The Duggalos: Jinger and the Holy Goalie

[drafan]

4 hours ago, cdp73 said:

And now we have Jeremy wearing his hat backwards.  

 

Hate to defend any of them, but sometimes guys just turn their hat backwards when posing for a photo. Saw someone do that today.

51 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

l

Jana has sewn a little modesty ruffle around the bottom of her dress. Argh.

 

Oh, ick. So stupid. That ruffle plus those ankle-strap sandals are creating the appearance of kankles .

So Jinge now wears pants, and everyone (me included, unfortunately) is all excited and in disbelief. Whoopie!! She hasn't done one other thing that we know of.......which may include going to the grocery store by herself.....or maybe finding a cure for Zika.

All that white footwear makes me think of those Kirkland brand old man sneakers at Costco .

Ben is just so so doofy.

Edited April 15, 2017 by drafan

[zenme]

Cynical me, but Jinger looks AMAZING?? Bar for "amazing" has been lowered. Jess's needs a better bra. Those things are approaching Michelle territory. (I've got allergies ya'll...a bit grumpy, so snark is in full effect.)

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

16 hours ago, Mollie said:

So, Jeremy took another 3-day vacation.  Why is it that only the husbands of the Duggar girls went on that trip and not the husbands of the other married women?  It's because the other husbands have real jobs!  Jeremy is a huge disappointment.  He really isn't interested in being a full-time pastor at all.

I'm slightly weirded out by the fact that all of these girls - even the ones that aren't sisters - are all basically the same height. Jessa seems a little taller but it looks like she's shrinking down some with her posture here (and from holding baby) to appear closer in height. The uniformity of it is just...strange. Do the girls only make friends with girls around their own height? 

Edited April 15, 2017 by MyPeopleAreNordic

[GeeGolly]

I've concluded that I'm not fond of casual Ts with skirts.

[Jellybeans]

The modesty ruffle on Jana's dress makes me think she is wearing a nightgown under her dress.  

[RazzleberryPie]

Mkay, my 2 cents on Jinger wearing pants:

1) This is a great big FU from both Jinger and Jeremy to Jimbob and Michelle. It's just rebellious enough to get a brow raised, but nobody can really say anything, because they've let us know that their adult offspring make their own decisions, etc. Leave and cleave, right?

2) This is Jeremy's way of asserting that he, not JimBob, is the headship over Jinger, and Jeremy makes his family's rules. Basically penis waving and cock fighting. All about control over somebody else. 

3) This is Jinger's way of asserting she's a great big grown up, and she does what she wants, well, as long as it is still modest, pleasing to the Lord, permitted by her husband, and not too rebellious. Gotta keep dry under that umbrella of protection. Jinger's pitiful baby step mini rebellion is really pathetic. Rebel as long as you're only bending or pushing rules, but not actually making your own decisions or thinking for yourself.

I find this almost as annoying as Fashionably Modest Jessa in her porno pink lipstick and skin tight, vulgar pregnancy tops that show the contour of her breasts and belly button, or Jill in her gender bending wear of Derrick's man shirts from the man's department worn by a man, but then trying to condemn any woman who wears women's pants, designed for women, sold in the women's department. 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, RazzleberryPie said:

Mkay, my 2 cents on Jinger wearing pants:

1) This is a great big FU from both Jinger and Jeremy to Jimbob and Michelle. It's just rebellious enough to get a brow raised, but nobody can really say anything, because they've let us know that their adult offspring make their own decisions, etc. Leave and cleave, right?

2) This is Jeremy's way of asserting that he, not JimBob, is the headship over Jinger, and Jeremy makes his family's rules. Basically penis waving and cock fighting. All about control over somebody else. 

3) This is Jinger's way of asserting she's a great big grown up, and she does what she wants, well, as long as it is still modest, pleasing to the Lord, permitted by her husband, and not too rebellious. Gotta keep dry under that umbrella of protection. Jinger's pitiful baby step mini rebellion is really pathetic. Rebel as long as you're only bending or pushing rules, but not actually making your own decisions or thinking for yourself.

I find this almost as annoying as Fashionably Modest Jessa in her porno pink lipstick and skin tight, vulgar pregnancy tops that show the contour of her breasts and belly button, or Jill in her gender bending wear of Derrick's man shirts from the man's department worn by a man, but then trying to condemn any woman who wears women's pants, designed for women, sold in the women's department. 

I'm afraid you're right. 

[Catfin]

4 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I've concluded that I'm not fond of casual Ts with skirts.

Agreed. It looks sloppy. 

[Absolom]

5 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I've concluded that I'm not fond of casual Ts with skirts.

It they're paired with almost anything skirtish except below the knee denim, they tend to just look odd, don't they?  It's about as odd as wearing a casual tee shirt with dress pants.

On the jinger pants front who wasn't expecting her to wear them after Jeremy's "stuff it JB" sermon where he told the congregation there was nothing wrong with women in pants or having a beer.  I fully supposed that was either his opening salvo to Jim Bob or else his response to some meddling Jim Bob or Michelle had attempted.

[Nysha]

One thing I like about the picture above is that it looks like any other picture of a young adult outing from any mainstream church. If this group was seated in the common area of the college where I work, nobody would look at them twice. Their clothes are no longer old-fashioned "Little House on the Praire" or the out-of-date "modern modest" they wore several years ago when the show was in full swing. The only difference between their clothing styles and the kids' at my college is they have very little variety. The college student who wears a dress with a cardigan on Monday may show up Tuesday in ripped jeans and work boots.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Nysha
Edited for clarity.

[lascuba]

13 hours ago, zenme said:

Cynical me, but Jinger looks AMAZING?? Bar for "amazing" has been lowered. Jess's needs a better bra. Those things are approaching Michelle territory. (I've got allergies ya'll...a bit grumpy, so snark is in full effect.)

Heh, yes. She looks like...well, I do when I need to run errands real quick and just throw on whatever's clean (just not that color combo...even my laziness has it's limits), which is decidedly not amazing. She looks fine, but only slightly better than Jessa in that picture. Just you're average person out on a casual day. I wouldn't notice the outfits on any of them one way or the other if I saw them out in public. 

[Spencer Hastings]

9 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Heh, yes. She looks like...well, I do when I need to run errands real quick and just throw on whatever's clean (just not that color combo...even my laziness has it's limits), which is decidedly not amazing. She looks fine, but only slightly better than Jessa in that picture. Just you're average person out on a casual day. I wouldn't notice the outfits on any of them one way or the other if I saw them out in public. 

I have to make concessions on a case by case basis.  Jinger looks amazing for:

*Someone who spent the first half of her life in prairie dresses and clown collars. 

*Someone who has always been made to wear dresses and skirts upon the approval of her father.

*Someone who spent her teen years in jean skirts and washed out polos from the Goodwill.

*Someone who has never owned any clothing that belongs solely to her.

*Someone who is experiencing her first taste of change or semi independence. 

Normal people who have been dressing themselves for years would look well....normal. But Jinger looks pretty 'aight right now.

[Minivanessa]

17 minutes ago, Nysha said:

One thing I like about the picture above is that it looks like any other picture of a young adult outing from any mainstream church. If this group was seated in the common area of the college where I work, nobody would look at them twice. Their clothes are no longer old-fashioned "Little House on the Praire" or the out-of-date "modern modest" they wore several years ago when the show was in full swing. The only difference between their clothing styles and the kids' at my college is they have very little variety. The college student who wears a dress with a cardigan on Monday may show up Tuesday in ripped jeans and work boots.

Good points! Someone mentioned the T-shirts shown in some of these photos that say Mom or Wife or words to that effect. I don't think it's just a far-out Fundie thing. It may be regional/generational/trendy. I never miss Texas Flip and Move (don't judge). One of the house-flipper teams featured on the show lately, consists of three or four 20ish/30ish sisters. They are sharp - as in smart and personable - and not at all dowdy as to style. In a recent episode I noticed one of them was wearing a t-shirt with some kind of "wifey" or "mother" wording in script. It was under a jacket and I didn't see all of it but enough to get the message. 

Of course, that message t-shirt is more appealing to me when worn by a young woman who is obviously intelligent, energetic, and working hard in her family's house-moving-and-flipping business. Instead of, you know, sitting around posting selfies and baby pics on social media and getting paid by People and TLC to procreate and lecture the rest of the world on how we're all going to hell for not being Duggarly.

Just saying.

[RazzleberryPie]

I wonder if Jinger actually chose herself to wear pants, and is comfortable, or if she is just scared to do anything but bow to her current headship.

[zoomama]

23 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

 I never miss Texas Flip and Move (don't judge).

i love that show!  we are faithful watchers in this house. 

[lascuba]

1 hour ago, Spencer Hastings said:

I have to make concessions on a case by case basis.  Jinger looks amazing for:

*Someone who spent the first half of her life in prairie dresses and clown collars. 

*Someone who has always been made to wear dresses and skirts upon the approval of her father.

*Someone who spent her teen years in jean skirts and washed out polos from the Goodwill.

*Someone who has never owned any clothing that belongs solely to her.

*Someone who is experiencing her first taste of change or semi independence. 

Normal people who have been dressing themselves for years would look well....normal. But Jinger looks pretty 'aight right now.

I think the pants are good in the sense that it's a marked change from what she was allowed to wear, but judging purely on the superficial, Jinger has looked much better in some skirts and dresses. I would say a couple of her honeymoon outfits were close to amazing. 

Plus, I'm wary of reading much into the switch to pants on any fundie. While a big deal in individual families, it doesn't seem to mean a whole lot among their social set overall, so it's not exactly a rebellion. Even among the Duggars, I don't think it's that big a deal to most of them anymore. Jinger had been shown wearing pants at home long before Jeremy; Jessa had no problem posting a picture of herself in board shorts by the pool. At a guess, I think Michelle, Jill, and Jana would be the most judgmental about Jinger wearing pants in public. 

[toodles]

4 hours ago, Spencer Hastings said:

I have to make concessions on a case by case basis.  Jinger looks amazing for:

*Someone who spent the first half of her life in prairie dresses and clown collars. 

*Someone who has always been made to wear dresses and skirts upon the approval of her father.

*Someone who spent her teen years in jean skirts and washed out polos from the Goodwill.

*Someone who has never owned any clothing that belongs solely to her.

*Someone who is experiencing her first taste of change or semi independence. 

Normal people who have been dressing themselves for years would look well....normal. But Jinger looks pretty 'aight right now.

And she wore cheap flip flops most of her life, even in inappropriate and dangerous situations.  She is wearing actual shoes in that picture.  Jill couldn't be bothered to wear shoes at the own wedding so insert hillbilly joke here.  Her sisters are wearing crappy Payless sandals.  So good for her on the shoe front.  

Wow, whoever said it was right.  The good for you bar is set REALLY low for these people.

[Christina87]

9 hours ago, lascuba said:

I think the pants are good in the sense that it's a marked change from what she was allowed to wear, but judging purely on the superficial, Jinger has looked much better in some skirts and dresses. I would say a couple of her honeymoon outfits were close to amazing. 

Plus, I'm wary of reading much into the switch to pants on any fundie. While a big deal in individual families, it doesn't seem to mean a whole lot among their social set overall, so it's not exactly a rebellion. Even among the Duggars, I don't think it's that big a deal to most of them anymore. Jinger had been shown wearing pants at home long before Jeremy; Jessa had no problem posting a picture of herself in board shorts by the pool. At a guess, I think Michelle, Jill, and Jana would be the most judgmental about Jinger wearing pants in public. 

I agree with the last part, and it's a good thing Jill wasn't there, because she totally would have called her out on it and given her a lecture. Jana at least has the tact not to do that. 

[Adeejay]

9 hours ago, Spencer Hastings said:

*Someone who has never owned any clothing that belongs solely to her.

After Jill moved out, Jessa grumbled that "she took all the nice clothes."  That comment took me by surprise, because I didn't know they had to share clothing.  I wonder if that extends to under wear. 

I find Jeremy's mom to be stylish.  Her clothes look fashionable and expensive.  Jinger's second hand rags appear to have been replaced with a whole new wardrobe complete with pants.  I am happy for her.  Jessa must be green with envy. 

[MichaelaRae]

I am totally grading Jinger on a curve. I'm not saying she's Gloria Steinem over here. But graded on the Duggar Curve:

1. She's wearing pants 
2. She's wearing pants not away from her family but in front of her family, or at least parts of it
3. She married a guy who thinks women wearing pants isn't equivalent to Satan drafting blueprints for a fortress in her cardiovascular region
4. She wore some BANGIN' high heels to her wedding 
5. She didn't, it appears, have her reception in a parking lot and may have actually had enough food for the guests
6. I don't believe we ever saw a real, verified stock-the-TTH-compound greedy grab bridal registry
7. She wears clothes that, for the most part, fit and show some degree of creative thinking 
8. She doesn't post sanctimonious social media posts about the only real way to be a Christian
9. She hasn't yet announced a pregnancy after 5 months of marriage
10. She does not seem to be exhibiting any of her older sister's anxiety about not living on or near the compound

I mean, just based on the above, Jinger is branching OUT. At least so far.

Edited April 16, 2017 by MichaelaRae

[Churchhoney]

13 hours ago, MichaelaRae said:

I am totally grading Jinger on a curve. I'm not saying she's Gloria Steinem over here. But graded on the Duggar Curve:

1. She's wearing pants 
2. She's wearing pants not away from her family but in front of her family, or at least parts of it
3. She married a guy who thinks women wearing pants isn't equivalent to Satan drafting blueprints for a fortress in her cardiovascular region
4. She wore some BANGIN' high heels to her wedding 
5. She didn't, it appears, have her reception in a parking lot and may have actually had enough food for the guests
6. I don't believe we ever saw a real, verified stock-the-TTH-compound greedy grab bridal registry
7. She wears clothes that, for the most part, fit and show some degree of creative thinking 
8. She doesn't post sanctimonious social media posts about the only real way to be a Christian
9. She hasn't yet announced a pregnancy after 5 months of marriage
10. She does not seem to be exhibiting any of her older sister's anxiety about not living on or near the compound

I mean, just based on the above, Jinger is branching OUT. At least so far.

Very good point. 

On reflection, I do think that, in fact, all of the married Duggarettes have branched out a bit farther than JB and M would actually have wanted them to, with Jinger appearing to go the furthest.

I don't think that JB and M wanted a daughter actually spending months at a time in another country. And I don't think they wanted a daughter becoming acquainted with the milieu of any Christian rap artists (even TLC-related ones). So even though it looks like nothing to us -- and even though in truth it isn't much of anything -- in Duggarland all of their tiny little movements are world-expansions that JB and M likely wouldn't have "allowed" them, given their parental druthers. Just goes to show the tiny little fearful control-freak minds that JB and M possess. 

And they've all got to be learning at least some tiny little somethings about themselves and about the world from their small adventures into stuff that JB and M didn't engineer.

Maybe Jana should have tried harder to marry one of the jerks who's come by after all. 

[RazzleberryPie]

Jana is holding out for The Perfect Man who doesn't exist. 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, RazzleberryPie said:

Jana is holding out for The Perfect Man who doesn't exist. 

Yeah, I expect so. I can definitely understand that impulse, especially given a lot of the options she's probably seen. But aside from the fact that it'll prevent her from having to raise a dozen more children, probably not a great idea, I suppose. 

[RazzleberryPie]

2 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Yeah, I expect so. I can definitely understand that impulse, especially given a lot of the options she's probably seen. But aside from the fact that it'll prevent her from having to raise a dozen more children, probably not a great idea, I suppose. 

We've pretty much seen a whole lot of guys who are either goobers or control freaks, none really gainfully employed, etc., so I don't blame her for being cautious. However, what guy, especially Church Boys, aren't a little bit gooberific at the age these people marry (18-23ish)? Also, hardly anybody has a really amazing job at that point, but lack of education and training, plus being told to work for yourself, not other employers, really puts a damper there, too. 

Jana is old enough to remember growing up in a cramped house, without 2 cents to rub together, being saddled by a dozen babies and toddlers. I don't blame her for not wanting to be put in that same situation. She already lost her childhood and adolescence to raising babies, and part of her young adult life. 

So while I applaud Jana for not latching on to the first guy who comes along out of desperation, she also needs to realize she's been sold a myth. There is no Prince Charming as she imagines. 

[Marigold]

On 4/15/2017 at 0:57 PM, RazzleberryPie said:

I wonder if Jinger actually chose herself to wear pants, and is comfortable, or if she is just scared to do anything but bow to her current headship.

That is my opinion. 

Jeremy likes pants.

1. he likes to look at some ass

2. he likes to annoy Jim Bob

3. he is hoping to generate interest in JinJer as a couple and make some $$$$$$. 

 

I think it has zero to do with Jinger. I think it has zero to do with Jinger being all modern and liberated. I see it as a power play and money play by Jeremy.  Jinger follows along because she is "meek" and a "follower" and Jeremy is her boss. 

Jinger has no opinion of her own.  Jim Bob said to wear skirts and Jeremy said to wear pants. (or he approves of pants).   Jinger obeys.  I just don't see the liberation. This is just a switch of masters. 

I know I'm one of the few who see it this way.  Maybe because I grew up IFB (lite in my family) but I know the hardcore well.  Men often make exceptions to rules for their own pleasures and women follow along.  They can find a Bible verse (or whatever holy scripture their religion uses) and find a justification for literally anything.  Someone noted Jeremy preached he  is OK with pants and a beer.  I can guarantee that is because Jeremy likes pants and a beer!  Probably took him a week of hunting around in the Bible but he found the verses he needed to back up his personal opinion. 

I'm very cynical with Jinger and The Pants.  Sorry, guys, I'm not feeling the liberation. 

[cdp73]

20 hours ago, Adeejay said:

After Jill moved out, Jessa grumbled that "she took all the nice clothes." 

If Jill took all the nice clothes, I wonder what she did with them.  She sure doesn't wear them.

[Churchhoney]

20 minutes ago, Marigold said:

That is my opinion. 

Jeremy likes pants.

1. he likes to look at some ass

2. he likes to annoy Jim Bob

3. he is hoping to generate interest in JinJer as a couple and make some $$$$$$. 

 

I think it has zero to do with Jinger. I think it has zero to do with Jinger being all modern and liberated. I see it as a power play and money play by Jeremy.  Jinger follows along because she is "meek" and a "follower" and Jeremy is her boss. 

Jinger has no opinion of her own.  Jim Bob said to wear skirts and Jeremy said to wear pants. (or he approves of pants).   Jinger obeys.  I just don't see the liberation. This is just a switch of masters. 

I know I'm one of the few who see it this way.  Maybe because I grew up IFB (lite in my family) but I know the hardcore well.  Men often make exceptions to rules for their own pleasures and women follow along.  They can find a Bible verse (or whatever holy scripture their religion uses) and find a justification for literally anything.  Someone noted Jeremy preached he  is OK with pants and a beer.  I can guarantee that is because Jeremy likes pants and a beer!  Probably took him a week of hunting around in the Bible but he found the verses he needed to back up his personal opinion. 

I'm very cynical with Jinger and The Pants.  Sorry, guys, I'm not feeling the liberation. 

I think you're probably right about this.

At the same time, just the wearing pants is going to change her, just a hair, regardless of why she's wearing them, I think.

That's why, frankly, I'm in favor of Derick's repeatedly taking Jilly Muffin to Danger America and Bin's little experiments in pop culture exposure. Whether or not those things are Duggarettes' ideas or they hate them or don't or they're big-deal things or not, everything you actually do and see is going to have at least some effect on you, nudge you out of your current zone. And without the guys pushing various things (for their own, probably suspect agendas, of course!) the Duggarettes would experience precisely nothing that is even a hair outside their parents' comfort zones.

So .... to me it's better that they do experience pantswearing and the other things than not. They're certainly not liberated yet. But if they never do anything different, then they don't have even the ghost of a smidgen of a hair of chance to get faintly liberated sometime before they die. (They all appear to be very very unlikely to think themselves into liberation -- they just aren't a thinking crowd, it appears.) So even if this stuff happens for the wrong reasons, at least it's stuff happening that JB and M wouldn't choose. And, to me, that's at least a microscopic move in a potentially better direction. (also, I'm Pollyanna)

1 minute ago, cdp73 said:

If Jill took all the nice clothes, I wonder what she did with them.  She sure doesn't wear them.

The frightening part to me is that she probably is wearing them. 

[zenme]

So Jinger wore pants and she wasn't turned into a pile of salt? Jinger wore pants and God didn't smite her? Unbelievable! 

I think Jinger knows Jeremy bedded pants wearers and folks of that ilk in his past. He has a past and she wants to be what Jeremy thinks is attractive. She knows she can try the pants--especially since Vuolos wear pants.  

[RazzleberryPie]

28 minutes ago, cdp73 said:

If Jill took all the nice clothes, I wonder what she did with them.  She sure doesn't wear them.

*mic drop* True story right there.

[Heathen]

1 hour ago, cdp73 said:

If Jill took all the nice clothes, I wonder what she did with them.  She sure doesn't wear them.

Jill would make a couture gown look like a sack of potatoes. There's no hope for whatever Goodwill finds passed as the Duggar girls' "nice" clothes. 

[Christina87]

I agree that Jinger is probably wearing pants because it's okay in Vuolo land, but my big hope is it opens the door for Joy to make her own decision to wear them! We all know girlfriend is a t-shirt and jeans girl, deep down...

[Jynnan tonnix]

2 hours ago, zenme said:

So Jinger wore pants and she wasn't turned into a pile of salt? Jinger wore pants and God didn't smite her? Unbelievable! 

I think Jinger knows Jeremy bedded pants wearers and folks of that ilk in his past. He has a past and she wants to be what Jeremy thinks is attractive. She knows she can try the pants--especially since Vuolos wear pants.  

I've been trying to figure out exactly how this works in Fundy-thought-processes...Because from what I can make out, it's not that Jesus actually has that much of an opinion on who wears what (within certain admittedly broad parameters), but there's such a thing as (oh....grrrr...what's that word  they use when Jesus lays something on your heart?) the feeling that for them, they are called to adhere to the rules to whatever extent feels right to them. And, somehow, within their circles, and within, as I said, those parameters, it's between you and god just how closely he wants you to cling to the law. And even though other people in your circle might, for instance, choose to wear pants, you just trust that god has told them it's OK, while, because he has told YOU that it's not something you should be comfortable with, you structure your wardrobe around that instead, while not judging your neighbor who has somehow received a contradictory message...I haven't quite deciphered the code, but it does seem to allow for a certain amount of leniency for the individual while still not causing outrage among those who feel that their message is different.

[Portia]

37 minutes ago, Jynnan tonnix said:

there's such a thing as (oh....grrrr...what's that word  they use when Jesus lays something on your heart?) the feeling that for them, they are called to adhere to the rules to whatever extent feels right to them.

A conviction?

[Jynnan tonnix]

5 minutes ago, Portia said:

A conviction?

That's the one!! Thanks. Brain fart :)

[queenanne]

Portia beat me to it

Edited April 17, 2017 by queenanne

[louannems]

Conviction?

[MunichNark]

7 hours ago, Jynnan tonnix said:

I've been trying to figure out exactly how this works in Fundy-thought-processes...Because from what I can make out, it's not that Jesus actually has that much of an opinion on who wears what (within certain admittedly broad parameters), but there's such a thing as (oh....grrrr...what's that word  they use when Jesus lays something on your heart?) the feeling that for them, they are called to adhere to the rules to whatever extent feels right to them. And, somehow, within their circles, and within, as I said, those parameters, it's between you and god just how closely he wants you to cling to the law. And even though other people in your circle might, for instance, choose to wear pants, you just trust that god has told them it's OK, while, because he has told YOU that it's not something you should be comfortable with, you structure your wardrobe around that instead, while not judging your neighbor who has somehow received a contradictory message...I haven't quite deciphered the code, but it does seem to allow for a certain amount of leniency for the individual while still not causing outrage among those who feel that their message is different.

That's what my evil catholic mind just doesn't seem to grasp in any way - those flexible boundaries. Catholicism is pretty rigid in its rules. Now it doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that every Catholic follows it blindly, quite the opposite, but the rules are there, clear and easy to understand. You personally may well think ah sure lookit, I'm just grand if I don't do this or follow that, but in the back of your mind, you know you may well find that the Good Lord will strongly disagree with you and let you have it at the pearly gates.

This personal relationship shite just feels so odd - Jesus is not my best mate, and isn't meant to be. Interpreting the Bible as you see fit is simply not a good  idea as it is so obtruse and full of weird things.

Having said that, I am delighted that Jinger is wearing trousers, even when out with her sisters as this seems to be such a major eff you towards her parents. Perhaps she simply WANTED to, no matter what anyone else said or "allowed".

[Churchhoney]

2 hours ago, MunichNark said:

That's what my evil catholic mind just doesn't seem to grasp in any way - those flexible boundaries. Catholicism is pretty rigid in its rules. Now it doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that every Catholic follows it blindly, quite the opposite, but the rules are there, clear and easy to understand. You personally may well think ah sure lookit, I'm just grand if I don't do this or follow that, but in the back of your mind, you know you may well find that the Good Lord will strongly disagree with you and let you have it at the pearly gates.

This personal relationship shite just feels so odd - Jesus is not my best mate, and isn't meant to be. Interpreting the Bible as you see fit is simply not a good  idea as it is so obtruse and full of weird things.

Having said that, I am delighted that Jinger is wearing trousers, even when out with her sisters as this seems to be such a major eff you towards her parents. Perhaps she simply WANTED to, no matter what anyone else said or "allowed".

Well, there's something beautiful about the "priesthood of all believers," isn't there? That nothing stands between the individual soul and God. And (like just about everything else) you can get it out of the Bible -- quite easily, in fact. Per Peter, for example: "You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."     Pretty easy to interpret that as going far beyond the college of cardinals, and pretty hard to interpret it as meaning only them, I'd say.

Obviously there's a sort of philosophical validity on both sides of these views and the truth, whatever truth there might be, would probably lie somewhere in the middle, seems to me. Plus, you could adhere to either view and create a truly good life and world -- if there haven't been so many corrupt and/or stupid priests and popes on the one side and so on, and so many corrupt and stupid individualist protestants on the other, that is.

As Chesterton said, "the reformer is always right about what's wrong. However, he's often wrong about what's right."

[lascuba]

2 hours ago, MunichNark said:

That's what my evil catholic mind just doesn't seem to grasp in any way - those flexible boundaries. Catholicism is pretty rigid in its rules. Now it doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that every Catholic follows it blindly, quite the opposite, but the rules are there, clear and easy to understand. You personally may well think ah sure lookit, I'm just grand if I don't do this or follow that, but in the back of your mind, you know you may well find that the Good Lord will strongly disagree with you and let you have it at the pearly gates.

This personal relationship shite just feels so odd - Jesus is not my best mate, and isn't meant to be. Interpreting the Bible as you see fit is simply not a good  idea as it is so obtruse and full of weird things.

Having said that, I am delighted that Jinger is wearing trousers, even when out with her sisters as this seems to be such a major eff you towards her parents. Perhaps she simply WANTED to, no matter what anyone else said or "allowed".

I grew up culturally Catholic but not religious at all, and yes, the whole personal relationship with God thing in other denominations was always the weirdest thing to me. It's just...so convenient, isn't it? Whatever thought pops in your head is God speaking to you, so go ahead and run with it. And it's not like I'm all for rigid rules about everything, but the way the "personal relationship with Christ" stuff shakes out just defies all common sense. They are so rigid in so many ways but certain things are fine because God told them something different.

[Churchhoney]

4 minutes ago, lascuba said:

I grew up culturally Catholic but not religious at all, and yes, the whole personal relationship with God thing in other denominations was always the weirdest thing to me. It's just...so convenient, isn't it? Whatever thought pops in your head is God speaking to you, so go ahead and run with it. And it's not like I'm all for rigid rules about everything, but the way the "personal relationship with Christ" stuff shakes out just defies all common sense. They are so rigid in so many ways but certain things are fine because God told them something different.

Well, that's true. Except isn't it just as true that, when you look at the Catholic church, its clergy and hierarchy have frequently done the exact same thing? (choose your own examples -- history abounds).

Seems to me that, in either view, you say that somebody has the power to interpret the way some god of the whole universe directs things to be. And then you hand that power to interpret to people -- priests and saints and theologians or whatever, or Jim Bob and Gothard -- and among those people there are jerks and idiots aplenty. Who, accordingly, interpret stuff the way jerks and idiots do.

Around here we're focusing on the jerk-and-idiot interpretations created by Duggars and Paines and Wallards and Gothards, and they look ridiculous and/or evil a good lot of the time. But if we were focusing on a story of literally any religion or human institution, historically or in the present, seems to me we'd find every bit as much that looks ridiculous and evil.

People aren't very good at being wise and unselfish and non-hypocritical, no matter what kind of a system they live in, seems to me. And, of course, TLC chose to televise the Duggars because they're way out there on the ridiculous and venal and hypocritical end. They weren't going to make a reality show out of "temperate, intelligent and thoughtful protestant man and woman raise a big family without joining a cult run by a crazy pervert." Just like they wouldn't make one out of "conscientious and modest priests run a parish in which people help their neighbors and try hard to do the right thing."

Both those situations would be a lot closer to the average situation than what we've got here with the Duggars, I'll bet. But for some reason we really prefer to see the bad examples on tv.

[lascuba]

6 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Well, that's true. Except isn't it just as true that, when you look at the Catholic church, its clergy and hierarchy have frequently done the exact same thing? (choose your own examples -- history abounds).

Seems to me that, in either view, you say that somebody has the power to interpret the way some god of the whole universe directs things to be. And then you hand that power to interpret to people -- priests and saints and theologians or whatever, or Jim Bob and Gothard -- and among those people there are jerks and idiots aplenty. Who, accordingly, interpret stuff the way jerks and idiots do.

Around here we're focusing on the jerk-and-idiot interpretations created by Duggars and Paines and Wallards and Gothards, and they look ridiculous and/or evil a good lot of the time. But if we were focusing on a story of literally any religion or human institution, historically or in the present, seems to me we'd find every bit as much that looks ridiculous and evil.

People aren't very good at being wise and unselfish and non-hypocritical, no matter what kind of a system they live in, seems to me. And, of course, TLC chose to televise the Duggars because they're way out there on the ridiculous and venal and hypocritical end. They weren't going to make a reality show out of "temperate, intelligent and thoughtful protestant man and woman raise a big family without joining a cult run by a crazy pervert." Just like they wouldn't make one out of "conscientious and modest priests run a parish in which people help their neighbors and try hard to do the right thing."

Both those situations would be a lot closer to the average situation than what we've got here with the Duggars, I'll bet. But for some reason we really prefer to see the bad examples on tv.

Oh, absolutely. I'm not trying to defend the Catholic church so much as I just can't make sense of all these individual interpretations among such legalistic communities. It seems to me that if one is going to adhere to a religion (and I say this as someone who has never been at all religiously or spiritually inclined), one would stick to clearly defined rules. This is why I also don't really get religious moderates, tbh. I certainly like them better that more devout people, but the whole concept of choosing a belief system and then conveniently rejecting certain tenets...well, what's the point? Why not take the next step and not be part of that religion? 

[Churchhoney]

16 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Oh, absolutely. I'm not trying to defend the Catholic church so much as I just can't make sense of all these individual interpretations among such legalistic communities. It seems to me that if one is going to adhere to a religion (and I say this as someone who has never been at all religiously or spiritually inclined), one would stick to clearly defined rules. This is why I also don't really get religious moderates, tbh. I certainly like them better that more devout people, but the whole concept of choosing a belief system and then conveniently rejecting certain tenets...well, what's the point? Why not take the next step and not be part of that religion? 

Well, doesn't the whole thing likely track back to two of our biggest motivations -- fear and greed/selfishness?

The legalistic part makes some people feel more secure, I think. But then of course we also all want what we want. So on days when our greed to have things our own selfish way outshouts the fear that craves those rules, we go our own way, and rules be damned.

Apparently it takes a certain amount of courage to leave behind the legalism altogether. (although I have to say that I don't see the big deal, myself, either). But I think the legalism serves one purpose -- making you feel secure -- but obviously is often a hindrance to the other big thing that everybody wants: doing what you want when you want it. In most situations, one or the other of those big motivations has got to lose out, I guess. So then you look like a hypocrite (which hardly anybody minds for themselves, apparently!)

Edited April 17, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Marigold]

11 hours ago, Jynnan tonnix said:

I've been trying to figure out exactly how this works in Fundy-thought-processes...Because from what I can make out, it's not that Jesus actually has that much of an opinion on who wears what (within certain admittedly broad parameters), but there's such a thing as (oh....grrrr...what's that word  they use when Jesus lays something on your heart?) the feeling that for them, they are called to adhere to the rules to whatever extent feels right to them. And, somehow, within their circles, and within, as I said, those parameters, it's between you and god just how closely he wants you to cling to the law. And even though other people in your circle might, for instance, choose to wear pants, you just trust that god has told them it's OK, while, because he has told YOU that it's not something you should be comfortable with, you structure your wardrobe around that instead, while not judging your neighbor who has somehow received a contradictory message...I haven't quite deciphered the code, but it does seem to allow for a certain amount of leniency for the individual while still not causing outrage among those who feel that their message is different.

This is actually called

"We have a TV show and don't want to isolate ourselves from other Christians who are not as strict as us so we say this conviction stuff in public.  But behind closed doors, we think you're sinning"

[DangerousMinds]

4 hours ago, lascuba said:

I grew up culturally Catholic but not religious at all, and yes, the whole personal relationship with God thing in other denominations was always the weirdest thing to me. It's just...so convenient, isn't it? Whatever thought pops in your head is God speaking to you, so go ahead and run with it. And it's not like I'm all for rigid rules about everything, but the way the "personal relationship with Christ" stuff shakes out just defies all common sense. They are so rigid in so many ways but certain things are fine because God told them something different.

Absolutely agree, and am especially bewildered by their so-called sinner's prayer, that seems like nonsense to me and doesn't appear to be part of the bible I read.

[Spencer Hastings]

As someone who cites a "personal relationship with God," for me it basically boils down to "I believe what I believe, I pray when I pray, and I don't need to tell anything to a middle man because it's not anyone else's business."  The problem with most organized religion is that we focus too much on what everyone else is doing and which rules others choose to follow.  THAT defies common sense for me.

But back to Jinge and Babe...;-) 

[Sew Sumi]

Yeah, we should probably continue this conversation in the religion thread before we get our hands gently slapped.

[GeeGolly]

I find it odd that folks would think a book made up of stories told thousands of years ago would still be applicable in all situations in modern day times. That Fundies think that women wearing pants is so much a thing that Jeremy includes his views in a sermon- and they're women's pants and not pants made for men worn by women. And the reason fluctuates between modesty and not wearing men's clothing. How does this effect spirituality?

And ... why aren't men walking around in robes and sandals?

[Churchhoney]

21 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I find it odd that folks would think a book made up of stories told thousands of years ago would still be applicable in all situations in modern day times. That Fundies think that women wearing pants is so much a thing that Jeremy includes his views in a sermon- and they're women's pants and not pants made for men worn by women. And the reason fluctuates between modesty and not wearing men's clothing. How does this effect spirituality?

 

Maybe thinking about the view of a nice closely-outlined-by-a-pair-of-well-fitting-slacks ladies bum just makes Jeremy...happy. ... And maybe he feels more spiritual when he's...mmm..."happy" in the pulpit. 

Heh.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Andalusian]

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I find it odd that folks would think a book made up of stories told thousands of years ago would still be applicable in all situations in modern day times. That Fundies think that women wearing pants is so much a thing that Jeremy includes his views in a sermon- and they're women's pants and not pants made for men worn by women. And the reason fluctuates between modesty and not wearing men's clothing. How does this effect spirituality?

And ... why aren't men walking around in robes and sandals?

It made me think of a quote by Eddie Izzard, when someone asked him about wearing women's clothes.

“They’re not women’s clothes. They’re my clothes. I bought them.”

[Sew Sumi]

Different pants. Also still not visibly pregnant. Jeremy posted this to his FB earlier today. 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Sew Sumi