Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The Duggalos: Jinger and the Holy Goalie

frenchtoast

By frenchtoast
in Counting On

cm-soupsipper
Message added by cm-soupsipper,

Closure Notice: This Thread is now closed due to the name (and much of the posting within it). Please be mindful going forward by naming topics in a way that invites a healthy community conversation. If you name something for a cheap laugh, this thread may be closed later because it encourages discrimination and harm. 

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 40.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Churchhoney

    2685

  • Sew Sumi

    1781

  • GeeGolly

    1721

  • Zella

    1576

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Spencer Hastings
Spencer Hastings

Tough crowd!  She's wearing modern shoes with closed toes, pants, and a shirt that literally calls back to her family's ridiculous rules and there are still 35 things wrong with what she's doing. 

Churchhoney
Churchhoney

That's okay. He's forgotten it a few times himself. 

GeeGolly
GeeGolly

My push presents after having my kids were my kids. 

Posted Images

Chicklet

Chicklet

(edited)

Just watched the documentary "Hillsong" and the guy that started the PreachersNSneakers instagram stated something that's just so Jeremy- something to the effect that if you are so worried about saving people why are you showing your ass on Instagram. You are not like Jesus, be more like Jesus.

But Hillsong and by extension the Assemblies of God church (which was the precursor in Australia) is a horror.

Edited by Chicklet
  • Useful 4
  • LOL 1
  • Love 10
Scarlett45

Scarlett45

2 minutes ago, Chicklet said:

Just watched the documentary "Hillsong" and the guy that started the PreachersNSneakers instagram stated something that's just so Jeremy- something to the effect that if you are so worried about saving people why are you showing your ass on Instagram. You are not like Jesus, be more like Jesus.

But Hillsong and by extension the Assemblies of God church (which was the precursor in Australia) is a horror.

I saw that documentary as well and thought of Jeremy and his shoe collection. 
 

For the record, there’s nothing wrong with religious leaders liking nice clothes, or enjoying collecting things just for pleasure- but there’s a way Jeremy “peacocks” that isn’t seemly. 

  • Love 12
  • Popular Post
laurakaye

laurakaye

  • Popular Post
On 4/23/2022 at 3:50 PM, ginger90 said:

Jeremy has Doctrine&Donuts, Jinger has waffles.

81DB670A-C078-4146-9C65-9E6C2FB60656.jpeg

Doctrine and Donuts.  (Women), Waffles and the Word.  Preachers and Potatoes.  Deacons and Doritos.  Helpmeets and Hamburger Helper.  Ministers and Marshmallows.  Posers and Pringles.  Wannabes and Wheat Thins.  Students and Slushies.  Grifters and Grub.

If any of these turn up on Jeremy's Insta, I will be suing for the copyrights.  

 

10 hours ago, ginger90 said:

2 pictures:

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/Ccv_f5Nvibf/

I loathe this trend of taking two or three pictures with the same composition but a slightly different pose.  I don't understand it, I don't like it, and I am getting my hose ready to blast these people right off my lawn.

  • LOL 29
  • Love 1
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

Jeremy is bottom shelf as far as flashy preachers - he doesn't even have one home, never mind multiple homes, no yacht, no private plane, etc. Not that I think he's a great guy or anything, but him being a typical IG tool doesn't bother me because he's a preacher. Its not like all humble preachers are out there feeding the homeless. From what I can see, their main goal is God bothering.

 

  • Useful 1
  • Love 8
  • Popular Post
Scarlett45

Scarlett45

  • Popular Post
22 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Jeremy is bottom shelf as far as flashy preachers - he doesn't even have one home, never mind multiple homes, no yacht, no private plane, etc. Not that I think he's a great guy or anything, but him being a typical IG tool doesn't bother me because he's a preacher. Its not like all humble preachers are out there feeding the homeless. From what I can see, their main goal is God bothering.

 

I kind of see it the opposite. If you are a preacher with multiple homes and yacht (like you describe above), I assume that you either 1. have inherited wealth (nothing wrong with that) or 2. your congregation is super wealthy and as such your salary (along with maybe your other writings etc) supports such a lifestyle- so if you want $1000 sneakers you can certainly afford them, so whatever. 

But if you have no source of steady employment, a wife, two children, and consistently buy $1000 sneakers your priorities are REALLY screwed up. So with the likes of Jeremy, its not about enjoying his salary like a typical person would (who actually preached or wrote religious books or something) its being a grifter, a CHARITY CASE off of the back of the church/its congregants (instead of charity money going to actual charitable causes). I guess I see it as if you are actually earning the money to buy the sneakers, that's fine, but if you are grifting, that is hypocritical especially for someone studying to be a religious leader, if you want to do that be a groupie or something. 

Am I making sense?

  • Love 25
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

29 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

I kind of see it the opposite. If you are a preacher with multiple homes and yacht (like you describe above), I assume that you either 1. have inherited wealth (nothing wrong with that) or 2. your congregation is super wealthy and as such your salary (along with maybe your other writings etc) supports such a lifestyle- so if you want $1000 sneakers you can certainly afford them, so whatever. 

But if you have no source of steady employment, a wife, two children, and consistently buy $1000 sneakers your priorities are REALLY screwed up. So with the likes of Jeremy, its not about enjoying his salary like a typical person would (who actually preached or wrote religious books or something) its being a grifter, a CHARITY CASE off of the back of the church/its congregants (instead of charity money going to actual charitable causes). I guess I see it as if you are actually earning the money to buy the sneakers, that's fine, but if you are grifting, that is hypocritical especially for someone studying to be a religious leader, if you want to do that be a groupie or something. 

Am I making sense?

Yup, you make sense!

I'm talking more about televangelists who take advantage of many housebound, fixed income, folks. Like the Bakers, Swaggert, Falwell, etc.

And I really have no idea that Jeremy is grifting anything. He may be on a school work program in exchange for the house. As far as income, I'm assuming J & J had a steady income until the show cancelled a few months back and I assume he'll find a job upon graduation. I also don't think J & J live this life of dining out at expensive restaurants on a daily basis - my guess is 4 or 5 times a month.

As far as I know, priests are the only clergy who take a vow of poverty or agree to live humbly.

Also at least two of my staff are sneakerheads. I know what they make - under $35,000 - and they manage just fine and one has 100s of very cared for kicks. Cost of living is lower than LA in my area, but on the high side compared to most states. They don't own $1000 sneakers, but I don't think does Jeremy either.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 2
SMama

SMama

9 minutes ago, iwantcookies said:

How long was he in this program? 

At least three years? Seems like the longest masters I’ve ever heard of. An MSW takes three years if done part time and attending classes on weekends. Amazing he invested so much time (doubt he paid for much) on an unaccredited degree not worth the paper his diploma will be printed. 

  • Love 9
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

3 minutes ago, SMama said:

At least three years? Seems like the longest masters I’ve ever heard of. An MSW takes three years if done part time and attending classes on weekends. Amazing he invested so much time (doubt he paid for much) on an unaccredited degree not worth the paper his diploma will be printed. 

I thought his school is accredited - maybe I made that up?

Ohiopirate02

Ohiopirate02

22 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

As far as I know, priests are the only clergy who take a vow of poverty or agree to live humbly.

 

Not all priests take a vow of poverty.  It depends on what type of priest they are--Jesuit, Franciscan, diocesan, etc.  The former pastor of my church was a diocesan priest who reminded us once a month that he did not take a vow of poverty, and he was not eligible for social security so we had to give money to the priests' retirement fund (so he could continue to afford his preferred little luxuries).

 

  • LOL 3
  • Love 1
Fosca

Fosca

(edited)
41 minutes ago, SMama said:

At least three years? Seems like the longest masters I’ve ever heard of. An MSW takes three years if done part time and attending classes on weekends. Amazing he invested so much time (doubt he paid for much) on an unaccredited degree not worth the paper his diploma will be printed. 

According to my hasty research, he entered it in 2018.  So four years.

I tried to look up their website to see any accreditation, but Norton went crazy and told me it was an extremely dangerous site, so I checked Wikipedia.  It says they are accredited by WASC, but I'm going to double-check that.

ETA: Apparently it is.  They must've ironed out the problems.

 

Edited by Fosca
  • Useful 4
  • Love 1
Absolom

Absolom

(edited)
51 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I thought his school is accredited - maybe I made that up?

Yes, the school is accredited and the degree is worth a good deal in getting a position within their world of like churches.  In that arena, it's a selling point to have a pastor who trained at TMS.  

Seeing that would send me running, but they advertise it like it's a stamp of approval or something of that nature.  You do know what you're getting into at least.

Edited by Absolom
  • Useful 3
  • Love 4
Rootbeer

Rootbeer

(edited)
1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Not all priests take a vow of poverty.  It depends on what type of priest they are--Jesuit, Franciscan, diocesan, etc.  The former pastor of my church was a diocesan priest who reminded us once a month that he did not take a vow of poverty, and he was not eligible for social security so we had to give money to the priests' retirement fund (so he could continue to afford his preferred little luxuries).

 

Yep, most parish priests don't take a vow of poverty.  They also are paid by the diocese as though they are private contractors, not employees, so no contributions to FICA.  Most live in a parish owned house, but pay rent for that.  They also kick in for food and housekeeping. If they inherit money or somehow earn money but writing or speaking, etc, they can keep it.

I knew a priest who, along with his brother, also a priest, inherited a nice sum when his parents died (they were the only 2 kids) and they invested it and used the proceeds to travel extensively and purchase a beautiful condo in an upper middle class suburb where they lived after retiring. I wouldn't say they lived extravagantly, but they certainly didn't lack for amenities and they pursued somewhat expensive hobbies, golf, travel that many people couldn't afford.

Edited by Rootbeer
  • Useful 2
  • Love 2
Cinnabon

Cinnabon

Just now, Nysha said:

This is pure garbage. J&J have explained why they aren't posting pictures of their daughters' faces and they sure as hell don't owe the people criticizing them of hiding Evangeline any notice. 

Yes, it’s pretty sickening how fans think they deserve access to a stranger’s children. J &j are doing the right thing, regardless of the reason, and I don’t think it’s due to any health issues with either kid. 

Priests aren’t the only ones who live modest lives. Many other pastors/preachers take this pesky part of scripture seriously.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” -Matthew 19:21-24

  • Love 10
Cinnabon

Cinnabon

3 hours ago, MargeGunderson said:

Jeremy doesn’t have the charisma to be a mega church preacher. His real talent seems to be sucking up to people who do have some influence. 

Jeremy has also stated more than once that he does not believe in prosperity gospel,  but his actions say otherwise. 

2 hours ago, Rootbeer said:

Yep, most parish priests don't take a vow of poverty.  They also are paid by the diocese as though they are private contractors, not employees, so no contributions to FICA.  Most live in a parish owned house, but pay rent for that.  They also kick in for food and housekeeping. If they inherit money or somehow earn money but writing or speaking, etc, they can keep it.

I knew a priest who, along with his brother, also a priest, inherited a nice sum when his parents died (they were the only 2 kids) and they invested it and used the proceeds to travel extensively and purchase a beautiful condo in an upper middle class suburb where they lived after retiring. I wouldn't say they lived extravagantly, but they certainly didn't lack for amenities and they pursued somewhat expensive hobbies, golf, travel that many people couldn't afford.

In that case, though, he used his own family money for those extravagances, not his congregation’s.

  • Love 10
Chicklet

Chicklet

(edited)
1 hour ago, Jeanne222 said:

All the degrees in the world will not make Jeremy a preacher.  I've listened to his tapes. I'm between boredom and wondering what he's trying to say!

And consider that every Duggar adjacent does things a bit on the sketchy DIFFERENT side. None of them seem to be goal oriented like JRod's kids. That's a joke.

Ok Jeremy and Bin have degrees. Bin will be preaching to 10 people and Jeremy will be trying to preach to a few more.

Edited by Chicklet
  • Love 6
Rootbeer

Rootbeer

(edited)
7 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

Jeremy has also stated more than once that he does not believe in prosperity gospel,  but his actions say otherwise. 

In that case, though, he used his own family money for those extravagances, not his congregation’s.

Oh, yeah.  Parish priests are paid a salary by the diocese that is purely based on number of years served and their level of responsibility.  Every dime that goes in the collection basket is accounted for and none of it goes to the priests as personal funds.  The parish kicks back a percentage to the diocese to cover the priests' salaries. Most parishes have a board of governors consisting of parishioners who are elected and decide where the money goes.  The pastor has a seat on the board and can make suggestions, but, I cannot picture them for asking for any money for personal use.  The only 'personal' requests he would make would be for repairs or improvements to the priests' house and that would be voted on by the group.

Many priests do get some gifts from parishioners like a bottle of wine at Christmas or gift certificates to restaurants or maybe a round of golf somewhere; but that's about it for creature comforts.  A priest friend had family visit from out of state; his mother and sister.  They stayed in a nearby hotel, paid their own way.  However, a couple of parishioners who owned restaurants gifted him with dinner for the 3 of them during their stay and he was given theater tickets and tickets for a ballgame for them by others.  Which, considering his salary as a parochial vicar was somewhere around$27,000, made it a lot easier for him to show them a nice time.

Edited by Rootbeer
  • Useful 8
  • Love 3
YupItsMe

YupItsMe

7 hours ago, Jeanne222 said:

All the degrees in the world will not make Jeremy a preacher.  I've listened to his tapes. I'm between boredom and wondering what he's trying to say!

He definitely is not a charismatic speaker. He’ll never lead a large church, but he may make it as a youth pastor, though he is a bit old for that. Maybe an assistant pastor who does a lot of visiting, outreach and just subs in the pulpit when the head pastor is out of town?

  • Useful 3
laurakaye

laurakaye

19 hours ago, Nysha said:

This is pure garbage. J&J have explained why they aren't posting pictures of their daughters' faces and they sure as hell don't owe the people criticizing them of hiding Evangeline any notice. 

I don't condone the disrespectful fan speculation, but if Jeremy and Jinger were sincere in keeping their girls off social media for privacy, they wouldn't keep giving us shots of the backs of their heads.  They can shake their fists over what their "fans" are saying about their girls but from what I have seen of the Vuolos (Jeremy in particular), negative publicity is still publicity.  It's Jeremy's choice to keep taking and posting those pictures and my guess is that Jinger goes along with whatever Jeremy wants.  The girls have no say what these complete strangers are saying about them, regardless if any of it is true or not.  That doesn't strike me as a parent's care for his children's privacy at all, it's a tease to keep people talking.

  • Love 17
Joan of Argh

Joan of Argh

31 minutes ago, laurakaye said:

I don't condone the disrespectful fan speculation, but if Jeremy and Jinger were sincere in keeping their girls off social media for privacy, they wouldn't keep giving us shots of the backs of their heads.  They can shake their fists over what their "fans" are saying about their girls but from what I have seen of the Vuolos (Jeremy in particular), negative publicity is still publicity.  It's Jeremy's choice to keep taking and posting those pictures and my guess is that Jinger goes along with whatever Jeremy wants.  The girls have no say what these complete strangers are saying about them, regardless if any of it is true or not.  That doesn't strike me as a parent's care for his children's privacy at all, it's a tease to keep people talking.

Maybe I’m wrong but there’s something about hiding the kids faces that bugs me and I’m not sure why I find it annoying..

Maybe it’s the pretence that they’re so famous that they have to hide their kids faces meanwhile you have actual celebrities that don’t feel the need to do so… just like when Jinger posts pics of herself looking annoyed while trying to avoid the paparazzi as if she’s relentlessly pursued like Princess Diana.

Get over yourself!

  • LOL 1
  • Love 18
laurakaye

laurakaye

For me it's that he seems to be using his girls as props to further his "fame" while at the same time decrying their need for privacy.  Those two things don't go together.  Be their protector and keep them completely off social media - but I don't think Jeremy has the bandwidth to do that.  He's too famous in his own mind.

 

  • Love 17
StaceyNotStacie

StaceyNotStacie

21 hours ago, Nysha said:

This is pure garbage. J&J have explained why they aren't posting pictures of their daughters' faces and they sure as hell don't owe the people criticizing them of hiding Evangeline any notice. 

Exactly. If Evangeline had DS, I have a feeling that they would have had her front and center as a way to get attention. Heck, they’d probably use it to try to get back on tv to show how they’re raising a developmentally disabled child. 

  • Love 6
Zella

Zella

Yeah I don't have any respect for the "I'm posting the back of their heads to respect their privacy" school of thought. That's not respecting their privacy. That's trying to cover mommy's and daddy's asses from critics with a valid point about safety while you still disrespect the kids' privacy and if anything you're drawing just as much attention to them by making such a big deal out of taking pictures but hiding their faces. 

 

  • Love 18
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

There's so many reasons parents don't post pics of their kids including privacy and safety. The royal family, who are world wide famous, publish a few, to keep the paparazzi at bay and satisfy their public obligation. Some famous celebrities keep their kids completely off SM and then other celebrities and influencers who promote their kids online and there's a bunch in between.

Because Jinger wrote in their book that she felt vulnerable by the Duggar 19 publicity growing up, J & J were kind of forced to walk the walk. But really I don't think they think its a problem, so they appear disingenuous - because they are.

  • Love 17
cm-soupsipper
Message added by cm-soupsipper,

Closure Notice: This Thread is now closed due to the name (and much of the posting within it). Please be mindful going forward by naming topics in a way that invites a healthy community conversation. If you name something for a cheap laugh, this thread may be closed later because it encourages discrimination and harm. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...