|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Apr 15, 2009 20:38:33 GMT -5
Open thread ...
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Apr 16, 2009 0:22:40 GMT -5
eh.. do we have to have a whole thread about this family? Isn't that a bit creepy? Yeah I know they have made themselves public by having a tv show but..
|
|
|
Post by pandapaws on Apr 16, 2009 11:47:11 GMT -5
I don't think it's creepy, I think it's fair game. They put themselves out there and yes, they did open themselves up to scrutiny. If you want to have a private family life, you don't sign contracts to have your own tv show. Just my .02 cents.
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on Apr 16, 2009 12:10:24 GMT -5
I don't mind the open thread on them but I don't have too much to say. I thought originally they were a parody thought up by my buddy Tbogg who used to comment on them with the remark "the vagina is not a clown car." Since I don't get regular tv of any kind I've never watched their show. I personally think that to the extent that they think their current lifestyle is achievable by any/many QF style families they are deluding their viewers. As far as I can see their TV show itself falls squarely into the abyss that is modern American TV once it had been discovered that shooting and selling "unscripted" "reality style" TV shows was cheaper for the producer than scripted dramas. There is as much truth in the show as in any of the other fake reality shows--about college students in dorm rooms or survivors on islands--and thus it seems to me to fall, theologically speaking, into the category of "bearing false witness" (about one's own life) or "lying for the lord" to deceive the viewer.
That being said it is also in a straight line with tons of other popular entertainment from Home and Garden "fixer-upper" style shows to the various "dog whisperer" and "nanny 911" style shows. Its so perfectly almost sickeningly American. First: the emphasis on self help and perfectability which spans everything in our society from food obsessions (neutraceuticals! the science of foods that will prolong your life!) to get rich quick schemes (work at home and earn thousands of dollars! Watch "flip this house!"), to home decorating (see a team of experts redecorate your house for mere pennies!). Then there is the underlying theme of what we call "moral panic." (this underlies "the dog whisperer" and also the various nanny shows). In a moral panic style show there is an assumption that chaos underlies modern american life. That we are out of control of our children, our pets, our homes, our finances, etc... but that with stern outside help, or at least the example of a perfect family, we can get ourselves right back on track. In that way the Duggars are a kind of supersized fifties family porn show. The pornographic element is inherent in the voyerism and the fetishization of a lifestyle which very few of us actually wish to emulate, or can emulate.
aimai
|
|
mary
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by mary on Apr 18, 2009 19:04:49 GMT -5
Interesting thoughts, Aimai. I honestly never thought about them that deeply, but I appreciate your comments regarding "bearing false witness." Definitely food for thought.
I've beened turned off by them for a couple of reasons. First off, imo a couple of the kids needed orthodontia and were clearly not getting it (now it seems they are) but I have a real problem with bringing more kids into the world when you can't afford the ones you have. Again, just my opinion.
Then, out of curiosity I looked at their website. One of the photos was captioned something like, "Michele Duggar looks adoringly at her husband as he leads the family in prayer." This, coupled with the episode where another large family comes to visit, and I noticed that the woman ALWAYS stares adoringly at her husband when he speaks, kind of made me gag a little. It looks so phony. Not that I don't think they adore their husbands, but it seems so phony.
|
|
|
Post by anotheramy on Apr 18, 2009 20:55:27 GMT -5
Mrs. Duggar's soft wispy voice and distant eyes always worry me. You so rarely see her being affectionate with the children. Maybe when she is off camera? They also like to mention how she never yells or gets upset...
I'm pregnant right now and can't imagine what I'd be like if I had these hormones surging through me during most of my adult life. It seems to me that I'd be mad as a hatter. They are definitely more difficult to handle with a toddler in the mix as well. If I had a house full of children, even if the older ones manage the younger ones, the noise and chaos would send me to my room all day.
|
|
jennie
Junior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by jennie on Apr 19, 2009 12:42:21 GMT -5
There is as much truth in the show as in any of the other fake reality shows-- aimai I could not agree more! They must have some control of the editing process of the show or something. And with their penchant for Bible names beginning with J (sounds like a Jeapardy category), I wonder if they have considered Jael (Judges 4:17-24), who went against her husband's wishes and stabbed a man to death, or maybe Junia (Romans 16:7), a female apostle. Now those are good biblical names! Jennie
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on Apr 19, 2009 20:38:29 GMT -5
Michele Duggar looks adoringly at her husband as he leads the family in prayer." This, coupled with the episode where another large family comes to visit, and I noticed that the woman ALWAYS stares adoringly at her husband when he speaks, kind of made me gag a little. It looks so phony. Not that I don't think they adore their husbands, but it seems so phony.
[/quote] I have noticed this same adoring looks and nodding heads of preacher's wives on Christian TV programs...he talks, she responds 'bobble-head' style...gags me too! Like, why doesn't she speak? She's not allowed? Does she think? Oy, vey! Grandma
|
|
|
Post by sirius on Apr 19, 2009 21:22:06 GMT -5
There is as much truth in the show as in any of the other fake reality shows-- aimai I could not agree more! They must have some control of the editing process of the show or something. And with their penchant for Bible names beginning with J (sounds like a Jeapardy category), I wonder if they have considered Jael (Judges 4:17-24), who went against her husband's wishes and stabbed a man to death, or maybe Junia (Romans 16:7), a female apostle. Now those are good biblical names! Jennie Junia was not an apostle but well known to the apostles. KJV Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. ESV Rom 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.
|
|
|
Post by sirius on Apr 19, 2009 21:29:07 GMT -5
Last week was our 13th anniversary. Grandma had the children for the night and when I woke up the next morning my beautiful wife was dressed and sitting up in bed staring at me.
Nancy Reagan stared at Ronald all the time.
Not that it can't be faked by the Duggars but really folkes....have anything of substance to discuss?
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Apr 19, 2009 22:27:40 GMT -5
Last week was our 13th anniversary. Grandma had the children for the night and when I woke up the next morning my beautiful wife was dressed and sitting up in bed staring at me. Maybe she was contemplating how to do away with you.
|
|
jennie
Junior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by jennie on Apr 19, 2009 22:29:59 GMT -5
Junia was not an apostle but well known to the apostles. [/quote] I guess that would depend upon a person's interpretation of the passage. I've heard several different ones. One thing I've learned is that interpretations of Scripture come a dime a dozen. You are entitled to whichever one you see fit. Peace, Jennie
|
|
lectio
Full Member
growing...
Posts: 128
|
Post by lectio on Apr 19, 2009 23:55:44 GMT -5
Junia was not an apostle but well known to the apostles. Hmm. That's the same sort of translation bias that goes into making Phoebe (who was a diakanos) into a "helper." Ie, when "diakanos" gets used of Timothy, it's translated into pastor, leader, minister or deacon. When it's used of Phoebe, it's helper or servant or deaconess. Hmmm... me thinks there's some interesting "pink-and-blue-standard" hermeneutics going on here. Strange... Or maybe NOT when you learn that one of the cardinal reasons the ESV exists was to "refute" the "gender-neutral" problem and to work in strict gender roles in Scripture. Wayne Grudem was on the board, etc... So with that kind of goal in mind, it's not surprising that they are rather "loose" on their translation skills whenever women are in question. (Very very very sad... ) The assumption that it must be male is a striking indictment of male presumption regarding the character and structure of earliest Christianity... The straightforward description "the apostles" and the following clause, together strongly suggest that Andronicus and Junia belonged to the large group of those appointed apostles by the risen Christ in 1 Cor 15:7. That is, they belonged most probably to the closed group of apostles appointed directly by the risen Christ in a limited period following the resurrection. This would give Andronicus and Junia a higher status in the eyes of Paul and of others...
We may firmly conclude that one of the foundation apostles of Christianity was a woman and wife... That they had been converted before Paul puts them among the earliest Palestinian Christians, probably the Hellenists in Jerusalem (Acts 6-8)... These were Jewish Christians, but also apostles, and indeed apostles "prominent" among the earliest leadership of the first church(es)... ---Dunn, Romans 9-16, pg. 895] taken from this post: primalsubversion.blogspot.com/2006/11/junia-apostle.html Interesting articles (most of a more scholarly bent): www.godswordtowomen.org/juniapreato.htmwww.energionpubs.com/wordpress/2007/05/more-on-junia-the-apostle/www.cbeinternational.org/new/E-Journal/2008/08spring/08springpederson.htmlF.F. Bruce weighs in: www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/original_bruce_women_church_biblical_survey.pdfAnd I *highly* recommend reading these by S. McCarthy (Bible linguist) on Junia. She gets down and dirty with the Greek and it's not for the faint of heart, with lots of great commentary from other linguists and scholars. englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/11/junia-apostle-index.html
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on Apr 20, 2009 5:47:26 GMT -5
No no, I'm sure you must be wrong molly. sriusly. Some guy on the internet showed me his balls and that means all the ladiez are wasting their time on unimportant stuff. aimai
|
|
|
Post by charis on Apr 20, 2009 8:15:58 GMT -5
Here's another article on Junia from Scot McKnight. He reviews the history of how she was demoted to a footnote, eliminated, and then recently returned: blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/03/a-woman-in-the-footnotes.htmlOne wonders what motivates such poor handling of God's Word? They sure try hard, but they can't keep a good woman down!
|
|
|
Post by rachsyd on Apr 20, 2009 12:46:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sirius on Apr 20, 2009 16:54:47 GMT -5
I guess that would depend upon a person's interpretation of the passage. I've heard several different ones. One thing I've learned is that interpretations of Scripture come a dime a dozen. You are entitled to whichever one you see fit. Peace, Jennie Hi jennie, Out of 14 translations 4 are interpreted your way. They are the modern liberal translation of the last 40 years. You are entitled to believe all four of them.
|
|
|
Post by anotheramy on Apr 20, 2009 18:49:53 GMT -5
Look Jennie! You have permission.
|
|
jennie
Junior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by jennie on Apr 20, 2009 22:56:33 GMT -5
Oh.....well then. Thank you so much, Sirius. (Now where did I put that sarcastic smiley???) This one will do. Jennie
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Apr 26, 2009 10:46:45 GMT -5
I wasn't aware but there's like a whole tongue-in-cheek movement to "Free Jinger" Duggar. answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081226182226AAwbICsI haven't watched their show (I just caught some cross-country trip with the Duggars one night while surfing) but yeah I can imagine one or more of their kids deciding to break away and do their own thing. I hope the parents can be ok with that and not push them away or guilt trip them.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Apr 26, 2009 13:15:57 GMT -5
I guess that would depend upon a person's interpretation of the passage. I've heard several different ones. One thing I've learned is that interpretations of Scripture come a dime a dozen. You are entitled to whichever one you see fit. Peace, Jennie Hi jennie, Out of 14 translations 4 are interpreted your way. They are the modern liberal translation of the last 40 years. You are entitled to believe all four of them. Hmm. I suppose it doesn't matter that Chrysostom in 700 AD thought Junia was a female apostle. He must be one of those "modern liberal" translators.
|
|
chloe
New Member
Posts: 37
|
Post by chloe on Jun 17, 2009 0:49:38 GMT -5
For those of you who've been there, how accurate was tonight's episode about the ATI homeschool conference? This is the Gothard organization, yes?
I have to admit to being uncomfortable with the bits of homeschooling they've shown on the Duggars' programs. I've thought that their writing skills (based on their early website) seem very weak. And a couple of episodes ago, they showed Michelle working with a few of the little ones, but she couldn't get them to sit still long enough to get anything done. Is this simply bad editing? Excitement due to the cameras? Or maybe the usual methods of discipline aren't something they want on film.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 17, 2009 8:35:23 GMT -5
I haven't seen the Duggar program, but from what I have seen, homeschooling families with many children spaced closely together really don't seem to get much actual schooling done... eventually the kids learn to read and write, at at least a basic level, and then they're put in charge of their own education and tossed a couple books, AND usually put in charge of teaching the younger ones what little they do know.
But on the other hand, I got a pretty great education through 8th grade homeschooling, but my mother had a masters degree, both parents really stressed education, we only had 5, and they were significantly spaced out in age. Otherwise... it's not really effective.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Jun 17, 2009 22:34:01 GMT -5
And a couple of episodes ago, they showed Michelle working with a few of the little ones, but she couldn't get them to sit still long enough to get anything done. Is this simply bad editing? Excitement due to the cameras? Or maybe the usual methods of discipline aren't something they want on film. I have 9 kids and my oldest two scored 28 an 30 on the ACT the first try, and graduated college with honors. My home schooling has consisted of teaching them to read, compute and follow instructions. From there much of it is following a guided course of learning with high quality materials I hand selected for them to read from and study. I have always had veto power over library books. (Only good, quality literature, no twaddle) Each of the children has or will take music/piano lessons, and three have learned strings. (My 21 year old is a music major, cello.) Over the years my children added their own elements, such as a list and rating of all the books (and later, movies) they have read formed in a database. Without a television in the house the children find creative ways to fill their free time. One year my oldest daughter read the complete works of Shakespeare and Dickens simply because she was bored and they were on the shelf, then memorized the sovereigns of England for fun. (Okay, maybe my kids are odd. She's read Les Miserables twice!) While the older children are "doing school" the younger ones run about and do their own thing with their toys or color, etc. Classroom discipline is unnecessary at home. Laying in the back yard reading Shakespeare is school. (My 10 year old reads The Children's Homer by his closet light after bedtime) My children considered me "over the top" with mathematics and grammar, but they never had a problem in college with any courses. (My eldest has a BS in Accounting.) I do not have a college degree only because I quit school to have babies. What a successful home educator needs most is a strong entrepeneurial spirit and a love of learning. Simply having a desire to shelter one's children will not provide the right environment for children to succeed learning at home. Although I've moved out of the quivering mindset, I still believe that home education can be exceptional. But it is not for every parent, and it is not for every child. (BTW, it never seemed like we got anything done either, but we must have!)
|
|
|
Post by hope505 on Aug 12, 2009 17:41:24 GMT -5
|
|