Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Coconut Flan

Jinjer 46: Felicity and Her Hair Coverings

Recommended Posts

Sullie06
3 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I’m going to disagree with you a bit. You can definitely say that the Duggar parents had a pattern of rushing into subsequent pregnancies, but only three of Jinger’s siblings have more than one kid and only one (Jessa) could be said to have “rushed” into a second pregnancy - whether intentionally or accidentally. The Smuggars seem to have a baby every two years, the Dills have 27 months between their boys, and Benessa’s youngest is close to 2 with no pregnancy announcement yet. I don’t think any of them really have an established pattern of rushing into more pregnancies.

Oh I fully believe there is an agenda behind their social media 100%, especially Jeremy’s posts. Jeremy knows what he’s doing and he’s carefully crafting his brand. 

I guess rushed is the wrong word but I feel like Jinjer are on a different timeline than her siblings. Wether planned or not. She was the only one to make it to her anniversary childless and I feel like she had a little more time to decide, wether by Jeremy’s coaching or not, who she wanted to me as a wife and a mother.  We know these girls are not free thinkers but Jinjer have a much more calculated approach to their image and family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HurricaneBells

The suspension of their accreditation is interesting. I work in this space albeit in a different industry but suspension is rarely automatic and without cause or time to address.. of course Jeremy would pick a place like this. Shady!

Also I don't think they will have 10 kids either because there would be less and less attention for him from jinger with the more babies they have. He out of all the men will be the one who can't or won't accept that. If they do it will be because, sister moms but that's a lot of years to create that scenario. Even the D/B parents had to actually "parent" while their oldest kids got old enough to take over.

Edited by HurricaneBells
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
Katzchen24
On 12/13/2018 at 6:30 AM, nickelodeon said:

In my experience, anti-catholicism is verrry normalized in Reformed groups. Reformed people assume that your catholic aunties are selling indulgences, espousing Arianism, and having enemy clergy poisoned so as to inherit their wealth.

I've no doubt that indulgences are sold, although maybe not as blatantly as in previous centuries.

I'm very interested in knowing why Reformed people think Catholics are espousing Arianism. I have read about Arianism before, but had to go and look it up to be sure. Info for people like me in the spoiler below.

Spoiler

This is copied directly from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism 

Arianism is often considered to be a form of Unitarian theology in that it stresses God’s unity at the expense of the notion of the Trinity, the doctrine that three distinct persons are united in one Godhead.

.......

In 381 the second ecumenical council met at Constantinople. Arianism was proscribed, and a statement of faith, the Nicene Creed, was approved.

.......

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Unitarians in England and America were unwilling either to reduce Christ to a mere human being or to attribute to him a divine nature identical with that of the Father. The Christology of Jehovah’s Witnesses is also a form of Arianism, for it upholds the unity and supremacy of God the Father.

I've done my share of reciting the Nicene Creed. @nickelodeon, I'm not doubting you at all, and I would love to know where this comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WiseGirl
12 hours ago, miss_batson said:

A thing or two from Jinger about motherhood

I scanned this too quickly and read "thing" as "thong". After that, the rest of the post was kind of a let down. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anna Bolinas
5 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

So Jeremy is not "just following tradition."  He is deliberately aligning himself with an angry and ugly mindset.  He should be called out for it not excused.

 

Oh, I agree. I could've worded what I said better to not sound so dismissive. His virulent anti-Catholicism also ties into racism, which is why all the Duggars are obsessed with going on missions to Central/South America. The tradition he's following is a tradition of hatred and smug superiority, and definitely shouldn't be accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VelociRapture
4 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I doubt that you’re a reality show star angling for Preaching fame in a patriarchal anti-choice movement though. :)

Remember that Jinger comes from an extremely anti-choice family, Jeremy has preached antichoice bullshit*, and their Church apparently has a pregnancy crisis center. I have no doubts about there being an agenda of some kind and I don’t think they deserve the benefit of the doubt at this point. 

*In Touch compiled a list of some of his problematic teachings earlier this year. The list includes links to the sermons for anyone curious. The section about the abortion sermon is labeled “Abortion leads to suicide,” which sounds like a completely fair and in no way biased sermon. :pb_rollseyes:

Quoting myself.

I took one for the team and tried listening to part of the abortion sermon (found on YouTube here) after I put my daughter to bed (no way was I letting my innocent baby listen to this crap.) And when I say “I took one for the team,” I honestly mean it. This was vile.

It starts with a video that was played to the congregation prior to the sermon. It begins with the end of a speech by a guy named Peter Heck (pretty sure he’s the absolute winner who created this lovely website here.) He has people close their eyes and listen to what he claims is, “the sound of little babies striking the side of a tin can.” It sounded more like rocks or marbles hitting a tin can, but I’m no expert. Each sound is supposed to represent 10,000 babies or something. In between he states a new war or conflict like, “World War I,” probably because he’s trying to demonstrate just how horrible the baby killing is. There’s a photo of a mom holding her sleeping baby’s hand on the screen during this:

7A311619-3104-44FA-BB37-E08F9A833DBE.thumb.png.34db11e9f8b7373cd1a36d64c34485c5.png 

The sermon begins. Jeremy speaks emotionally. I don’t think he’s really that great a speaker to be honest, but I’ll do my best to pay attention. There are actually people present, which kind of surprises me since I was kind of hoping that Jeremy was just preaching to Jinger (as she quietly shops online or something) and an unmanned camera. He calls the day the “tragic anniversary” of the day that SCOTUS decided “it was determined that a woman had the right to take the life of a child in her womb.” He claims hundreds of millions of childrens lives have been ended due to this and that the people gathered in the room with him are well educated on the destructive nature of abortion (someone please help me up? I fell on the floor laughing at the thought that anyone in that room is actually educated on the subject.) He then claims he conveniently saw a “friend” that morning who had been pressuring his girlfriend to have an abortion for months, to which I call buuuuullllllshit! He says he spoke with him for 50 minutes (only 50 Jeremy? Really?! Did the unborn babies not deserve the full hour?) about what abortion is and how everyone in the room where he’s preaching has been affected by abortion simply by living in the US. 

We are now only 5 minutes into the 55 minute long sermon (HOW THE FUCK ARE WE ONLY 5 MINUTES IN?!?!) He quotes from Psalm 106:37. Screenshot of the basic idea of what he quoted here:

Spoiler

DAA3CD12-01C1-4E63-845E-06F3B28A5D5F.thumb.png.4cca671a72df5247122404d2dab9f948.png

He says abortion is foremost destructive to the baby, but is also destructive to the polluted land and that “we” live in a polluted land - meaning the USA. Which is true, but only because Republican politicians are literally allowing companies to pollute the land. 

Around the 6 minute mark is where he starts in on how abortion is destructive to the women who commit it. He claims that in August 2011 that the British Journal of Mental Health published a study on abortion and mental health - specifically, whether women who have abortions have greater instances of mental health struggles (anxiety, depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts, etc.) I’m assuming here that he’s purposely twisting whatever the findings were to lend himself an air of credibility. He reads a few lines - I’m not going to type those out because it would take forever and because I’m pretty sure it’s jist the author covering her ass to avoid being accused of any bias, but anyone curious can start listening at the 8 minute mark to hear. 

Ten minutes in. He quoted 1 of the 22 studies used to compile this overall analysis - something about how some official sounding survey/study found abortion leads to a higher instance of depression and self harm. He keeps repeating over and over that this is scientific and empirical evidence and all that stuff because he wants to drive home the point that this was a legitimate scientific study - again, because he wants to sound credible to anyone listening. At around 11:15 he gives an 81% higher figure for women to suffer from depression or self harm if they’ve had an abortion and then states this absolute gem of wisdom:

“Its true what God says, isn’t it? The wage for sin is death.”

He then immediately mentions murder and conscience standing as a testament to our guilt. He states it’s destructuve to the women, the providers, and those who pressure or influence women in getting abortions. He claims that the scientific community agrees a child is a child within the womb and then immediately states that organizations like PlannedParenthood agree with that statement. We’re a little past the 12:00 mark and I’m officially done. Sorry, but I just can’t bring myself to continue listening to this manipulative asshole. 

Anyone still think Jeremy is a nice, normal guy who is going to set Jinger free and allow Felicity to make important decisions for herself without heaping a mountain of shame and judgement on top of her? 

And in case anyone is still harboring the hope that this was from his pre-Jinger days and he’s done a complete turn around since then - it’s not. He preached this on January 22, 2017 (the 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade), over two months after he and Jinger got married. I didn’t see her face because the camera was pretty focused on Jeremy, but if she wasn’t in a pew nodding along in agreement as he spoke then I’d honestly be ridiculously shocked. 

Edited by VelociRapture
Added link to what I believe is Peter Heck’s website.
  • Upvote 16
  • Disgust 1
  • Rufus Bless 5
  • Thank You 28
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtlanticTug

I'm sure he has never read Roe v Wade and doesn't understand what the court actually held there, based on the previous finding in Griswold.

I can't stand him. He irritates me much more than Derick. At least Derick is shamelessly open about who he is and what he believes. BABE hides behind his pseudointellectualism but you can't put lipstick on a pig.

  • Upvote 14
  • I Agree 5
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spent
ViolaSebastian
32 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

Around the 6 minute mark is where he starts in on how abortion is destructive to the women who commit it. He claims that in August 2011 that the British Journal of Mental Health published a study on abortion and mental health - specifically, whether women who have abortions have greater instances of mental health struggles (anxiety, depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts, etc.) I’m assuming here that he’s purposely twisting whatever the findings were to lend himself an air of credibility.

So I went and took a gander at the study he cited. It does indeed find a greater risk of mental health issues in women who've had abortions. However, it notes that only 10% of these are related to the abortion itself. Women who are statistically more likely to have abortions (for example, living in poverty), are also more likely to have other risk factors for mental illness beyond just having an abortion. In any case, here was the conclusion:

Spoiler

 

Results

Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion. The strongest subgroup estimates of increased risk occurred when abortion was compared with term pregnancy and when the outcomes pertained to substance use and suicidal behaviour.

Conclusions

This review offers the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in the world literature. Calling into question the conclusions from traditional reviews, the results revealed a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services.

 

But wait, there's more! When I searched for that article, another article came up. It's title? Fatal flaws in a recent meta-analysis on abortion and mental health. 

Quote

Similar to other reviews within the last 4 years, a thorough review by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, published in December 2011, found that compared to delivery of an unintended pregnancy, abortion does not increase women''s risk of mental health problems. In contrast, a meta-analysis published in September 2011 concluded that abortion increases women''s risk of mental health problems by 81% and that 10% of mental health problems are attributable to abortions. Like others, we strongly question the quality of this meta-analysis and its conclusions. Here we detail seven errors of this meta-analysis and three significant shortcomings of the included studies because policy, practice and the public have been misinformed. These errors and shortcomings render the meta-analysis'' conclusions invalid

The seven errors they list are:

Quote

We found seven significant errors in the methods, analyses and reasoning of Coleman's meta-analysis [6]. They include: (1) violating guidelines for conducting a meta-analysis, (2) not accounting for dependence of effect sizes, (3) calculating population attributable risk factor when not appropriate, (4) not adhering to the stated inclusion and exclusion criteria, (5) misclassifying the comparison group, (6) adjusting effect sizes for different factors and (7) making invalid inferences regarding the proportion of all births that are unintended

So, it was not a good meta-analysis and the conclusions made by the 2011 study are a crock of shite. 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 11
  • Thank You 15
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tired
Audrey2

By the way, I see that Margaret Atwood has a sequel to The Handmaid's Tale coming out on September 10 called The Testaments. I saw The Handmaid's tale referenced on the last page.

  • Upvote 7
  • Thank You 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tired
Coconut Flan
5 hours ago, Katzchen24 said:

I've no doubt that indulgences are sold

Definitely not in the diocese where I live.  Indulgences are treated by the priests as a sort of out-moded way of looking at things and basically never mentioned unless brought up by a parishioner.  People who do ask about it are gently steered toward a more mainstream/modern/love thy neighbor approach from what little of it I've seen.  Our parish had a deacon who tried to push a couple specific indulgences and he was soon retired.   He definitely didn't lead any more services after the priest heard about it.  Then we had the homily of God is not a slot machine.  :5624798180220_Jigglejiggledance:

  • Upvote 12
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nickelodeon
5 hours ago, Katzchen24 said:

I've no doubt that indulgences are sold, although maybe not as blatantly as in previous centuries.

I'm very interested in knowing why Reformed people think Catholics are espousing Arianism. I have read about Arianism before, but had to go and look it up to be sure. Info for people like me in the spoiler below.

  Reveal hidden contents

This is copied directly from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism 

Arianism is often considered to be a form of Unitarian theology in that it stresses God’s unity at the expense of the notion of the Trinity, the doctrine that three distinct persons are united in one Godhead.

.......

In 381 the second ecumenical council met at Constantinople. Arianism was proscribed, and a statement of faith, the Nicene Creed, was approved.

.......

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Unitarians in England and America were unwilling either to reduce Christ to a mere human being or to attribute to him a divine nature identical with that of the Father. The Christology of Jehovah’s Witnesses is also a form of Arianism, for it upholds the unity and supremacy of God the Father.

I've done my share of reciting the Nicene Creed. @nickelodeon, I'm not doubting you at all, and I would love to know where this comes from.

I was mostly goofin on the fact that Reformed folk seem to ascribe to modern Catholic people all the weird 16th century crimes and obscure heresies they can think of :P (In addition to the boring ol' accusations of "idolatrous worship of Mary and the saints")

  • Upvote 8
  • Haha 6
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lumpentheologie

I don't doubt that for some people having an abortion is a difficult event in their lives, and could possibly bring about or exacerbate mental health issues. But to really be accurate the studies should be comparing people who had abortions with people who were forced to go through with unwanted pregnancies, not with the general population. And that's not really an ethical study to do. 

I'm pretty convinced that choosing to abort is a lot less stressful than not having a choice.  And it's tragic that for many women choosing whether abort is a very difficult decision--if they would like to go through with the pregnancy but can't because of money, or an abusive partner, or their own health.

But we can do things that help people in these situations---provide a better economic safety net, provide paid time off for new parents, reduce discrimination against parents in the workplace, provide affordable daycare, help people leave abusive relationships, get people the education and mental health support that might keep them from being abusive in the first place, provide free and accessible health care to everyone, ensure safe and healthy practices in the workplace, provide paid sick leave, etc. 

I support these things not because I want there to be fewer abortions, but because I want the people dealing with an unexpected pregnancy to make a free choice about whether to continue it, not a severely constrained one. Well, and also because they would lead to everyone having better lives, unplanned pregnancy or no. 

  • Upvote 14
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VelociRapture
8 hours ago, nickelodeon said:

I was mostly goofin on the fact that Reformed folk seem to ascribe to modern Catholic people all the weird 16th century crimes and obscure heresies they can think of :P (In addition to the boring ol' accusations of "idolatrous worship of Mary and the saints")

I think I’d make a bad Protestant (or at least a bad Fundie) because I never got the Mary hate. She’s one of the more relatable figures in the Bible in my opinion. I like that she obviously loves her son, but that she isn’t quiet about voicing her fears for him and that she also goes full stereotypical Jewish mother* by nagging him about the wine running out at that wedding. I’m guessing it’s just typical sexism at play or something - can’t have a mere woman being anywhere near as important as the manly son of a God. :pb_rollseyes:

*This was how it was described in my New Testament as Literature course in college and it always makes me laugh because I immediately picture Jesus as Howard Wolowitz and Mary as Mrs. Wolowitz. :pb_lol:

  • Upvote 13
  • Haha 7
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Ni
37 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

and that she also goes full stereotypical Jewish mother* by nagging him about the grape juice running out at that wedding.

Fixed that for you. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elliha
1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

I think I’d make a bad Protestant (or at least a bad Fundie) because I never got the Mary hate. She’s one of the more relatable figures in the Bible in my opinion. I like that she obviously loves her son, but that she isn’t quiet about voicing her fears for him and that she also goes full stereotypical Jewish mother* by nagging him about the wine running out at that wedding. I’m guessing it’s just typical sexism at play or something - can’t have a mere woman being anywhere near as important as the manly son of a God. :pb_rollseyes:

*This was how it was described in my New Testament as Literature course in college and it always makes me laugh because I immediately picture Jesus as Howard Wolowitz and Mary as Mrs. Wolowitz. :pb_lol:

Love that image! You are seriously screwing up theology for me now 🤣.

Some of the "higher" protestant churches are more OK with Mary and there are often ways to do devotions to her if you like (but you also don't have to). 4th of Advent is devoted to Mary at our church and there are further Sundays were she is talked about too but not as much the main character. I never cared much for Mary before I was a mother myself but now I always kiss her image at church and I meditate about her as well. Being as it seems from what is in the bible so close to her son and then losing him the way she did must have been hard even if she believed in the Resurrection, he wasn't there with her for whatever time she lived after he left earth.

(Sometimes I think I would like to write a religious novel about Jesus and his family that discusses all the things you don't really get to see like how was Joseph's and Jesus' relationship etc. Now however those plans are ruined by me now seeing Jesus as an actual However Wolowitz and I am hoping for his own sake that wasn't what he looked like.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unimpressed
Palimpsest
10 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Definitely not in the diocese where I live.  Indulgences are treated by the priests as a sort of out-moded way of looking at things and basically never mentioned unless brought up by a parishioner.  People who do ask about it are gently steered toward a more mainstream/modern/love thy neighbor approach from what little of it I've seen.  Our parish had a deacon who tried to push a couple specific indulgences and he was soon retired.   He definitely didn't lead any more services after the priest heard about it.  Then we had the homily of God is not a slot machine.  :5624798180220_Jigglejiggledance:

Yep, if you ask the RCC, the selling of indulgences was stamped out with the Council of Trent and that prohibition was further enforced with Vatican II.  I also think the concept of indulgences is confused with penance and making restitution by the uninformed.  And the uninformed includes some Catholics.

What are still around and are gobbled up by some devout and old fashioned Catholics (like my late in-laws) are religious medals, holy statues, devotional scapulars, holy cards, and mass cards for the deceased.  Money makers for sure, but not indulgences and get out of Hell free cards. 

But mainstream Protestants and Fundies probably have just as much holy kitsch lying around.  It just looks different.

FTR, my FIL wore a brown scapular (Our Lady of Mount Carmel?).  If you had asked him about it he would not have said it was a sign of meditation, a pledge to his religious devotion ... he would have said that it protected him from sin.  Um, no.  That is not what devotional scapulars are supposed to be about.  But he was a simple soul about his faith.  My MIL was far more sophisticated.  She venerated Mary and the Infant Jesus of Prague.  She dressed the Infant statue in the right clothes every Advent, but she would never have prayed to him.  She would have asked him for intercession.

Edited by Palimpsest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
singsingsing
1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

I’m guessing it’s just typical sexism at play or something - can’t have a mere woman being anywhere near as important as the manly son of a God. :pb_rollseyes:

Well, somewhat, but there's a much longer and more complicated history behind why certain protestants have issues with Mary. It's more about the whole 'sola scriptura, sola fide' thing than just blatant sexism. Same reason they got rid of saints, shrines, monks and nuns, the Pope, rosaries, purgatory, etc. etc. And since Catholics tended to venerate Mary so highly, there was a bigger backlash against her (and not against other female characters in the Bible, even though Mary arguably played a less significant role in scripture than some of them). A lot of it was theological. There couldn't be any hint that any human being even came close to approaching Jesus's power and divinity, whether that was Mary, the Pope, or a saint.

  • Upvote 9
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unimpressed
Palimpsest
13 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I took one for the team and tried listening to part of the abortion sermon (found on YouTube here) after I put my daughter to bed (no way was I letting my innocent baby listen to this crap.) And when I say “I took one for the team,” I honestly mean it. This was vile.

Thank you.  It sounds as though you lasted longer than I did with that one.  I think a crapped out at the 5 minute mark.  All his sermons are far too long as well as obnoxious and, yes, vile.  I've tried with some of them but I have not lasted the full length of any  even when multitasking.  He's not a good preacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waffle Time
allthegoodnamesrgone
16 hours ago, HurricaneBells said:

The suspension of their accreditation is interesting. I work in this space albeit in a different industry but suspension is rarely automatic and without cause or time to address.. of course Jeremy would pick a place like this. Shady!

Also I don't think they will have 10 kids either because there would be less and less attention for him from jinger with the more babies they have. He out of all the men will be the one who can't or won't accept that. If they do it will be because, sister moms but that's a lot of years to create that scenario. Even the D/B parents had to actually "parent" while their oldest kids got old enough to take over.

Oh I believe Jeremy has a very specific idea of what his family will look like, Pretty dutiful submissive wife, 3 or 4 pretty, well behaved children, who will stand around him and prop him up like the great man of God he claims to be. They will be Instagram ready at all times and they will always be happy, and pretty, and well dressed.

  • Upvote 12
  • Sad 1
  • I Agree 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nickelodeon
31 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

Well, somewhat, but there's a much longer and more complicated history behind why certain protestants have issues with Mary. It's more about the whole 'sola scriptura, sola fide' thing than just blatant sexism.

I'd argue that misogyny was very much installed in the logic of Reformation (the forcible closing of convents and the loss of women's communities this entails; The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women; etc etc etc) but I think you're right that there's more at stake in anti-Mary sentiment. I don't know if Marian devotion would have become such a potent bogeyman for Protestants if it was only misogyny at play.

(Some evangelicals really are weird about Mary though. They listen to a lot of creepy Christmas pop songs about Mary suffering in childbirth.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lumpentheologie
15 minutes ago, nickelodeon said:

(Some evangelicals really are weird about Mary though. They listen to a lot of creepy Christmas pop songs about Mary suffering in childbirth.)

I was in a store the other day and an American country Christian Xmas song was playing (kind of surprising to me in small-town Germany) and it was going on about how Mary was this "scared, lost little girl" when Jesus was born.  I was just so taken aback by this image of Mary.  I know she was supposed to be very young, but it really emphasized to me how some Protestants put Mary in just the same "helpless and lost" box with everyone else right up until Jesus does his salvation thing. 

My family is Catholic, but my favorite image of Mary is the Eastern Orthodox one I learned about in college. Orthodox Christians revere Mary not as the Virgin, but as the Mother of God. She was the only one who could have brought Christ into the world, and because she had free will, God had to ask her if she was willing to be Jesus's mother. The story goes that all the angels were silent waiting for her response, since the salvation of the world depended on whether she would say yes. So it's a very strong and brave Mary, who consciously takes this upon herself, knowing that she will face blame and ridicule. 💙

  • Upvote 12
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VelociRapture
1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

Thank you.  It sounds as though you lasted longer than I did with that one.  I think a crapped out at the 5 minute mark.  All his sermons are far too long as well as obnoxious and, yes, vile.  I've tried with some of them but I have not lasted the full length of any  even when multitasking.  He's not a good preacher.

I felt like I had a responsibility to watch since I mentioned the sermons earlier. I only watched the one, but I feel like it was extremely revealing about what type of person Jeremy really is. I would bet the rest are as well. If I get time maybe I’ll try and do brief rundowns of some of his other sermons (at least what I can stomach in one sitting.) I need a nap today though, so maybe next week. :pb_lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depressed
victoriasponge
20 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Hmmmm I don’t see a problem with the wording per se. If I’d post on my Instagram about how much I love being a mother yadayadayada I don’t think I would feel the need to put a disclaimer on it for all the people who might feel differently. And I wouldn’t do it if I had a large following either.

Usually I don't think people should have to put a disclaimer against their own personal experience. However, she's not just posting that she loves being a mother. She's posting that every single woman needs to love being a mother, that they should all want to be a mother, and that you're rejecting some kind of womanhood if you 'despise' your gift.

Her wording is quite literally 'motherhood is a gift... that out not to be despised' - that's dangerous wording territory. Saying it's a gift in this context, especially with their beliefs, means it's not a woman's choice - God decides you're getting a baby, and if you don't want that baby, well then you're just an ungrateful little harpy. Motherhood is a gift, be more grateful etc. etc.

Not that I think she needs a disclaimer, because she's clearly not seeing an issue here, it's not about people feeling differently. There's no disclaimer to be given, there is no experience other than her own. She doesn't even recognise that there are women who quite happily don't want to be mothers - they're just despising a gift - they're ungrateful.

Quite honestly, I can't stand her and Jeremy.

  • Upvote 14
  • I Agree 14
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unimpressed
Palimpsest
37 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

I felt like I had a responsibility to watch since I mentioned the sermons earlier.

Yes, I've tried because I've talked about his horrible sermons too.   I've also fast-forwarded through a few and they don't get any better.   But if you can make it through a few AND write recaps - you are a much better woman than I am, Gunga Din.

And you'll need the full brigade of rescue ferrets but carrying anti-venom instead of snacks.  :ferret::ferret:

Edited by Palimpsest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pecansforeveryone

There has been speculation as to whether Derrick is smart enough to pass law school. Honestly, it's Jeremy who I question has the intellect to pass law school or a true rigous seminary. I think he will do ok at Master Seminary just becauyse it's a questionable school more concerned with toeing the party line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×