemic issues so people can live better, safer lives is somehow threatening to the essence of your religion...you gots a problem honey! 

By the way Jeremy,  ‘cultural marxism’ is not a thing. And systemic racism is not about personal victimhood. The explanation is literally in the term. 

Lemme stop now before my eyes  get stuck in the back of my head from rolling them so much. 

[freethemall]

2 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

They do seem especially concerned with racism, specifically denying that it's a legitimate thing to be concerned about.

And yet they also state that race is a social construct (xii). So many contradictions!

They say they're against activism or that it isn't part of the gospel (viii), yet they engage in lots of it, especially pro life causes. Even this piece is a form of religious activism.

It's easy enough to deny racism, gender fluidity, intersectionality, and a spectrum of sexual orientation when you're a white, cisgender, heterosexual male.

I'm almost shocked this didn't end with "blessed be the fruit/may the Lord open".

Fuck them all. #freefelicity

[FeministFunPolice]

I couldn’t bring myself to read the whole thing and I’m glad because the snippets I’ve read suggest that it’s worse.

[VelociRapture]

You know, I’m honestly glad he signed this. It’s so easy to become blinded by the Vuolo’s cute Instagram feeds and this is a wonderful reminder that Jeremy* is as big of a hateful asshole as any of the others. 

Personally, I prefer Derick to Jeremy at this point. At least Derick lacks the ability to wrap his hate in the pseudo-intellectualism that Jeremy favors and which lends Jeremy’s hate an air of legitimacy that Derick's so clearly lacks. And, as I’ve said so often, that air of legitimacy makes Jeremy more effective and, thus, more dangerous than Derick.

*And very likely Jinger as well, though I won’t say that definitively as she isn’t big on speaking publicly about this stuff. I think it’s very likely given the family she was raised in and the fact that she chose to marry Jeremy though. And if Jill got criticism for not calling Derick out on his hate then I think Jinger deserves at least a bit of the same criticism (though not as much considering that Jill has publicly endorsed some of the same bullshit as Derick.)

[Rachel333]

38 minutes ago, freethemall said:

gender fluidity

They actually denied that sex, not gender is fluid, which I thought was funny because after all the times fundies have said "gender" when they meant "sex," I think that's the first time I've seen them use the word "sex" when they meant "gender."

[nst]

20 hours ago, CaricatureQualities said:

Yep, Jeremy is every bit as awful as Derick has ever thought of being if not worse. Derick presents his hatred like a petulant child whining on twitter and his public image is sloppy. But Jeremy has a much more polished image and he presents his hatred in a fancier wrapped package...it's not right in people's faces like the shit bombs D drops... with Jer people have to find the package, read the fluff on the tag, get the big bow off, regard it, unwrap it, remark about the nice looking tissue paper inside...and then we find the turd at the heart of it.

It's the same shit only while D is smearing it all over the walls and making a mess we have Jeremy keeping his in pretty bottles, trying to age and refine it, will call it vintage and will pour it out to guests at a fancy dinner party.

 

i love that image of jeremy taking felicity's poo and smearing it on the walls and then taking a photo of it and claiming that the dog did it. 

but that is jeremy to a tee - his truth 

smearing poo on the walls and posting it in black and white and telling people it's art. 

and they BELIEVE IT 

16 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

I wonder why Jinger didn't sign.  There are plenty of women who did. 

because can you imagine that 

i can't 

the projected dream couldn't handle that. I wonder how Jeremy was able to create this jinger 

but then I remember she was trained for this 

[Carm_88]

It's easy for heterosexual white Christian men to say that sexism, racism, homophobia/transphobia don't exist. They'll never experience it. They love to claim persecution for their beliefs, when they have no clue what persecution is. I'm glad Jeremy is part of this garbage, it shows us his true beliefs. 

[seraaa]

4 hours ago, Jinder Roles said:

You can tell in the letter they’re just throwing around terms they don’t really understand and using big words to sound official. 

When addressing systemic issues so people can live better, safer lives is somehow threatening to the essence of your religion...you gots a problem honey! 

By the way Jeremy,  ‘cultural marxism’ is not a thing. And systemic racism is not about personal victimhood. The explanation is literally in the term. 

Lemme stop now before my eyes  get stuck in the back of my head from rolling them so much. 

Contrapoints (a youtuber who makes lefty, academic, cultural and satirical/surreal/comedy videos) has a detailed takedown of this nonsense "cultural marxism" concept in a video she made about Jordan Peterson. It is very satisfying. (skip the intro and go straight to about 4:10 or to 11:00 if you like)

(Having rewatched the vid, Peterson's concept is specifically "postmodern neomarxism" which is distinct-but-not-really from "cultural marxism".

Cultural marxism is ye olde conspiracy theory with antisemitic undertones that says that left-wing scholrs and intellectuals are trying to upend Western culture as we know it. I will not delete the post, because it is still all interesting oh well)

 

[MargaretElliott]

I just watched that whole thing. Thank you so much for posting it, I finally have words for what I hate about Jordan Peterson. Long live the lobster queen!