Gimme That Old Time Religion

[Churchhoney]

9 hours ago, Sew Sumi said:

A poster at FJ went down a Twitter rabbit hole and looked up posts that Jeremy liked. Sadly, most conform to this sad line of "theology." Jeremy may not speak it out loud like his BIL Derelict, but he's every bit as hateful and misogynistic in his worldview. 

#freeFelicity

Can't help but wonder how this goes over in very very blue Laredo. Does he "pastor" the one congregation in town that loathes the concept of social justice, or what? Does he support it only by stealth there, the way he does for the TeeVee audience?  (In which case he's not just an arrogant, ignorant little bigot but a fat coward as well. And in my eyes, that'd actually make him a tad worse than Mr. Dullard. At least Der has the courage of his crappy convictions. So you know what you're getting so you can give him wide berth. The stealth approach is more dangerous to society, I think.) 

Edited September 23, 2018 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

Am I reading that since Pastor John MacArthur doesn't see any isms within evangelical churches that there's no reason to worry about it? That playing the victim card is just a game with no meaning behind it?

Edited September 23, 2018 by GeeGolly

[Churchhoney]

7 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Am I reading the since Pastor John MacArthur doesn't see any isms within evangelical churches that there's no reason to worry about it? That playing the victim card is just a game with no meaning behind it?

Yep, that's what you're reading. .... Throughout his blathering, he says in various ways, and repeatedly, that all claims that any evangelical honchos have carried out or even gone along with oppression or prejudice of any kind are flat out wrong. And solid proof that the claimants are nothing but rotten little whingers who don't follow God's commands -- so we all know where they're going, basically. ............(In other writings of his, though, it becomes clear that claims of oppression and prejudice made by white heterosexual male evangelicals are a TOTAL exception to the above.) 

Edited September 23, 2018 by Churchhoney

[satrunrose]

So... according to MacArthur and his ilk, being a victim is bad, but what about being a martyr? I mean, the passion and Holy Week are a lot less subtle than the type of statements he's pooh-pooing. Should Jesus not have allowed himself to be crucified because that was "playing the victim card"?

 

Luke 6:46 "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and do not do what I say?"

[DangerousMinds]

7 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Can't help but wonder how this goes over in very very blue Laredo. Does he "pastor" the one congregation in town that loathes the concept of social justice, or what? Does he support it only by stealth there, the way he does for the TeeVee audience?  (In which case he's not just an arrogant, ignorant little bigot but a fat coward as well. And in my eyes, that'd actually make him a tad worse than Mr. Dullard. At least Der has the courage of his crappy convictions. So you know what you're getting so you can give him wide berth. The stealth approach is more dangerous to society, I think.) 

 

Agreed! I think JinJer are posting all of those cute baby pictures to try and divert people’s attention from his bigoted, disgusting, offensive beliefs and sadly, it seems to be working. I “appreciate” that Derick is not such a cowardly hypocrite, if nothing else.

Edited September 23, 2018 by DangerousMinds

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, satrunrose said:

So... according to MacArthur and his ilk, being a victim is bad, but what about being a martyr? I mean, the passion and Holy Week are a lot less subtle than the type of statements he's pooh-pooing. Should Jesus not have allowed himself to be crucified because that was "playing the victim card"?

 

Luke 6:46 "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and do not do what I say?"

Great point.

Like other types of thinking, theology all too easily swaps reason for rationalization when you're desperate to squelch something that threatens you, I guess. 

[cmr2014]

These are the people that Jeremy is following right now, and I believe that he believes in them enough to go through the mental gymnastics necessary to make this make sense. I do, however, believe that Jeremy is capable of caring about people other than himself -- he may love himself A LOT, but I think that he's shown himself capable of loving Jinger and Felicity, and probably his parents and siblings as well. That could eventually put him in a place where those beliefs run up against the reality of someone that he cares about. I could see his views moderating and changing over time (I'm not saying it will happen, just that I think it could). I also think the same is true of Ben -- in fact, I think Ben's beliefs have moderated over the past few years.

I don't see the same thing in Derick. He's a very rigid guy, and I don't say he cares only about himself just to snark, I really believe that he is as lacking in empathy as all of the Duggars. It is important to him to always be right, and I can't imagine him every questioning himself or his beliefs. YMMV.

[Sew Sumi]

The same FJ poster who tracked Jeremy's likes also tracked Ben's. He may appear more moderate than his brothers in law, but it turns out that he shares a majority of their beliefs, sadly including some we've discussed in this latest conversation. They have no concept of white privilege.

[Churchhoney]

38 minutes ago, cmr2014 said:

These are the people that Jeremy is following right now, and I believe that he believes in them enough to go through the mental gymnastics necessary to make this make sense. I do, however, believe that Jeremy is capable of caring about people other than himself -- he may love himself A LOT, but I think that he's shown himself capable of loving Jinger and Felicity, and probably his parents and siblings as well. That could eventually put him in a place where those beliefs run up against the reality of someone that he cares about. I could see his views moderating and changing over time (I'm not saying it will happen, just that I think it could). I also think the same is true of Ben -- in fact, I think Ben's beliefs have moderated over the past few years.

I don't see the same thing in Derick. He's a very rigid guy, and I don't say he cares only about himself just to snark, I really believe that he is as lacking in empathy as all of the Duggars. It is important to him to always be right, and I can't imagine him every questioning himself or his beliefs. YMMV.

I hope that what you see in Jer is true of all of them. .... And since they've all had more diverse lives than the Duggarlings -- met more people, done more things, gone more places, I think they all have a shot at the future you describe.... Or not....Obviously it all depends on what they're really like, deep down, and how their experiences interact with that over time, obviously.

For myself, I'm not convinced that Der is any more rigid by nature than Jer is. (not convinced that he ISN"T more rigid, either.) I don't have any real sense of what Derick is like deep down or what he's ultimately capable of, for good or ill (and, for me, the same goes for Jer and Bin.) Seems to me the picture is mixed, in all three cases, although maybe most of all for Derick. For example, I don't see his college mascot days or his apparent pleasure in his Nepal life as being the actions of a really rigid person by nature, although I don't think they necessarily rule it out.  

It does seem to me that Der's faced a MUCH rougher road since his marriage than Jer has. His wife very quickly turned out to be completely unsuitable for the vision of life he had, so his whole vision of his future went down the drain. That's not easy to take. And he had to deal with his own weird and apparently pretty painful health issues added to the very rough births and his mother's scary brush with death, all in a couple of years time as a newlywed. That could make a lot of people crazy -- and rigidity can be a mark of that craziness sometimes. 

Hopefully they'll all change and mellow and see the bigger picture as time goes on......   

Nevertheless, the various religious honchos they're all following down these paths of bigotry and self-righteousness are guys in their 50s and 60s, who have wives and children and who I'm pretty sure consider themselves loving and virtuous fellows. So we probably can't count on any of them softening up. It'd be nice -- and should obviously be possible for at least one or two of them, depending what they all are like deep inside. But their role models certainly haven't. 

Edited September 23, 2018 by Churchhoney

[lascuba]

Loving ones children is the lowest of bars....the vast majority of people love their children, no matter which ways they choose to express that love. That Jeremy seems enamored of Felicity says nothing about who he is as a person. 

Plenty of loving, give-you-the-shirt-off-their-backs people have also been the most violent racists, for example. How ones treat those they love is meaningless compared to how they treat "outsiders."

[Future Cat Lady]

It's not surprising that these guys are against the concept of social justice. They like to keep their traditional values and lifestyles. So anything that questions the supremacy of the cisgender heterosexual white man is going to be viewed as evil.

[andromeda331]

12 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Loving ones children is the lowest of bars....the vast majority of people love their children, no matter which ways they choose to express that love. That Jeremy seems enamored of Felicity says nothing about who he is as a person. 

Plenty of loving, give-you-the-shirt-off-their-backs people have also been the most violent racists, for example. How ones treat those they love is meaningless compared to how they treat "outsiders."

That's very true. That really says nothing about him at all. Many serial killers love their kids that didn't keep them from not going out and murdering a bunch of people. Rapist are often married with kids. Yet they still go out raping. Those are more extreme examples but yes loving your own child isn't doesn't mean anything. Derick probably loves his children but clearly doesn't have any love for Jazz. I doubt he has any for any child that's gay or lesbian or children of gays or lesbians. I doubt Jeremy does either. He clearly doesn't give a crap about what other people go through. Of course they all seem to have amnesia when it comes to the fact Jesus said loved Everyone. Unless of course its when a good Christian male has been exposed as a cheater, liar or molester. Then and only then do they remember the Jesus said love everyone, people. 

6 minutes ago, Future Cat Lady said:

It's not surprising that these guys are against the concept of social justice. They like to keep their traditional values and lifestyles. So anything that questions the supremacy of the cisgender heterosexual white man is going to be viewed as evil.

God forbid they have compassion for anyone else but the white heterosexual male. Can't have that can that. Their such good Christians. 

[MargeGunderson]

Well, if a white guy in power says there’s no racism, I guess it’s all good! Just a quick couple of questions, Mr MacArthur - how many men of color are part of your leadership? How many people of color attend your church or school?  And please, don’t come back with “I have black friends!l

[Sew Sumi]

Jeremy's online class that he showed from his remote was 100% white males.

[MargeGunderson]

Just now, Sew Sumi said:

Jeremy's online class that he showed from his remote was 100% white males.

I’m shocked, shocked I say!

[Nysha]

5 hours ago, cmr2014 said:

These are the people that Jeremy is following right now, and I believe that he believes in them enough to go through the mental gymnastics necessary to make this make sense. I do, however, believe that Jeremy is capable of caring about people other than himself -- he may love himself A LOT, but I think that he's shown himself capable of loving Jinger and Felicity, and probably his parents and siblings as well. That could eventually put him in a place where those beliefs run up against the reality of someone that he cares about. I could see his views moderating and changing over time (I'm not saying it will happen, just that I think it could). I also think the same is true of Ben -- in fact, I think Ben's beliefs have moderated over the past few years.

I think what happens at that point is the empathy is for the specific person, who is part of his circle and therefore different from all the others in the same situations. I know and am unfortunately related to people with this mindset. All other people of color are faking racism claims, but this person I know and he/she has a legitimate claim. All other people who are on SSI due to back injuries or mental illness are faking it, but this person I know and he/she has a legitimate disability. I had a former Bible-thumping Christian friend who filled her Facebook feed with crap about drug-testing Welfare recipients and weeding out the deadbeats while her pot-smoking, lazy-as-frank, unemployed son was getting food stamps and Medicaid because he had a minor child, who lived with and was supported by my friend. She unfriended me when I sent her a PM asking if she was including her son in with the rest of welfare deadbeats who should be drug tested.

So while Jeremy and Ben both have the capability to love their families, I don't think their ability to empathize and feel compassion for those outside their own circle is ever going to expand.

[DangerousMinds]

4 hours ago, lascuba said:

Loving ones children is the lowest of bars....the vast majority of people love their children, no matter which ways they choose to express that love. That Jeremy seems enamored of Felicity says nothing about who he is as a person. 

Plenty of loving, give-you-the-shirt-off-their-backs people have also been the most violent racists, for example. How ones treat those they love is meaningless compared to how they treat "outsiders."

Narcissists also see their children as a reflection of themselves.

[cmr2014]

47 minutes ago, Nysha said:

I think what happens at that point is the empathy is for the specific person, who is part of his circle and therefore different from all the others in the same situations. I know and am unfortunately related to people with this mindset. All other people of color are faking racism claims, but this person I know and he/she has a legitimate claim. All other people who are on SSI due to back injuries or mental illness are faking it, but this person I know and he/she has a legitimate disability. I had a former Bible-thumping Christian friend who filled her Facebook feed with crap about drug-testing Welfare recipients and weeding out the deadbeats while her pot-smoking, lazy-as-frank, unemployed son was getting food stamps and Medicaid because he had a minor child, who lived with and was supported by my friend. She unfriended me when I sent her a PM asking if she was including her son in with the rest of welfare deadbeats who should be drug tested.

So while Jeremy and Ben both have the capability to love their families, I don't think their ability to empathize and feel compassion for those outside their own circle is ever going to expand.

If you had asked me a year ago about Jinger and Jeremy, I would have said that Jeremy thought Jinger was pretty, and that he like the way she did what he asked, and that he liked how admiring she was of him. I saw him as completely self-absorbed, but more likable because he wasn't as angry and unpleasant as Derick.

What I saw in the birth episodes was someone who was able to see beyond himself (compare and contrast with Josh falling asleep while Anna was in labor). I think he saw, and genuinely cared, that Jinger was very afraid of ending up with an enormous baby and a Cesarean like her sisters. In the photos with Felicity, I see a guy who is genuinely besotted with his daughter (again, compare and contrast with Josh).

I think that all of the Duggars lack empathy, and their ability to grow emotionally is pretty close to zero. I think that Jeremy has some capacity for growth (and Ben does, too). Jeremy and Ben also read, and are at least somewhat open to new ideas. It's very possible that Jeremy will never be able to expand his range of concern beyond his immediate family, or beyond his flock, or beyond his denomination, but there is a possibility there that I don't see with some of the others.

While I agree that loving your family is a very low bar, a lot of people still don't meet it. As @DangerousMinds states narcissists see their children as a reflection of themselves. I think that JB and J'chelle would certainly say that they love their children, but their actions suggest that they don't think of them as fully-formed humans at all. 

[Totally]

16 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Can't help but wonder how this goes over in very very blue Laredo. Does he "pastor" the one congregation in town that loathes the concept of social justice, or what? Does he support it only by stealth there, the way he does for the TeeVee audience?  (In which case he's not just an arrogant, ignorant little bigot but a fat coward as well. And in my eyes, that'd actually make him a tad worse than Mr. Dullard. At least Der has the courage of his crappy convictions. So you know what you're getting so you can give him wide berth. The stealth approach is more dangerous to society, I think.) 

Absolutely, everyone of if the Duggars and those who married Duggars have the same belief, they just pretty it up for tv and social media 

[kalamac]

4 hours ago, cmr2014 said:

If you had asked me a year ago about Jinger and Jeremy, I would have said that Jeremy thought Jinger was pretty, and that he like the way she did what he asked, and that he liked how admiring she was of him. I saw him as completely self-absorbed, but more likable because he wasn't as angry and unpleasant as Derick.

What I saw in the birth episodes was someone who was able to see beyond himself (compare and contrast with Josh falling asleep while Anna was in labor). I think he saw, and genuinely cared, that Jinger was very afraid of ending up with an enormous baby and a Cesarean like her sisters. In the photos with Felicity, I see a guy who is genuinely besotted with his daughter (again, compare and contrast with Josh).

I think that all of the Duggars lack empathy, and their ability to grow emotionally is pretty close to zero. I think that Jeremy has some capacity for growth (and Ben does, too). Jeremy and Ben also read, and are at least somewhat open to new ideas. It's very possible that Jeremy will never be able to expand his range of concern beyond his immediate family, or beyond his flock, or beyond his denomination, but there is a possibility there that I don't see with some of the others.

While I agree that loving your family is a very low bar, a lot of people still don't meet it. As @DangerousMinds states narcissists see their children as a reflection of themselves. I think that JB and J'chelle would certainly say that they love their children, but their actions suggest that they don't think of them as fully-formed humans at all. 

This could be a good thing. A surprising number of men who previously didn't see women as people deserving of equal rights and treatment, including their own mothers, sisters & wives, have been known to change their minds when it's their daughters who are reaching adulthood and suddenly they realize that their beloved daughter does deserve all the chances their sons have. Not all of them, but some. If he stays besotted with her, he might one day realize how much his beliefs would put her, and by extension other women at a disadvantage.

[Jeeves]

37 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

 Of course, basically all religious talk among Duggars is parroting. They were brought up 100 percent to value memorization and parroting, not thinking anything through in your own terms. Just like her stupid parents parrot the same damn phrases in everybody's birthday messages year after year after year and insist that the KJV is the Bible and having Spurge or Izzie or Josie recite passages from it without understanding a single syllable constitutes great religious activity.

^^This was posted by @Churchhoney over in the Jinger/Jer topic, but I liked it so much I thought it belongs over here too. It's an excellent statement of something that I've always thought about the Duggars. 

A few years ago the Duggars posted a video called "Watch Josie recite her favorite Bible verse!" and I wasted a few moments of my life on Earth which I will never get back watching it. Pathetic really. First of all, Josie didn't "recite." She acted like a typical little kid, squirming around, and just literally parroted Michelle as Michelle spoke the verse phrase by phrase. Josie obviously didn't know the verse by heart. Nor did she, IMO, understand much if anything the verse says. 

And I believe Jill recently posted a video of Izzy attempting to recite that same verse. I didn't watch that video, just read about it on the Dullards' topic here. I've given the Duggars about all the video-watching time I've got to spare.

And for those who don't want to waste time or brain cells on the video, here's the verse. Not exactly something a very small child would be able to easily memorize, or comprehend at all, and don't you know that no Duggar would bother to EXPLAIN its meaning to the kid. "Just recite it, kid. It's your favorite verse. No rebellion or back talk." Psalms 1, KJV: 

Quote

[1] Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. [2] But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

Yeah, let's ram those KJV verses down the throats of the littles. Although in their daily life, I doubt that those super-holy Duggars deploy early 17th Century English speech. "Jana doth stay with the young ones tonight." "Isaiah runneth too fast and I worry lest he stumble." *snort*

[Churchhoney]

27 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

^^This was posted by @Churchhoney over in the Jinger/Jer topic, but I liked it so much I thought it belongs over here too. It's an excellent statement of something that I've always thought about the Duggars. 

A few years ago the Duggars posted a video called "Watch Josie recite her favorite Bible verse!" and I wasted a few moments of my life on Earth which I will never get back watching it. Pathetic really. First of all, Josie didn't "recite." She acted like a typical little kid, squirming around, and just literally parroted Michelle as Michelle spoke the verse phrase by phrase. Josie obviously didn't know the verse by heart. Nor did she, IMO, understand much if anything the verse says. 

And I believe Jill recently posted a video of Izzy attempting to recite that same verse. I didn't watch that video, just read about it on the Dullards' topic here. I've given the Duggars about all the video-watching time I've got to spare.

And for those who don't want to waste time or brain cells on the video, here's the verse. Not exactly something a very small child would be able to easily memorize, or comprehend at all, and don't you know that no Duggar would bother to EXPLAIN its meaning to the kid. "Just recite it, kid. It's your favorite verse. No rebellion or back talk." Psalms 1, KJV: 

Yeah, let's ram those KJV verses down the throats of the littles. Although in their daily life, I doubt that those super-holy Duggars deploy early 17th Century English speech. "Jana doth stay with the young ones tonight." "Isaiah runneth too fast and I worry lest he stumble." *snort*

Yep. The most recent parrot put on this one was Spurge, just a few weeks ago, as I recall. .... And since we've seen the youngest Duggarling and the oldest Duggar-Dillard and now the oldest Duggar-Seewald also reciting it, I have the feeling the M kids are probably doing the Psalm-1-dog-and-pony-show, too, except we generally don't see M kids.....

Making the parroting point even stronger -- to me -- is the fact that this is Psalm ONE. .... Which suggests to me that they choose it FOR THAT REASON, NOT because it's a psalm that's particularly meaningful to a particular parent or family (and, god knows, NOT because it would be particularly meaningful to a young kid -- "blessed is the man...who sitteth not in the seat of the scornful" in the mouth of a 2-year-old? yeah, right). And in the recesses of their minds that probably echoes some Gothardy tradition that would see the kids reciting psalm 1, then psalm 2, then psalm 3, etc., until they've got the whole thing ......That's Gothard all over. Just be a tape recorder -- and memorize not only the bible itself but also what I, Bill fucking Gothard, SAY about the bible. And he DEFINITELY does not recommend understanding anything.

And I say this as a person who has NOTHING against memorization. I actually like memorization -- I think it's good to have big thoughts and interesting language and such in your head, and I like having lots of stuff I've memorized in my own head. But ONLY if it's about appreciation, understanding, thinking and feeling the stuff... For these dunderheads it's just more ego -- "Look at us! Look at us! Look at us in awe at how holy we are! Even our 2-year-olds!" 

Rant over. Momentarily at any rate. 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Churchhoney

[Jeeves]

@Churchhoney I just now did that google thing on Psalms One and homeschooling.

I don't have time to go all the way down the rabbit hole, but I think that Psalms 1 is interpreted by some as meaning that parents are actually being SINFUL if they don't homeschool their kids. See this blog post which takes a different position but discusses the claim that the Bible requires homeschooling: https://graceunderpressure.blog/2017/03/11/psalm-1-homeschool/ 

So, who knows. Maybe Psalm One is enshrined somewhere in all the zillions of Gothard rules as some speshul reason to homeschool and keep lining Gothard's pockets by buying his curriculum and materials their children safe from Satan's influence aka public schools.

[Churchhoney]

38 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

@Churchhoney I just now did that google thing on Psalms One and homeschooling.

I don't have time to go all the way down the rabbit hole, but I think that Psalms 1 is interpreted by some as meaning that parents are actually being SINFUL if they don't homeschool their kids. See this blog post which takes a different position but discusses the claim that the Bible requires homeschooling: https://graceunderpressure.blog/2017/03/11/psalm-1-homeschool/ 

So, who knows. Maybe Psalm One is enshrined somewhere in all the zillions of Gothard rules as some speshul reason to homeschool and keep lining Gothard's pockets by buying his curriculum and materials their children safe from Satan's influence aka public schools.

Wow, interesting. I wonder whether Voddie B came up with that Psalm 1 interpretation on his own or whether he totally stole it from some predecessor fundie homeschool advocate -- most likely Rushdoony. ...If so, "Thou shalt not steal" but shalt give credit, at least in a footnote, VB....

I'm betting that Psalm 1 connection is buried somewhere in the massive Rushdoony canon, actually, since he was very big on psalms -- and he basically saw an injunction for Christians to hold themselves and especially their children apart from all us ungodly people in pretty much every bible verse he thought of, I'd say. ...

Rushdoony provided so much of the power that got homeschooling onto the American agenda, and especially through the courts, that I sometimes wonder why his copious writing on the theology of it doesn't get cited more as an original source by these slightly later people like Voddie B and Gothard. But I suppose it's a combination of the Rushdoony reputation as being more fringy than others and just their own egos that won't give anybody credit. He was fringy, obviously, but he was also way smarter than most of these other guys, in my opinion. A lot of Gothard's writing is impenetrable and kinda stupid (not to mention self-serving and superficial as well) to me. Whereas Rushdoony was a really great writer and -- within the universe of his own assumptions -- a deep and logical thinker as well. 

ETA: Okay, so now I've gone down the rabbit hole here. ... Turns out that there's ultimately a big disagreement between the Rushdoony crowd's overall stance and the stance of what they call "radical" homeschoolers.

The radicals, according to the Rushd-folk, are those who firmly declare Christian homeschooling not just a good thing that the country should enthusiastically permit but the best thing -- i.e., categorically superior to a conservative Christian school outside the home. While Rush and his group strongly backed Christian homeschooling they were also strong backers of Christian schools. 

But radical homeschoolers -- which they say were essentially led by the Vision Forumers, including Voddie Baucham and of course Doug Phillips -- actually consider Christian schools to be much inferior to a Christian homeschool......This is part of the "family-integrated-church" idea, which sees enforcing the family unit as the be-all and end-all of all social organization as the key to a good society. (Gothard seems to agree with all that, but he seldom gets mentioned by any of these people, either those who agree or those who disagree....I'm guessing they think he's kind of a low-class dunderhead compared to them....) 

So that explains why Voddie wouldn't cite Rushdoony on Psalm 1-- even though I'd bet real money that Rushdoony said it first. 

Unfortunately, the fact that Bin has the Vision Forum background and still seems to gravitate toward those guys may mean he'll be just as hostile to a non-homeschool for the kids as Jessa's likely to be. (Of course, I don't know how they'd afford a private Christian school anyway, so never mind). 

Here's a good article by the organization now representing Rushdoony principles about the disagreement on the place of homeschooling in any potential Christian revival. (Well, I think it's good. But for some reason I'm obsessed with these debates...lol ... https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/malachi-4-and-the-homeschooling-movement    )

Edited December 15, 2018 by Churchhoney

[Jeeves]

So my working theory right now is that Psalms 1 is some kind of "dog whistle" for fundie homeschoolers, or at least some of them. A signal that says "we believe in keeping ourselves and our kids apart from the sinful world," or something like that. The unsaved and sinners won't get the significance, but the "in crowd" will.

Which is why Psalms 1 had to be decreed by the Duggar parents to be the five or six year old Josie Duggar's "favorite Bible verse!" - and why it's the one that Jill and Jessa chose for their toddlers to "recite" on videos. 

(Actually, what got me curious about the possible significance of Psalms 1 was one of the (leg-humping of course) comments on the Duggar website page with the Josie video. Seemed to link homeschooling and Psalms 1 and I didn't get why so I went to Google and . . . )

Edited December 15, 2018 by Jeeves

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, Jeeves said:

So my working theory right now is that Psalms 1 is some kind of "dog whistle" for fundie homeschoolers, or at least some of them. A signal that says "we believe in keeping ourselves and our kids apart from the sinful world," or something like that. The unsaved and sinners won't get the significance, but the "in crowd" will.

Which is why Psalms 1 had to be decreed by the Duggar parents to be the five or six year old Josie Duggar's "favorite Bible verse!" - and why it's the one that Jill and Jessa chose for their toddlers to "recite" on videos. 

(Actually, what got me curious about the possible significance of Psalms 1 was one of the (leg-humping of course) comments on the Duggar website page with the Josie video. Seemed to link homeschooling and Psalms 1 and I didn't get why so I went to Google and . . . )

 

Yep, I like your dogwhistle theory. I'd go with that.....

Similarly, the "motherhood ought not to be despised" over in Jingle's post that started this conversation is also a dogwhistle, I think. Somebody -- probably Jer, I imagine, although it could be just a kneejerk thing for Jinger after two-plus-decades of Duggarlife -- wanted to make sure that none of the true-Christian in-crowd would suspect Jingle of writing something that didn't promote the right theology and morality.

The "mothers ought not to be despised" thing is just a headscratcher or a meaningless phrase to make your eyes glaze over to most people. But it makes absolutely clear to those in the know that Jingle is fully aware that people, including mothers, who support women's equality or abortion access or the like are in fact spitting on and despising mothers and motherhood. And that Jingle's religion is the only belief system that honors mothers as God intends.

I think this whole culture speaks in dogwhistles a lot. And that goes along with their idea that they're a persecuted minority who are greatly at risk in our society, as Jer and Der have sometimes indicated in their rants. (And maybe Bin, too? Back before Jessa figured out that her TeeVee bucks could be at risk and shut down their social-media theologizing?) When you're a persecuted minority you often must communicate with your people in code! 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Churchhoney

[lookeyloo]

3 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Yep, I like your dogwhistle theory. I'd go with that.....

Similarly, the "motherhood ought not to be despised" over in Jingle's post that started this conversation is also a dogwhistle, I think. Somebody -- probably Jer, I imagine, although it could be just a kneejerk thing for Jinger after two-plus-decades of Duggarlife -- wanted to make sure that none of the true-Christian in-crowd would suspect Jingle of writing something that didn't promote the right theology and morality.

The "mothers ought not to be despised" thing is just a headscratcher or a meaningless phrase to make your eyes glaze over to most people. But it makes absolutely clear to those in the know that Jingle is fully aware that people, including mothers, who support women's equality or abortion access or the like are in fact spitting on and despising mothers and motherhood. And that Jingle's religion is the only belief system that honors mothers as God intends.

I think this whole culture speaks in dogwhistles a lot. And that goes along with their idea that they're a persecuted minority who are greatly at risk in our society, as Jer and Der have sometimes indicated in their rants. (And maybe Bin, too? Back before Jessa figured out that her TeeVee bucks could be at risk and shut down their social-media theologizing?) When you're a persecuted minority you often must communicate with your people in code! 

I love how you call her Jingle!!

[ChiCricket]

   I just went to my husband's side of the family's Christmas Eve party. His family are mostly Puerto Rican (with a sprinking of Mexican here and there.) Everyone used to be Catholic (more or less) and always danced their bootys off.

  This was back when almost everyone drank and lost their inhibitions, including my husband. My  husband is still Catholic but doesn't doesn't drink any more (thank goodness!)  so now he's too inhibited to dance anymore.

 OK (finally!) here's my religion question:

 Why don't people from certain Christain churches dance? Of the ones who aren't Catholic in his family, I'd say 50% say they are evangelicals and 50% say they are plain Christain.  Both group's churches  are strongly based on the Bible type churches. 

(not sure I get the difference of the two types, honestly.)

  Is there something in the Bible that says you shouldn't dance? I'd like to look it up.

I swear I'm honestly curious and not trying to be mean.

(I didn't ask at the party because I was taught you don't discuss politics or religion in a social gathering.)

PS I've always been the only 'gringa'  at any of their parties, but they love me to death and vice-versa.❤

Edited December 27, 2018 by ChiCricket
unneeded apostrophe

[Lukeysboat]

50 minutes ago, ChiCricket said:

Is there something in the Bible that says you shouldn't dance? I'd like to look it up.

You need to watch the movie Footloose! ;)

Seriously though, dancing in itself is not a sin and there was dancing in the Bible, often done in worship. It only becomes sinful if it is done in a behavior that dishonors God. 

[doodlebug]

24 minutes ago, Lukeysboat said:

You need to watch the movie Footloose! ;)

Seriously though, dancing in itself is not a sin and there was dancing in the Bible, often done in worship. It only becomes sinful if it is done in a behavior that dishonors God. 

Many of the fundie Christian groups seem to feel that dancing of any sort is likely to stir sexual desires and is therefore not Godly.  There was an episode of the old '19 Kids and Counting' where one of the preschoolers was chastised when he started doing some swaying to the music played by a toy.  After all, these are people who think that a child's shoulders are unnecessarily erogenous and must never be seen and that rhythmic drumming in music is also going to drive the faithful to sin.

Edited December 26, 2018 by doodlebug

[ChiCricket]

28 minutes ago, Lukeysboat said:

You need to watch the movie Footloose! ;)

Seriously though, dancing in itself is not a sin and there was dancing in the Bible, often done in worship. It only becomes sinful if it is done in a behavior that dishonors God. 

Hmm..I'll have to look for it. I've never seen it for some reason.

[Sew Sumi]

You've never seen Footloose? It was the Dirty Dancing of the early 80's! 😱

[ChiCricket]

11 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

You've never seen Footloose? It was the Dirty Dancing of the early 80's! 😱

I was kinda  busy raising my five kids.

I probably was too broke from buying them frivolous stuff like clothing and food to be able to go to the movies back then. Somehow I've missed it every time it has played since.🙃

PS thanks for the suggestion. It'll be on TV this Saturday. I'll set my DVR.

Edited December 26, 2018 by ChiCricket

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, ChiCricket said:

   I just went to my husband's side of the family's Christmas Eve party. His family are mostly Puerto Rican (with a sprinking of Mexican here and there.) Everyone used to be Catholic (more or less) and always danced their booty's off.

  This was back when almost everyone drank and lost their inhibitions, including my husband. My  husband is still Catholic but doesn't doesn't drink any more (thank goodness!)  so now he's too inhibited to dance anymore.

 OK (finally!) here's my religion question:

 Why don't people from certain Christain churches dance? Of the ones who aren't Catholic in his family, I'd say 50% say they are evangelicals and 50% say they are plain Christain.  Both group's churches  are strongly based on the Bible type churches. 

(not sure I get the difference of the two types, honestly.)

  Is there something in the Bible that says you shouldn't dance? I'd like to look it up.

I swear I'm honestly curious and not trying to be mean.

(I didn't ask at the party because I was taught you don't discuss politics or religion in a social gathering.)

PS I've always been the only white person at any of their parties, but they love me to death and vice-versa.❤

Here are some reasons people have come up with, taking off from Bible verses (that don't actually tell you not to dance.) The reasons generally boil down to -- it almost always has the potential to LEAD to sex-related things. I think that's pretty much the case with all the arguments. Some people take it even farther than this particular piece, of course, shunning all kinds of dance because of the ...possibilities always being there ... -- https://412teens.org/qna/are-christians-allowed-to-dance.php

 

The Bible does not actually give any specific instructions for believers when it comes to dancing. However, dancing is definitely mentioned in the Bible through the stories about God's people.

In Exodus 32:6, 19-25, we find that while Moses was up on the mountain talking to God, the Israelites built an idol and began to dance around it. This ended up in "revelry" (v. 6) and being "out of control" (v.25 says "naked" in some translations). Whoa. Obviously, this was not a good dance!

However, in 2 Samuel 6:12-16, King David "danced before the Lord" to celebrate the Ark of the Covenant being brought back to Jerusalem. This was definitely a good dance! So if David can do it, does that mean we can too?

Dancing itself is not considered sinful when we're dancing in worship or praise to God. Of course, that is not always the case today, as there are lots of opportunities for us to participate in dancing other than at a church service or Christian rock concert. And even then, you probably aren't gettin' down during the offering song on Sunday.

So if we get the desire to dance, what can we do? Here are some biblical principles to keep in mind when you want to dance:

The Right Timing: Ecclesiastes 3:4 says that there are appropriate and inappropriate times for everything, and that includes the act of dancing. Think about the time, place, and situation to help decide if this is something you should be doing.

Dance in Worship: Both Psalm 149:3 and Psalm 150:4 mention that we can praise or worship God through dance. Whether your church is all about dancing in the aisles or they want you to remain still and stoic is a matter of the church's preference, and you do need to respect how they have set up their worship services. But the Bible does say that dancing for God is just fine!

Glorify God with Your Body: First Corinthians 6:19-20 says that our bodies belong to God. Your physical self is a figurative temple for the Holy Spirit; everything we do with our bodies must be honoring to Him. If we're dancing just to bring attention to our bodies, then we're committing sin by attempting to sexually entice those around us.
There are definitely a lot of dances that can be done which would be inappropriate for believers, especially since we are trying to live our lives to glorify God. Second Timothy 2:22 says to run away from "the evil desires of youth." If a particular dance might stir up sinful desires and lust in ourselves or others, then just don't do it! Matthew 18:6 talks about how causing someone else to stumble into sin on purpose is totally inexcusable. There's a fine line here, so be sure to check your motivations honestly.

At the same time, the Bible does say that we are allowed to dance in a way that does not tempt others, does not tempt ourselves, and brings glory to God.

[ChaChaSlide]

On 12/26/2018 at 9:43 AM, ChiCricket said:

   I just went to my husband's side of the family's Christmas Eve party. His family are mostly Puerto Rican (with a sprinking of Mexican here and there.) Everyone used to be Catholic (more or less) and always danced their booty's off.

  This was back when almost everyone drank and lost their inhibitions, including my husband. My  husband is still Catholic but doesn't doesn't drink any more (thank goodness!)  so now he's too inhibited to dance anymore.

 OK (finally!) here's my religion question:

 Why don't people from certain Christain churches dance? Of the ones who aren't Catholic in his family, I'd say 50% say they are evangelicals and 50% say they are plain Christain.  Both group's churches  are strongly based on the Bible type churches. 

(not sure I get the difference of the two types, honestly.)

  Is there something in the Bible that says you shouldn't dance? I'd like to look it up.

I swear I'm honestly curious and not trying to be mean.

(I didn't ask at the party because I was taught you don't discuss politics or religion in a social gathering.)

PS I've always been the only white person at any of their parties, but they love me to death and vice-versa.❤

 

Au contraire to the bolded: David danced and he was Jesus Great Great- - - grandpa! And it’s mentioned throughout the Bible as something to do in praise.

Like @doodlebug said, some fundamentalist sects have deemed dancing to be a sensual act that can stir up desires that can’t be “righteously fulfilled”. There’s also some good ol prejudice that goes along with it: rhythmic music and dance are deemed rituals from pagan cultures. Gothard specifically cited rock music as being derived from African tribal music, which according to him is used to summon demons and spirits.

To me it sounds like “ I can’t move like that or make music like this so I’m gonna deem it evil out of jealousy and spite”.

Edited December 30, 2018 by ChaChaSlide
Misspelling

[DangerousMinds]

Also, fundies seem to overlook that Jesus very clearly drank wine in the Bible. Literally.

[Ohiopirate02]

3 hours ago, ChiCricket said:

   I just went to my husband's side of the family's Christmas Eve party. His family are mostly Puerto Rican (with a sprinking of Mexican here and there.) Everyone used to be Catholic (more or less) and always danced their booty's off.

  This was back when almost everyone drank and lost their inhibitions, including my husband. My  husband is still Catholic but doesn't doesn't drink any more (thank goodness!)  so now he's too inhibited to dance anymore.

 OK (finally!) here's my religion question:

 Why don't people from certain Christain churches dance? Of the ones who aren't Catholic in his family, I'd say 50% say they are evangelicals and 50% say they are plain Christain.  Both group's churches  are strongly based on the Bible type churches. 

(not sure I get the difference of the two types, honestly.)

  Is there something in the Bible that says you shouldn't dance? I'd like to look it up.

I swear I'm honestly curious and not trying to be mean.

(I didn't ask at the party because I was taught you don't discuss politics or religion in a social gathering.)

PS I've always been the only white person at any of their parties, but they love me to death and vice-versa.❤

From a historical perspective, the no dancing thing comes from the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation in England.   Catholics danced and drank, so therefore those things were considered sinful.   Many different sects of Protestants worked out their belief systems in England, but the monarchy there created the Church of England which stayed pretty close to Catholicism.   This was not enough change for some.  From Plymouth Plantation in the 1620s onward many of these types of Protestants immigrated to America.  After the Restoration of the monarchy with Charles II, more dour protestants immigrated here.  In the UK,  Church of England attendance and tithing was mandatory for centuries.   This was one of the reasons for the whole separation of church and state in the US.  The US was populated by many English and Scottish Protestants who were looking for religious freedom and brought their beliefs with them.  

[Albanyguy]

2 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

Also, fundies seem to overlook that Jesus very clearly drank wine in the Bible. Literally.

"But...but...but...it wasn't really wine! It was just GRAPE JUICE!"

[Of course, it really was wine. It was wine with a higher alcoholic content that most wines sold today and everyone, men women and little children, drank it every day.]

[Lisa418722]

12 hours ago, Albanyguy said:

"But...but...but...it wasn't really wine! It was just GRAPE JUICE!"

[Of course, it really was wine. It was wine with a higher alcoholic content that most wines sold today and everyone, men women and little children, drank it every day.]

A few years ago our preacher (who grew Catholic and converted because of his girlfriend) preached a sermon that the wine was equivalent to Welch's Grape Juice.   Ummm, no, I don't think so.   I sat there the entire time shaking my head. 

[Nysha]

Every pastor I've had as stated that the only reason wine was drunk in the Bible was that the water was bad AND it was extremely diluted and closer to juice than today's wine.

As for dancing, pretty much all of the places to go out and dance also serve alcohol. While the Bible doesn't say "don't drink alcohol" it does say that getting drunk is a sin. The best way to not get drunk is to not drink and the best way to not be tempted to drink is to not go to places where alcohol is the main product served. This is why people in my church could go to restaurants that served alcohol, but not bars that served food.

I've given up organized religion in favor of using common sense and my own ethics, so I now think it's all a way to control people.

[beckie]

Don't have my Bible with me right now, but nowhere in the Bible does it say you can't drink, it only mentions drinking to excess (getting drunk). At least that's the way I've always understood it.

 

I personally don't drink just because I can't stand the stuff. But I'm not going to say you can't. (Unless of course your drunk and hassling me).

[satrunrose]

The 4 gospels don't say anything about LGBTQ issues either, but that certainly hasn't convinced the fundies to slow their roll. 

 

Okay, yes, Paul and Leviticus do, but they say a lot of things that my unmarried, public-speaking, cotton/poly blend wearing self thinks I can safely ignore. 

[McManda]

7 hours ago, Nysha said:

Every pastor I've had as stated that the only reason wine was drunk in the Bible was that the water was bad AND it was extremely diluted and closer to juice than today's wine.

I've only been to church (outside weddings and funerals) twice in my life so this is a legit question ...

... if people were drinking wine because the water was bad but it was okay because it was diluted ... with what was the wine diluted? Presumably not the bad water.

[doodlebug]

13 hours ago, McManda said:

I've only been to church (outside weddings and funerals) twice in my life so this is a legit question ...

... if people were drinking wine because the water was bad but it was okay because it was diluted ... with what was the wine diluted? Presumably not the bad water.

Well, there's the rub, isn't it?  I think the general idea was that the fermentation process from grapes to wine had some bactericidal action, so water mixed with alcohol would be cleaner than plain water and less likely to cause disease.  There is some small truth to that, but it's mostly a justification for God allowed people, including his only son to drink wine, but now He prohibits it.  However, I am Catholic and we've always been fond of the fruit of the vine and the last time I drank was a sip of wine at Communion this past Sunday, so what do I know?

Edited January 9, 2019 by doodlebug

[Ohiopirate02]

22 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Well, there's the rub, isn't it?  I think the general idea was that the fermentation process from grapes to wine had some bactericidal action, so water mixed with alcohol would be cleaner that plain water and less likely to cause disease.  There is some small truth to that, but it's mostly a justification for God allowed people, including his only son to drink wine, but now He prohibits it.  However, I am Catholic and we've always been fond of the fruit of the vine and the last time I drank was a sip of wine at Communion this past Sunday, so what do I know?

I know my Catholic church has to use a stronger wine at Communion to help with contact germs from everyone taking a sip.  It's noticeable when you are one of last to receive the Holy Blood of Jesus and take a big gulp.  My priest has a tendency to over pour.  I have had at least one Eucharistic Minister ask me to take a big sip, and being the good Catholic girl that I am, I always oblige.   

[marypat57]

14 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I know my Catholic church has to use a stronger wine at Communion to help with contact germs from everyone taking a sip.  It's noticeable when you are one of last to receive the Holy Blood of Jesus and take a big gulp.  My priest has a tendency to over pour.  I have had at least one Eucharistic Minister ask me to take a big sip, and being the good Catholic girl that I am, I always oblige.   

I am a Eucharistic minister (assisting the priest in distributing the Body and Blood of Jesus) at my church.  It all depends on the priest's 'pour'. Sometimes they overestimate, and you're left with wine after all the communicants have received.  Sometimes all the wine has been consumed when you're halfway through the line.

It's also interesting to note the different varieties of wine used.  One of the neighboring parishes uses a wine that I find overly sweet, while my parish uses a drier kind.  

[CalicoKitty]

My church uses Port because of the higher alcohol content.  

[latetotheparty]

2 minutes ago, CalicoKitty said:

My church uses Port because of the higher alcohol content.  

Mmm. I love me some fortified wine. 

[Nysha]

On 1/8/2019 at 6:12 PM, McManda said:

I've only been to church (outside weddings and funerals) twice in my life so this is a legit question ...

... if people were drinking wine because the water was bad but it was okay because it was diluted ... with what was the wine diluted? Presumably not the bad water.

If you're expecting logic and reason, then the church is probably not the place for you. The entire basis of religion is to accept the unbelievable on faith or suffer the fiery pits of hell in the afterlife.

[GeeGolly]

On 1/17/2019 at 7:39 PM, Nysha said:

If you're expecting logic and reason, then the church is probably not the place for you. The entire basis of religion is to accept the unbelievable on faith or suffer the fiery pits of hell in the afterlife.

YIKES!