Lori Alexander: Valentine's Day Causes Divorce

[theologygeek]

Or you are not a fundie Christian who believes that the literal, surface meaning is the only interpretation possible for a Biblical text.

I'm not an expert on fundamentalist Christian bible interpretation, so I'll leave it to others to debate that with you. Proverbs, however, is part of the Hebrew Bible, which means that Jews interpret its meaning as well. I can assure you that I've studied Proverbs with Orthodox Jewish scholars who do not state that it is a command to literally strike your child with a rod.

1. The book of Proverbs doesn't contain commandments at all. Commandments are found in the Five Books of Moses. Proverbs come from the teaching/wisdom of King Solomon.

2. If you are going to try to interpret Proverbs 23:13-14, read ALL of Proverbs 23. Proverbs 23:1-2 says that if you sit down to dine with a king and have a big appetite, you should thrust a knife into your throat. Obviously, THAT'S not supposed to be taken literally. The whole thing is written in verse, not prose, and it all uses really emphatic language, basically as a metaphor.

I can assure you that I've studied Proverbs with Christian scholars who stated that it was a command to literally strike your child with a rod. From there, beliefs differ on whether individual Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled the laws of the OT.

[treemom]

And when Jesus referred to love your neighbor he gave the parable of the Good Samaritan not the Parable of the Submissive Housewife. That was my point. In context, cleary he wasn't saying what Ken says he was saying.

Not that I think the bible was a transcription of what Jesus said.

[docmom]

If the Bible is really telling me to submit to my husband and beat my children and insist that the world is only 6,000 years old, then it is absolutely not for me. I did once believe. Fundies contributed hugely to my developing disbelief. I can assure Ken that, like street preachers, people like him and Lori turn a lot more people away from Christianity than they bring to it.

[latraviata]

I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer: Obviously I do not agree that hitting one's children is the best way to go about child-rearing. What Ken has done is taught his kids to survive miserable circumstances. What you are talking about is giving kids the tools to thrive in any circumstances. The latter will always be preferable to the former.

You were perfectly clear and I wholeheartedly agreed with you, Ken rears his children with the goal of surviving, you on the other hand rear your children to change the world and the latter is a far better starting point than Ken's.

His rearing is based on fear, your's is not.

[OkToBeTakei]

If the Bible is really telling me to submit to my husband and beat my children and insist that the world is only 6,000 years old, then it is absolutely not for me. I did once believe. Fundies contributed hugely to my developing disbelief. I can assure Ken that, like street preachers, people like him and Lori turn a lot more people away from Christianity than they bring to it.

See this is where I have a problem also. Ken seems to speak from such a tiny mindset I just can't comprehend it.

The largest difference between Ken and I is the fact that I respect his faith. I also respect 2xx1xy1JD's Judaism. Other members atheism. I respect the Muslim faith and well you get my drift.

Ken's form of 'mine' is the true path is no different to me, than the 'evil' Muslims who wish to harm you because you know....theirs is the truth path also.

It is absolutely my own prejudices and upbringing that makes me side eye anybody who claims to be saved or professes to know they have been saved. I just think cheesy American TV shows, make up your own religion to fit your life etc and as docmom said, the whole street preaching malarkey.

I just wonder if he respects the fact that his particular brand of religion and bible interpretation makes up a very, very small part of the world. So Heaven (should it exist) is going to be full of conservative evangelical Americans? It just seems a bit arrogant and also terribly naive.

Galatians 3:28

Not often I pull a bible quote.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I can assure you that I've studied Proverbs with Christian scholars who stated that it was a command to literally strike your child with a rod. From there, beliefs differ on whether individual Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled the laws of the OT.

I don't doubt that there are some Christian scholars with that position, esp. since it gets taught in fundie circles. Christian is a pretty big umbrella category.

I'm just saying that there are more possible interpretations of Proverbs than (1) "thou shalt literally beat your child with a rod", or (2) well, it did command us to literally beat with a rod, but Jesus got rid of that law.

[Koala]

Mom:

I had one that would never give in to anything, regardless of punishment, spanking did nothing but make her worse, time outs where a joke, finally I picked her up and threw her under a cold shower

Lori Alexander:

A spanking will work if it is hard enough

Mom:

Not with her, we tried hand, and although I was against it belt, wooden spoon, cane everything she would just keep going, I stopped after I thought I broke her arm...

Ken Alexander:

Listen I get the issue that we need to protect against abuse, but you know full well this was not an abusive mother.

Ken, you assert that this mother was not abusive. If this does not constitute abuse, can you explain what does?

[formergothardite]

I'm sort of bouncing off you here, formergothardite. A few thoughts: Lori's blog is Lori's one true domain (pun intended). Without it, she would have no way for anyone to listen to her and make her feel important. That's what Lori's 'advice column' is. It's a way for her to feel important in a marriage where she doesn't. But of course, the more she spews her dominionist bullshit, the less convincing she becomes. She's only using dominionism to try and get what she wants in her marriage, but ultimately can't. She's chasing her own tail, but has no clue:

Ken acts like an ass to Lori, remains unapologetic --->

Lori, feeling at fault for Ken's poor behavior towards her, tightens her own reigns, using dominionism as both an excuse and a means to an end --->

Ken continues to treat Lori like crap --->

Lori continues to tighten her own reigns, again feeling at fault and etc, etc.

She's cutting off her oxygen supply to try and save her own life. Never gonna happen. Anyways, my point here is that from what I see, Lori uses her blog, and more specifically her Q&A to pretend that others "need" her. Because she knows Ken doesn't, at least not emotionally. She's mostly home all day. She primarily sees kids and hubby. So if he's not providing her with a sense of self-worth, and she's never figured out how to have it for herself on her own, she has to get it somewhere. So ultimately, this leads us to Ken refusing to answer questions about her Q&A or acknowledge its poor quality, because he knows it provides her with her only sense of self-worth and thus is the only glue holding her (and the marriage) together. This is my personal opinion. Perhaps I am off the mark, but I am telling what I see from where I am sitting.

I agree. I think she has no power anywhere else and this blog is her outlet to get to tell people what to do and feel important. Without it I bet her marriage would be much harder because she would not have the outlet to make her feel that she is important and that she has control over something. I also think Ken realizes this and that is why he hasn't touched any of the posts where he would have to end up admitting she isn't qualified to do this. He knows that without this blog their life isn't going to run as smoothly and that it will be harder for Lori to be submissive.

So despite his claims that he is really, truly an honest Christian who won't deflect questions, when it comes to this sort of question he is going to ignore and deflect as best he can.

[Pam]

I'm a little late to the party, so this that I am quoting is a ways back in this thread.....

...but let's assume that Adam and Eve were 100% partners in everything, what do you do with Genesis 3:16: "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Is it possible that God is assigning roles fr their marriage here and as it turns out those roles are played out throughout the OT with only a few exceptions like the judge Deborah? Why would God make 100% partners yet it never happen in real life of the OT and the life of Israel?

Or is it possible that God is not assigning roles for their marriage here, but is warning Eve about how her husband would now behave towards her because of "The Fall", viewing her as just another creature that needed to be ruled over rather than as a human being like himself and a co-ruler opposite him? What do you do with Genesis 1:26-28:

"26 Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'

27 So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.' "

Is it possible that God created mankind, male and female, to be equal co-rulers of the earth?

[treehugger]

I'm a little late to the party, so this that I am quoting is a ways back in this thread.....

Or is it possible that God is not assigning roles for their marriage here, but is warning Eve about how her husband would now behave towards her because of "The Fall", viewing her as just another creature that needed to be ruled over rather than as a human being like himself and a co-ruler opposite him? What do you do with Genesis 1:26-28:

"26 Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'

27 So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.' "

Is it possible that God created mankind, male and female, to be equal co-rulers of the earth?

I agree with you, Pam. I always took Genesis 3:16 as a part of the ancient curse on sin. It isn't the ideal to be achieved, but rather a curse - as in, now her husband would not treat with the dignity and respect she was created for. Just another one of the horrid things like working with the sweat of your brow for peanuts and having horrific pain during childbirth. And, I always assumed (silly me) that just as we now have pain relief that a woman can request during labor and childbirth, and just as we have so many wonderful tools to decrease the actual amount of physical labor we do (so you know, not all men have to work by the sweat of their brow for very little profit), we would also be able to look at this part of the curse and say, "okay, this isn't the perfect way to have a marriage - lets improve on this also. Let's make a woman an equal partner in a marriage again - after all, she too was created in God's image". I absolutely don't believe for one split second that God was assigning marriage rules here. After all, if you believe in the Bible - then you must have a basic understanding that the world after Genesis was no longer perfect in any way.

Btw, this is a bit off topic, but totally hilarious... RHE has an incredible blog post on taking the Bible literally when interpreting the passages relating to women and how loosely men interpret it when it pertains to them: rachelheldevans.com/blog/men-titus-2-treatment

[Ken]

Drat, this has turned into a long post. Apologies.

What on earth DO you do that it's thousands?

I have no buttons in my editor that work so I have to post my responses this way. I apologize if it is confusing in answering your questions:

Why is it the wife's task to change her husband?

Ken: It is not the wife’s responsibility to change her husband, but rather her responsibility to change herself and her attitudes. This is precisely Lori’s message that she cannot help these wives’ husbands but she can help the wives to be better wives and more lovable so that IF the husband is going to change he will be more likely to do so with an inviting bride instead of a sour bride.

Why can he not self-determine enough to realise for himself when he's being a 'real jerk'? Why isn't it possible for him to grow up enough to understand for himself that he shouldn't engage in 'neglect, disdain, affairs'? Isn't it true that a man of this character is not fit for either marriage or leadership in the first place?

Ken: Possibly, but aren’t many young men not ready for marriage then a few years later grow up? You are under the impression that if Lori teaches her to push and pull and make demands that this will be a better avenue to get change from the husband? Lori never sees demanding and moods work , but almost ALWAYS sees showing a husband like this with undeserved kindness be the biggest kick in the butt you a husband to change, It is the way of Jesus and how he asks us to be with our neighbor and our enemies.

This is a complete paradox: you say women must submit to their husbands in marriage, but some men are clearly not fit to be submitted to.

Ken: I find something very interesting in appointing managers and in marriages that often when the team or wife lets the leader lead, they step up to the place and begin to live out their responsibilities. Many a woman Lori have counseled has walked into the TV room and handed the husband the check book and said, “Honey, you are supposed to be in charge of the finances, if you need help knowing what bills needs to be paid just ask and I will show you how it is done.†The wife often does everything because she cannot live with his timing or his potentially getting the household “in trouble†when that may be exactly what he needs to grow up. Let him lead and love him all the way down and back up again if that is what it takes.

Why isn't it the task of other men to point this out, and to stand up for the women who are suffering, instead of blaming them?

Ken: Men are supposed to point this out and we do. I had to talk to my son about helping his wife and other things and he stepped up and is doing it. But remember, many women love to be in control so they want their man to do things their way and their timing. Submission demands that you let him lead and figure it out, no pushing and pulling… just loving him until he figures it out. Not all men need this level of laissez-faire but others do. I certainly would step in and talk to this young man.

Why should it be the wife's task, by submitting to the 'neglect, disdain, affairs' to further compound the misery she undergoes in the hope that it will lead to a change of heart. Why can't she stand there and say 'Husband, you're a real jerk. Shape up or ship out. Your behaviour harms me, my children and you. It can't go on.'

Ken: Have you seen that work as a good model for change? I am not opposed to it, especially if it is said once and then dropped for a week or so to allow for change time. But as Lori says, there are few women who do not speak their mind. That is not usually the problem. The problem often is that she is speaking her mind all day long and he is tuning her out. She is disrespecting him and her regularly and he is ignoring her now. This happens often in marriage. How do you stop the Crazy Cycle? One person, husband or wife has to start doing their part even if the other does not follow immediately. Eventually good people will start doing what is the right thing if the feel loved and respected. This goes both ways, but Lori is dealing with the woman and that is the only one she can try to affect change with. Change the woman and the man usually follows close behind her. Sometimes it takes two years, like the wife who called Lori today and they both cried on the phone with joy because her husband is loving her again and treating her with respect. She was a nag and difficult wife and he told her he was leaving, but she change and he has not left and appears to be moving towards a fully restored marriage. The woman says to Lori every time they meet, “thank you! You were the only one who gave me hope. Everyone else told me to leave the jerk, but you gave me God’s ways and I can see them coming true in my marriage.â€

Ken: This is not an infrequent message to Lori… success and after success based on loving the unlovable husband that remember, she married. We believe all marriages should stay together and it should be for life. So now how will you win over your difficult husband or difficult wife? Love them and serve them the way Jesus does us.

Artemis writes in Italics & Ken responds in regular type:

Why must she manoeuvre and manipulate - instead of address as an equal the fact that the man who promised her that he would love and cherish her is being a 'real jerk'?

Ken: No one is saying that she cannot address her husband as her equal, because he is her equal. Get it straight that equality and authority are two different things. I am equal with the clients who hire me and their staff members are equal to me, but my role is to listen to and serve my client who has the ultimate responsibility for his/her office, and the team members listen and serve me as I implement change in the office. Authority has little to do with Equality. As a matter of fact my children are more important than I am and I make it that way, even if I have/had authority over them. This is a common misconception in both management and in the discussion of leadership roles in a marriage.

Ken: The issue is how does she confront him. Is it in love or is it with maneuvers and manipulation. The latter rarely works in obtaining any change in human behavior, yet Lori’s little aspirin works regularly to put a marriage back together again and keep it strong.

It's basically, isn't it Ken, because your lifestyle rules (SAHM, no work, no education for girls) have put her in a position where she can only negotiate from a position of weakness. The chips are stacked against her. She has no way of getting out, no way of providing for herself, and no way of removing herself from an abusive position, so what it comes down to is that you and Lori, are saying to women: 'There is no way out for you, so submission is your only option'.

Ken: Lori and I did not put her in any situation all we are trying to do is help her out of a bad situation. In our area half the women work, and many of them are professionals, so they can get out if they choose, but they believe in God and what He says… divorce is wrong, work it out.

Dress it up however you like, but a choice that boundaried is not choice at all. You are really saying 'Tough. You're married. Make the best of it and hope, because a lifestyle choice for fundamental Christianity gives women no bargaining power. They are inferior because of the sin of Eve, and inferior they will remain.'

Ken: Again, you may be relating this to some churches in Texas or the South, but it is few now a days. A large number of these women work and wished they could be SaHM’s. If you visited us what you would see is church pews filled with high status, highly educated women who work full and part time jobs making lots of money, and hate leaving their children. But each day they drop them off for someone else to raise them and discipline them. This si their choice, but why can’t Lori be a voice of warning to these women so that they will at least think about what they are doing instead of just following the world’s new ways.

Ken: Lori teaches SaHM is the best for the wife and the children, and not for control or inferiority. We as Christians do not consider our women inferior in any way. Wives are every bit our equals and they decide if and when they willingly submit to us. A submissive wife is not always submissive but the attitude of wanting to please her husband does characterize her life. If she feels strongly about something she may not submit. My wife is not submitting to me on some issues I would like to see changed or modified on her blog. Are you shocked??? We are working it through, and no, I do not force her to do anything. I ask, suggest but I do not force or push and pull. That too is unbecoming a loving husband. It goes both ways on a Christian marriage and I can tell you that I try to please Lori every bit or more than she tries to please me. You only see one side in her writings because she is only dealing with one side… the women.

And HOW LONG is a woman expected to try this submission? We're not living in a Victorian tract novel, Ken. This isn't one of those books where the abused wife dies in a saintly fashion having suffered unto the last, and her husband undergoes a conversion experience, realising that he should never have been such an (ultimately terminally abusive) 'real jerk', turns to Christ, and lives happily ever after. The woman is dead - no second chances for her.

Ken: I guess we do not get to make that decision for her. The wife above who it took 18-24 months and there is still work to do, Lori begins many sessions with her asking this question. What does it look like for you if you leave him? You can always leave him, but you cannot always ty to make the marriage work out. So you tell me how much you would fight for your husband and marriage and so the children have Dad and Mom at home. We don’t keep couples together, but we do bring reality to the situation that a divorce may not be the easy fix it may look like.

Ken: Yes, Christianity is demanding. Take up your cross daily is our command. You tell me how much you will put up with, and how much you desire to serve Jesus by serving your husband. Lori can’t make that decision for wives.

Further to your previous reply: I accused you of condoning marital violence. You returned that when I misrepresented you, I lost credibility, and evidenced your NOT condoning physical violence by quoting a post in which you said it was OK for a man to 'pin' his wife to the wall, to embrace her with restraining power. Ken, this uses physical violence to prove a point. It is abuse. If you can't see that I am very, very sorry for you.

Ken: Be sorry for me if you like, but reread the post. First it was a suggestion to a couple exploring what he should do when she is out of control. She said she would appreciate such attention and his being physical in these ways. Being physical will a spouse and physical abuse are two different things, especially if it is consensual, which in this illustration it is.

Physical abuse is an act of another party involving contact intended to cause feelings of physical pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm.

Ken: My illustration had no intent to cause pain, injury or any suffering or bodily harm AND no harm would come from it.

[Ken]

Response to Artemis' questions cont.

Ken: I find you credible in other areas or at least reasonable, but not if you can take that illustration and call it abuse. Read the rebellious wife post again and you will see that such behavior by a husband is expected to be rare to never, AND to do something like that he must know his wife well enough to know it will be helpful to her, not harmful. I may take that illustration down if you find it so offensive, but really, your FJ group needs to stop thinking with your sensibilities and instead use the facts. Zero abuse, but you just don’t like the idea. Fine, tell your husband never to try it with you. That is all it takes, BUT a certain % of out of control, women appreciate when her husband steps in to and will physically hug her or hold her instead of running from her.

You also say in your last: 'What Lori teaches works'. No, what Lori teaches, has, if we are to believe your statistics, worked with a small minority, a subset of a subset of the population. Also, you have no idea, really, do you, of those people for whom it has NOT worked? We're not exactly talking a double-blind randomised, peer-reviewed trial here, are we? The issue, is that even as you say you are less black-and-white than Lori, even you talk in absolutes.

Ken: Lori’s subset is quite clear and that is CHRISTIAN wives who desire to have great marriages and to get those great marriages they are willing to be like Jesus to their husbands. It is no wonder the gospel offends people because you cannot see actually giving up selfishness so that you can gain the love of a difficult husband. No, you want equality and so equality you will get. We do not seek equality in a Christian marriage but we seek self-sacrifice and being sold out on pleasing our spouse even if that mean I have to sacrifice at times. Jesus tell some to take up my cross, Trust me, I took up my cross in my marriage for many years and loved a difficult wife. I could easily be divorced today, but my love won her to me, and she is my love for life and a great wife. How can you with no Jesus living in you understand what this means. This is the big divide between us. I love having Jesus live in and though me. He calls me to love and sacrifice. If that does not start with my wife, where does it begin?

Ken: And what are you afraid of? Would your husband devalue and take advantage if you if you were to sellout for him and love him unconditionally, serving him even when he did not treat you equal? Or would he instead begin to treat you like his princess because his joy would be overflowing that you loved him so much not just to play “tit for tat†with him throughout life, but to sell out for him in complete love with one goal to please him. Or is your selfish spirit still demand you protect yourself from him? If so, you will never achieve the highest levels of love and intimacy. The highest levels are when both spouses are completely sold out for each other, but it often begins with just one.

You see, it's your ignorance, and Lori's that I take issue with. You set yourselves up as relationship gurus, and you have no authority to teach, and no knowledge or training in what you do, and no remedies except the universal panacea of 'submit and be loving.' Did you bother to read my aspirin analogy?

Ken: No not at all. When aspirin works so universally in CHRISTIAN marriages we will pop an aspirin a day. Your context is wrong. You cannot put onto Lori what marriages are doing that are not Christian. God gives this prescription for Christian marriage, but it would not surprise me if it did not work in most marriages. There are some that need a surgeon and not an aspirin, we get it. But don’t tell Lori to stop passing out her aspirins just because some marriages have cancer. She did not create the cancer and perhaps her aspirin did not heal them. She is not trying to be all things to all people.

Ken: Talk to me about credentials. What credentials are necessary to start a personal blog on marriage? She is not church affiliated. Not sponsored. This is a personal blog that has become quite popular.

Ken: How about a 33 year Christian marriage? How about 100+ marriage and family books read and digested. In today’s world experience can be better than any collage degree, but Lori dies have a University degree and a graduate degree. How about married to a husband who has 4 ½ years of graduate study in theology, psychology and human relations? You cannot tell me we are not fully qualified. In a church of 5,000+ who do you think they give the most women to be mentored to, and the toughest? Yes, Lori. And they also give us the toughest pre-marital couples because what Lori teaches works, and is 100% Biblical. If you have a problem it is with God and the Bible, not Lori.

In fact, why is it important to you that Lori should be a relationship guru? Why does she feel a need to impose her standards, world-view and opinion on people? Isn't this arrogant? Has she never thought that her time and limited energy should be better spent on the family?

Ken: As the family grew up and left the home Lori thought she would start a little blog with her aspirin solutions from the Bible. They are so simple. Then her blog grew because women are finding that her aspirin works. Why do you and your group have to bother her/us? Why can’t you leave us alone? You are the ones bullying us and sending nasty comments, trolling. What is wrong with you that you cannot allow freedom of speech? Is this some socialist dictator country or world now? Why won’t you fight for the rights of free speech and start your own blog if you like assailing the virtues of selling out in sacrifice for your spouse? We don’t care, so why do you all care so much about aspirin and the simplify of the gospel? I will tell you why because God says:

“Our lives are a Christ-like fragrance rising up to God. But this fragrance is perceived differently by those who are being saved and by those who are perishing. To those who are perishing, we are a dreadful smell of death and doom. But to those who are being saved, we are a life-giving perfume.†(2 Cor 2: 15-16).

Ken: You can see this so clearly. Each time she writes a post the Christian love all over it, and the nonbelievers don’t get it and find it offensive. If you cannot accept that Christianity is the way to salvation and eternal life, how do you ever expect to understand what we do and how we do it. You have already judged us as wrong based on your personal experience that you have found no God or Savior in Christ Jesus. But what if our experience, and the experience of the ones to whom we minister to is opposite of yours? What if we have found life in Christ and it is the right and real thing?

I'm arrogant, yes, and I express my opinion, oh, probably far too loudly and vehemently. But here's the kick, Ken. I don't presume I have authority to teach. I don't say 'because I believe in Christ, my word is inerrant and divinely inspired, and should be obeyed'. My word is just that - a word. You clearly believe - this is why I asked you about presuppositional apologetics and your response indicated that position - that you work from the basis of:

Ken: When Lori teaches she can give exactly what the Bible teaches and where it teaches it. If you have an issue with what Lori teaches because it is not found in the Bible, then I am all ears. Let’s talk because she should not be teaching it then. But if it is exactly what the Bible teaches, our authority is not in ourselves, but in The Word of God. My authority comes in multiple ways in this domain, and few have my credentials to speak God’s truths, but it is not my blog. I do not say that arrogantly, but practically. Just because I do not have a church of my own does not mean I do not have the credential to be the senior pastor of a church if I chose to do so. And I find Lori’s words to be mostly spot on Scripturally. Your argument is with God and His Word, not Lori.

I believe that the Bible is true. What tells me that the Bible is true? My heart tells me that the Bible is true. Why is my heart right? Because it tells me that the Bible, which tells me that the Bible is true, is true. Why do I believe that the Bible is true? Because my heart tells me that it is true. It's called a circular argument, and you believe it gives you authority and infallibility in argument. It is impossible to prove you wrong, because your faith means that you are right.

Ken: Totally wrong. There are hundreds and thousands of reasons my Bible is true and the biggest reason is that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was seen by over 5000 people. Why do you think Christianity grew to permeate the world? If Jesus had not risen from the dead don’t you think they would have produced his body? Why would all of the disciples and apostles die for a lie? Get the book “A Case for Faith†by Lee Strobel. A huge skeptic starts out to prove Christianity is invalid and the Bible a farce and ends up being one of its greatest apologists.

Ken: Read the New Testament onetime with an open mind and “A case for Faith†then come back to discuss with me with opened eyes and not blind to the truth of God and His word.

But you, you and your wife, from this position of absolute authority, you make of the word a burden which you bind on men's backs, and you use it to condone practices that Christ himself would have been ashamed to admit. Can you see the Christ of the Bible ever striking a child? 'Suffer the little ones to come unto me' he said. I don't see 'Let the little ones suffer' anywhere.

Ken: I am sorry… if you can show me in the Bible where we are wrong we will quickly change it. Perhaps we can even change the way we come across as Darn Right Christians as that is not our intent. In this area we probably have much to learn. Your admonitions are accepted, but we will always stand on God’s Word and invite all to evaluate the message for themselves. We do not want to do their thinking for them; we just want to point them to the Bible and to God’s Word and try to get ourselves out of the way of the message. It is not about us, we are not in this for ego or money, it is something thrust upon Lori because her aspirin is working in so many lives.

Can you see that Christ ever beating a child with a wooden spoon 'until he almost broke her wrist' as did the woman your wife counselled to 'spank them harder'?

Ken: No, I cannot, but I can see God the Father doing it. Just read the passages in Hebrews:

“For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and scourges every son whom he receives... God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?†(Hebrews 12:6-7).

Ken: You are not being fair or honest because not only does Lori’s advice come BEFORE she finds out about the arm, but also the arm issue is an accident with the child putting their hand in front of a swat. I do think Jesus expects us to raise disciplined children, and I do not think he wants us to use any excessive discipline. This girl sounds like she may be excessive, but it also sounds like she is not abusive. There was NO intent to hurt the arm, and abuse requires intent.

She is dismissive of women's struggles, operates from the point of view that they are more likely to be at fault than the man. There's no need to quote here - it's all over her work. She is hard of heart.

Ken: She can perhaps work on that. Lori dies not want to get in the way of her message. If she has areas to improve her writing style, and compassion, she can work on that. All I can do is suggest it and let her figure it out. She is a very good person who only wants to serve her Lord and Savior with al her heart.

But seriously, thousands? My husband is 62. In the course of a long career of being a gentleman and a gentle man he has worked with hundreds of women, as science research students, colleague on research ships, colleagues in the Opera Society, colleagues in choirs, colleagues in his tax department. About 80% of them female, as it happens. Allowing for 20 new women he meets professionally per year for 40 years working, that's 800. Given that some are client who come and go, that probably a maximum of 500 he's impacted seriously over the years.

Ken: 30 year career as a life and systems coach to offices. Average new clients is 20 a year. Average number of female staff 7. 30 x 20 x 7 = 4,200 women. And many of these offices I have visited multiple times, sometimes over many years. They cross off two days from their schedule just to talk to me in groups and in private, and many become my friends. They actually appreciate my wisdom because it works for them and I get many emails from team members thanking me for the changes I help them affect in their lives… all practical human relations stuff… not Bible stuff. So I know how to teach human change and thinking, but it is all band aids compared to a changed heart.

I have women telling me all about how women act and think for 30 years now and you all do not think very highly of yourselves at times. Give me 6 women in an office and one man and the man is almost never the problem. We men are simple, you women much more complex and complicated.

I have clients in England and Europe too, and I do separate my personal faith from business. But one orthodontist in England called me and told me she wanted to know about the Jesus that a friend was talking to her about. She had just been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and she died of it 3-6 months later after becoming a Christian.

I apologize that some of my words may come across tough or uncaring, worse yet know it all or condemning, and with typos you must suffer through. My sincerely apologies for all I am putting you though. I am not trying to be difficult, I am simply trying to help others on this Forum understand what and why Lori is writing her blog. There is no evil intent, and she is not trying to be Dr. Laura or Sheila. She is Lori, with lots to offer Christian wives. Sorry no time to proof.

[Ken]

What are you, some kind of a new age hippie? Who raises their children to change the world and help the poor? Where did you get such a crazy idea from? Obviously this conversation can't include you because you're not a good Christian. Good Christians don't care about that kind of nonsense. Heathen. Your mother didn't hit you enough, did she? I don't know what other explanation there could possibly be for having such an outlandish goal for your children.

I am not sue where this is coming from or what it is about, but if it is somehow in defense of Christianity or what we are doing with our kids, it will not be helpful here. I am trying to dialogue with what appears to be some good people here. They do not have my worldview and neither side is going to change much of each other's minds. All we can do is try and reason together and be decent to each other. If countries can get along, I am sure the Christians and non-Christians can get along even if we must agree to disagree, let's play nice and by that show which worldview has true love and great character.

[theologygeek]

I'm just saying that there are more possible interpretations of Proverbs than (1) "thou shalt literally beat your child with a rod", or (2) well, it did command us to literally beat with a rod, but Jesus got rid of that law.

That's what I said in the first place.

[formergothardite]

You want to go on about how she has the qualifications, yet her blog clearly shows a woman who operates by giving blanket advice for situations she doesn't know all the details for all while operating from a position of negative bias towards women and making assumptions about the situation. AND while apparently not realizing she was promoting a very obvious rape advocate. All of this pretty much negates all of her other qualifications. She had to wait for US to point out that she gave advice to hit harder to a woman who had to been hitting her child with belts and canes and had worried about breaking bones before YOU made a response. She didn't catch it. You didn't catch it. We did. A good mentor would not have given the advice to spank harder without knowing the whole situation and upon hearing the whole situation would have immediately responded.

By the way, I did tell my husband to leave at one point. It had nothing to do with me being disrespectful or nonsubmissive. And that is what saved our marriage.

[theologygeek]

Consider asking your husband if he would be willing to spank you as part of foreplay.

Ewwww geez, they're both perverts. Perverts obsess over their fetish and talk about it in a different context so no one finds out that they are really getting off on the conversation. Normal couples who like to do the above during play time don't talk about it over and over with strangers on the internet and pass it off as a discipline discussion. No wonder why Ken won't shut up about spanking. He's a pig.

[Ken]

Or you are not a fundie Christian who believes that the literal, surface meaning is the only interpretation possible for a Biblical text.

I'm not an expert on fundamentalist Christian bible interpretation, so I'll leave it to others to debate that with you. Proverbs, however, is part of the Hebrew Bible, which means that Jews interpret its meaning as well. I can assure you that I've studied Proverbs with Orthodox Jewish scholars who do not state that it is a command to literally strike your child with a rod.

1. The book of Proverbs doesn't contain commandments at all. Commandments are found in the Five Books of Moses. Proverbs come from the teaching/wisdom of King Solomon.

2. If you are going to try to interpret Proverbs 23:13-14, read ALL of Proverbs 23. Proverbs 23:1-2 says that if you sit down to dine with a king and have a big appetite, you should thrust a knife into your throat. Obviously, THAT'S not supposed to be taken literally. The whole thing is written in verse, not prose, and it all uses really emphatic language, basically as a metaphor.

If your Jewish scholars do not allow for spanking a child, please tell em what they do with this verse in the law? Are you going to tell me that there is not something a parent should do that is far more drastic than "time out" before they take their child to the elders to be stoned to death?

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Deut. 21:18-21.

And yes, modern Jewish scholars have a way of interpreting many passages of scripture as figurative and not literal, but to take them literally means they would have to deal with passages like these concerning the Messiah which point right to Jesus, as your Messiah.

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn." (Zech 12:10)

Isaiah 53 is all about the Messiah... and it all came true in Jesus. How do they interpret this too: (who I wish I could bold or highlight!!! pierced, lamb led to slaughter, died for our sins... Who is this if it is not Jesus?

Who has believed what he has heard from us?[a]

And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

For he grew up before him like a young plant,

and like a root out of dry ground;

he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,

and no beauty that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by men;

a man of sorrows,[c] and acquainted with[d] grief;[e]

and as one from whom men hide their faces[f]

he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs

and carried our sorrows;

yet we esteemed him stricken,

smitten by God, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;

upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,

and with his wounds we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray;

we have turned—every one—to his own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,

yet he opened not his mouth;

like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,

and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,

so he opened not his mouth.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away;

and as for his generation, who considered

that he was cut off out of the land of the living,

stricken for the transgression of my people?

And they made his grave with the wicked

and with a rich man in his death,

although he had done no violence,

and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;

he has put him to grief;[g]

when his soul makes[h] an offering for guilt,

he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;

the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;

by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,

make many to be accounted righteous,

and he shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,[j]

and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,[k]

because he poured out his soul to death

and was numbered with the transgressors;

yet he bore the sin of many,

and makes intercession for the transgressors.

[theologygeek]

I am not sue where this is coming from or what it is about, but if it is somehow in defense of Christianity or what we are doing with our kids, it will not be helpful here. I am trying to dialogue with what appears to be some good people here. They do not have my worldview and neither side is going to change much of each other's minds. All we can do is try and reason together and be decent to each other. If countries can get along, I am sure the Christians and non-Christians can get along even if we must agree to disagree, let's play nice and by that show which worldview has true love and great character.

Nothing gets by you, huh? Seriously though, how can you interpret a bible when you can't even figure out what dry sarcasm is?

[formergothardite]

"I am equal with the clients who hire me and their staff members are equal to me, but my role is to listen to and serve my client who has the ultimate responsibility for his/her office, and the team members listen and serve me as I implement change in the office"

You were hired for your job because the people in charge thought that you showed good leadership skills, not because you had a penis. If after hiring you, you demonstrated that you did not have the skills to be a good leader, they would not humble sit there and let you ruin the business and try to change you by submitting more. You would get fired.

"A submissive wife is not always submissive but the attitude of wanting to please her husband does characterize her life. If she feels strongly about something she may not submit. My wife is not submitting to me on some issues I would like to see changed or modified on her blog. Are you shocked??? We are working it through, and no, I do not force her to do anything. I ask, suggest but I do not force or push and pull. That too is unbecoming a loving husband."

If this is true then Lori needs to post this on her blog immediately. Let the people who view her as always submitting know that not only is it okay for a wife to not submit when they feel strongly about something, but she is not submitting to your requests. If she does not do this, then she is lying by omission by making her readers think that she submits to you and that women should always submit.

What would Lori's advice be to a woman who said that she felt strongly about changes her husband wants her to make? I am 100% it wouldn't be, "well sometimes a woman doesn't have to submit if she feels strongly about it." it would be "Submit". She needs to start practicing what she preaches.

[OkToBeTakei]

I am not sue where this is coming from or what it is about, but if it is somehow in defense of Christianity or what we are doing with our kids, it will not be helpful here. I am trying to dialogue with what appears to be some good people here. They do not have my worldview and neither side is going to change much of each other's minds. All we can do is try and reason together and be decent to each other. If countries can get along, I am sure the Christians and non-Christians can get along even if we must agree to disagree, let's play nice and by that show which worldview has true love and great character.

Ken that above is called irony. I find it exceptionally worrying you are trying to interpret the bible and tell people how to live if you cannot see the glaringly obvious. It's a bit scary to be honest.

ETA. Apologies theologygeek I see you already explained. Just wow. Really?

[Stynjen]

"I am equal with the clients who hire me and their staff members are equal to me, but my role is to listen to and serve my client who has the ultimate responsibility for his/her office, and the team members listen and serve me as I implement change in the office"

You were hired for your job because the people in charge thought that you showed good leadership skills, not because you had a penis. If after hiring you, you demonstrated that you did not have the skills to be a good leader, they would not humble sit there and let you ruin the business and try to change you by submitting more. You would get fired.

"A submissive wife is not always submissive but the attitude of wanting to please her husband does characterize her life. If she feels strongly about something she may not submit. My wife is not submitting to me on some issues I would like to see changed or modified on her blog. Are you shocked??? We are working it through, and no, I do not force her to do anything. I ask, suggest but I do not force or push and pull. That too is unbecoming a loving husband."

If this is true then Lori needs to post this on her blog immediately. Let the people who view her as always submitting know that not only is it okay for a wife to not submit when they feel strongly about something, but she is not submitting to your requests. If she does not do this, then she is lying by omission by making her readers think that she submits to you and that women should always submit.

What would Lori's advice be to a woman who said that she felt strongly about changes her husband wants her to make? I am 100% it wouldn't be, "well sometimes a woman doesn't have to submit if she feels strongly about it." it would be "Submit". She needs to start practicing what she preaches.

:clap: :dance:

[theologygeek]

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Deut. 21:18-21. .

Nimrod, you know that God you're supposed to be worshiping? The Big J? He's not a fan of stoning.

This reminds me of a funny story. One day, my mother and I were having a discussion about the death penalty. My mother said that she believes in an eye for an eye. I said "Ma, Jesus did away with the eye for an eye command." My mother said in all innocence "Well I am going to have to disagree with him on that." LOL Ever since then, I get silly when I see Christians trying to prove a point that states something the opposite of what the God they claim to worship stated. They wouldn't dare say that they disagree with Jesus, but that is what they are doing. At least my mother owns up to it.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Ken:

The simple answer is that Jewish scholars do not follow a simple, literal reading of the Old Testament alone, but also have a much more extensive oral tradition (Talmud). Since the Talmud is not a holy book in the Christian tradition, there's not much to discuss, other than to say that there is some documentary evidence going back at least 1,500-2,000 years that the "rebellious son" punishment wasn't something that the community ever carried out. In any event, in Judaism today all death penalties are only theoretical, since they required a full trial in front of the Sanhedrin, which ceased to exist due to Roman persecution.

I see no point in debating basic theology. If you and Lori feel that your faith in Jesus makes you better as people, and gives the comfort needed to manage through Lori's health issues, then I wouldn't want to do anything to take that away from you.

[Koala]

A submissive wife is not always submissive but the attitude of wanting to please her husband does characterize her life. If she feels strongly about something she may not submit. My wife is not submitting to me on some issues I would like to see changed or modified on her blog. Are you shocked??? We are working it through, and no, I do not force her to do anything. I ask, suggest but I do not force or push and pull. That too is unbecoming a loving husband.

Before this gets completely lost in the shuffle....

It is ironic to me that this all started because of Lori's wild admonishments to women to submit under the worst of circumstances, and it is finally coming full circle.

Ken came here for 1 reason that I can see: To clear their good names :lol:

It has become apparent to me that though extreme, Ken does not take it as far as Lori does and at the very least sometimes has the good sense to back peddle. Don't get me wrong, his ideas are insane, but I don't think it matters to him like it does to Lori. She needs to know that people are suffering.

If I don't miss my guess Lori (who knew she didn't have a chance debating someone she couldn't delete) thought he would come here and straighten us out. Instead Ken went home with a laundry list of changes and deletions she needed to make for her blog. I bet she had a fit.

**someone mentioned upthread that she had deleted the more moderate advice that Ken "helped written" :roll: **

Having the obsession with pain that Lori does, she's probably not about to remove comments advising parents to hit harder, or horrific stories of abuse, and she probably won't dial it back either. Ken may (in the back of his mind) see the problem in this- he's admitted as much here, but I think he misjudged just how vested Lori is in this. He knows now.

Same goes for the submissive bit- Lori feels powerful advising women to stay in miserable situations and probably thrives on knowing they suffer daily - just look at how she went after the poor woman that had been left out in the cold with her child. But she doesn't really give 2 shits about submission, because while that woman is supposed to suck it up and submit more, Lori sits in her posh little house refusing to do what Ken tells her to.

These two are a joke.

[theologygeek]

Ken that above is called irony. I find it exceptionally worrying you are trying to interpret the bible and tell people how to live if you cannot see the glaringly obvious. It's a bit scary to be honest.

ETA. Apologies theologygeek I see you already explained. Just wow. Really?

No apologies necessary. I am lol'ing over here. It's good to laugh when you're in bed afflicted with the plague aka the flu.