Jump to content
IGNORED

John Maxwell in three vehicle accident!


SPHASH

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, MamaJunebug said:

the Teriverse According To Stevus

 

This needs to become an FJ thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

Did they ever find out what was wrong with Susannah? 

I've always thought that it might have been a trisomy related cause, because when Melanie was pregnant with Abby Nathan posted something about how with this pregnancy they were doing the 12 week nuchal translucency scans and blood test, alluding to the complications with Susannah. I remember this particular post because he went on his high horse a bit about how this is known as the Down Syndrome test and they didn't want to do it but wanted to be prepared and it wouldn't affect any decisions. And I wanted to be like, dude, do whatever tests you want! No rational person is going to judge you for it or question your motives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

Did they ever find out what was wrong with Susannah? 

We discussed it on the tail end of the Ted Cruz thread. Not handslapping, just saying in case you want to read the full range of responses there. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:pb_surprised: I'm glad John's OK, but wasn't it also Good Friday last year when Amy had her car crash? Bit freaky, that coincidence!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think Stevehovah will take this as a sign that none of the Maxwells should ever leave the house again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Justme said:

Why was John in the car alone?! :shock:  Where was his chaperone????

The males in the family seem to be able to travel freely.  But, that's another thing that doesn't make sense in Maxworld.

Joseph's reason for not moving into his house when he was still single was he wouldn't be able to be accountable to anyone, and couldn't convince the father of his future bride he wasn't alone in his home watching porn (he didn't word it exactly like that but I assumed that's what he meant).

But John travels for his business, and even attends agriculture conventions out of town.  Who is he being accountable to on those trips?

That family makes no sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Screamapillar said:

I've always thought that it might have been a trisomy related cause, because when Melanie was pregnant with Abby Nathan posted something about how with this pregnancy they were doing the 12 week nuchal translucency scans and blood test, alluding to the complications with Susannah. I remember this particular post because he went on his high horse a bit about how this is known as the Down Syndrome test and they didn't want to do it but wanted to be prepared and it wouldn't affect any decisions. And I wanted to be like, dude, do whatever tests you want! No rational person is going to judge you for it or question your motives.

A niece (on the fundie inlaws side) got pregnant in her 40s and announced it the moment the stick turned blue.  (Sort of the opposite of how I'd act)

Then, since everyone knew she was pregnant, when it turned out she had a molar pregnancy, so, she sent out long, descriptive emails to everyone (likely 100s of people) explaining that she was NOT having an abortion, that there was no way a molar pregnancy could produce a baby, and she was NOT having an abortion.... No Abortion!!!

It was clear she was worried that people would find out and assume she had an abortion.....

Another reason not to share all your business with everyone....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, griffin said:

they fall all over themselves saying the lord protected him. john walked away from the accident because "the lord was protecting him".  if the lord was protecting him, why did he let someone rear-end him?? 

Well if nothing happened, how would they know? :P

 

Steve, if you're reading this, don't forget to check out the ads!

Screenshot_2016-03-26-09-38-52.thumb.jpg

Modest swimwear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Justme said:

Why was John in the car alone?! :shock:  Where was his chaperone????

I wonder if he had to exchange information with a woman driver.

Also, it looks like he was in a residential neighborhood, and was driving a big truck.  What must have hit him to cause such damage?  A moving van?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that is galling about Sarah's post that she did not show any concern for the other drivers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so, @SPHASH.  She specifically writes that they thank God for his protection over everybody,

"...we're so grateful for The Lord's protection over all involved."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend Minna asked if anyone else involved in the crash was injured?

 

Minna is an older lady, she'd wrap me round the fence if I called her elderly, and she calls things as she sees them. These old German relatives aren't anyone to mess with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, anniebgood said:

AsMy friend Minna asked if anyone else involved in the crash was injured?

 

Minna is an older lady, she'd wrap me round the fence if I called her elderly, and she calls things as she sees them. These old German relatives aren't anyone to mess with. 

No, no one involved in the crash was seriously injured.  They wrote that John was a little body sore that evening.

And none of those old European battle axes are anybody to mess with. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I zoomed in on the photo with John and is that a female police officer he's talking to??? Steve must be losing his mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, salex said:

A niece (on the fundie inlaws side) got pregnant in her 40s and announced it the moment the stick turned blue.  (Sort of the opposite of how I'd act)

Then, since everyone knew she was pregnant, when it turned out she had a molar pregnancy, so, she sent out long, descriptive emails to everyone (likely 100s of people) explaining that she was NOT having an abortion, that there was no way a molar pregnancy could produce a baby, and she was NOT having an abortion.... No Abortion!!!

It was clear she was worried that people would find out and assume she had an abortion.....

Another reason not to share all your business with everyone....

I'm very sorry I think I voted your comment negative. I didn't mean it. It was my phone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, salex said:

....!!

It was clear she was worried that people would find out and assume she had an abortion.....

Another reason not to share all your business with everyone....

Not to derail the discussion but this triggered memories of my aunts & uncles--always ready to assume the worst and *always* ready to bring shame upon you.

On reflection, this isn't a derailment at all: I imagine shame and blame continue to be tools used well and often in Maxhell to keep everyone in line. 

Possibly even Steve. I rather imagine Teri has become skilled at little word  jabs, and I wouldn't be surprised if John, perhaps, just comes straight out to his face and gigs him -- all wrapped in that irrepressible John independence, of course. 

Of course, P. Sarah never writes about that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SPHASH said:

Another thing that is galling about Sarah's post that she did not show any concern for the other drivers

It is almost like the part of everyone being okay is an afterthought. John being okay is all that matters. When I was in a weather related accident a few years ago, I was very thankful that I did not have my child in the backseat and that I did not hit any other vehicles. Someone even stopped to check on me because she noticed a carseat in the back and was concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John was able to talk to the female police officer without a chaperone?  There must have been extra Bible time @ the House of Maxhell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. So. I'm a philosophy student and I'm procrastinating, so I'm gonna say some stuff about theodicy and then go back to weeping over existential philosophy.

One of the things that really confounds me about fundies is how readily and blindly they fall into the problem of theodicy. Theodicy is essentially asking the question "how can evil happen if God exists and loves us" or "why do bad things happen to some people and not others". Fundies have no way of explaining this. They hold that everything that 1) God is omnipotent and 2) God does is definitionally good. Which would imply that everything that is, is good (to paraphrase Alexander Pope). Including things that we universally consider bad (war, sickness, famine, housefires, car accidents, etc.). Including things that fundies think are bad (premarital sex, abortion, women with college degrees). Because all these things have come into being in a world that (even though it is "fallen") is still controlled totally and utterly by God. To say that these things only exist because we are "fallen" would be to imply that God is not in control or that God does not love us (both of which directly contradict the Bible). Fundies have no solution for this, nor do they have any way to address the fact that God saves some kids and not others; they can't explain their own sadness at the death of a loved one (they try to mask it in platitudes about "Going Home to be with God", but they still mourn-- even though they believe they'll see that person again). It's so philosophically inconsistent.

Disclaimer: I know many people of faith (including myself) grapple with problems of theodicy. I'm not saying that all Christians are foolish for being Christian. Most religious people actually acknowledge problems of theodicy, and hundreds of years of Christian thought (and religious thought of all kinds) has concerned itself with these questions. I am criticizing fundies for living lives of totally unexamined faith. Not for having faith in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sockinshoe, you said it 1000 times better than I could, but that is what drives me crazy about fundies.

Several years ago, when the Maxwells were still traveling extensively, John wrote a post about praying he would see the Northern Lights where they were traveling.  Sure enough God granted his prayer!!

I would have a very hard time with a God who would grant me the ability to see the Northern Lights, but not answer prayers for Susannah.  It seems like it cheapens their beliefs to pray for, and be granted, such minor things, but not such a  major thing.

Actually, Teri's story about God providing a cell phone case is much, much worse of an example of that kind of thing, now that I think of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kpmom said:

@sockinshoe, you said it 1000 times better than I could, but that is what drives me crazy about fundies.

Several years ago, when the Maxwells were still traveling extensively, John wrote a post about praying he would see the Northern Lights where they were traveling.  Sure enough God granted his prayer!!

I would have a very hard time with a God who would grant me the ability to see the Northern Lights, but not answer prayers for Susannah.  It seems like it cheapens their beliefs to pray for, and be granted, such minor things, but not such a  major thing.

Actually, Teri's story about God providing a cell phone case is much, much worse of an example of that kind of thing, now that I think of it.

 

Never mind God's timing on the pizza. I mean, really. God has a plan for Steve to order pizza in a timely fashion (so Teri's parents are not left hungry/undersugared) but not a plan to protect their granddaughter?

On a super personal note, I get really mad when people cheapen God in this manner. Maybe because the God I may or may not believe in is the Old Testament God. But the God who commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, who floods the world, who smites Sodom and Gomorrah... The God of the Ten Plagues is not a god who cares if little Teri Maxwell has 1 or 2 or 75 cans of pepsi. They act like God is a really helpful neighbour-- there when you need a lawnmower or want to go to the zoo-- and not an ontologically different, radically transcendent being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve must have been reading here yesterday because Minna's comment didn't get posted. I'll tell her tomorrow at Easter dinner and she'll probably have another glass of wine and say he's a fool. I tell her about them and she rolls her eyes and says how does anyone exist like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that since Superman/Stud John has been rear ended Stevie will use this as a guy who strayed from the flock... not just for him but the Jessie too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sockinshoe said:

One of the things that really confounds me about fundies is how readily and blindly they fall into the problem of theodicy. Theodicy is essentially asking the question "how can evil happen if God exists and loves us" or "why do bad things happen to some people and not others". Fundies have no way of explaining this. They hold that everything that 1) God is omnipotent and 2) God does is definitionally good. Which would imply that everything that is, is good (to paraphrase Alexander Pope). Including things that we universally consider bad (war, sickness, famine, housefires, car accidents, etc.). Including things that fundies think are bad (premarital sex, abortion, women with college degrees). Because all these things have come into being in a world that (even though it is "fallen") is still controlled totally and utterly by God. To say that these things only exist because we are "fallen" would be to imply that God is not in control or that God does not love us (both of which directly contradict the Bible).

A definition quibble: actually, theodicy isn't asking the question.  Theodicy is defined as a theological construct that attempts to vindicate God in response to the evidential problem of evil that militates against the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity. (The word can be literally translated as 'justifying God'.)

It's a pretty interesting and important topic to me, but I wouldn't be surprised it's far too intellectual a pursuit for the likes of the Maxwells.  I doubt they spend much if any time considering the details and ramifications of their beliefs.  Have they ever considered questions like "If evil exists because of the Fall, why did God allow the Fall?" :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.