Lori and Ken Alexander -- Please buy a dictionary

[Koala]

Also, notice how Ken keeps complaining about Lori controlling his food? Wonder why he didn't intervene when Lori basically encouraged women to let their husbands control their food/weight.

A friend of mine told me many years ago that her husband didn't like sex because he had low testosterone. She was overweight. Years later, she lost a ton of weight and got into shape. She told me her husband won't leave her alone now!

Would your husband like you to lose weight? Ask him. We are called in Scripture to obey our husbands in everything! This is not taught today. Women do not want to hear this but if your husband would love for you to lose weight, you need to do it for him.

Go on the Paleo diet. Cut out all the sugar and desserts. Go on long walks everyday. Practice portion control. Stop drinking alcohol. Do whatever you need to do to please your man. Christ died to free you from sin. He tells us we have everything for life and godliness. Start believing Him!

Now that you realize gluttony is indeed a sin, you are filled with the Holy Spirit who gives you self-control, and your husband probably would love for you to be in shape {Some men like some meat on their women. You must ask him how much meat he likes!}, you have no excuse to overeat and be out of shape!

Fixing it for you Lori. If Ken will "allow" you to respond, please feel free to tell me what you think:

A friend of mine told me many years ago that his wife didn't like sex. He was overweight. Years later, he lost a ton of weight and got into shape. He told me his wife won't leave him alone now!

Would your wife like you to lose weight? Ask her. We are called in Scripture to obey our wives in everything! This is not taught today. Men do not want to hear this but if your wife would love for you to lose weight, you need to do it for her.

Go on the Paleo diet. Cut out all the sugar and desserts. Go on long walks everyday. Practice portion control. Stop drinking alcohol. Do whatever you need to do to please your woman. Christ died to free you from sin. He tells us we have everything for life and godliness. Start believing Him!

Now that you realize gluttony is indeed a sin, you are filled with the Holy Spirit who gives you self-control, and your wife probably would love for you to be in shape {Some women like some meat on their men. You must ask her how much meat she likes!}, you have no excuse to overeat and be out of shape!

1) The husband who only wanted his wife once she lost weight? Yeah, he sounds like an asshole. You're welcome Lori.

2) I wouldn't have a husband that would dignify a question like "how much meat would you like" with a response. Seriously. That would be a sign that it was time to be looking for the door.

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2013/01/gluttony-and-pleasing-your-man.html

[usmcmom]

I really wish I could put this link on Lori's blog but we all know how she refuses to even look at another viewpoint:

theologyforwomen.org/2010/04/her-desire-will-be-for-her-husband.html

Anyway, it's rather long but basically this writer suggests that the curse of desire is just that - DESIRE. Desire is FOR something. We do not "desire against something." The curse is that women will desire their husbands ABOVE the lord, therefore leading them to sin because they will look to earthly leadership and not godly leadership. She suggests that women will usually fall short if they are seeking to please their husband first and God second - thus the desire for their husbands being a curse.

This makes much more sense to me and seems to be well researched, including many explanations of the scriptures included. In reading this, I found myself wondering why Lori simply HAS to win this argument. Why is she so vehement about her apparent disgust with all women? Why can't she see that a woman's desire can truly be for her husband in a positive and non-controlling way AND, at the same time, have a submissive marriage if that's what both spouses want? Just once, I'd like to see Ken and Lori agree that somebody else might have a good point. Again with the arrogance... :pull-hair: :pull-hair:

[ladyamylynn]

Some men like some meat on their women. You must ask him how much meat he likes!

Wrap it up, ladies and gentlemen- we found the grossest, most sexist bullshit on the internet.

[usmcmom]

Wrap it up, ladies and gentlemen- we found the grossest, most sexist bullshit on the internet.

Except for Cabinet Man's husband leadership tip of the day. Something about women are like cattle and need to feel the shock of that electric fence every now and then. Interesting, how both Cabinet Man and LoriKen (Klori? Kenri?) compare women to livestock.

I copied his tip onto the thread about his blog.

[Coco]

So saying to those guys "Don't have a cow!" wouldn't work, eh?

:animals-cow: moo

[2xx1xy1JD]

Ok, let me try some Lori-style logic here.

1. Scrapbooking and crocheting are useless wastes of time. Source: I don't like them.

2. All women struggle with a desire to read too much. Source: I always read, and so do my book club friends.

3. God naturally blessed women with superior BBQ skills. Source: I assembled our BBQ and do 99% of the BBQing.

4. Flowers and jewellery suck as gifts for women. Source: I don't like flowers or jewellery.

5. Real men dance ballet and jump like a kangaroo around their babies. Source: My husband did this to make our babies laugh.

6. All families should take a newborn and 3 year old to New Zealand and go hiking. Source: We did this and it was great (and we happened to be blessed with the ability to take time off at that precise time, a line of credit, a newborn who rarely cried, a pretty well-behaved 3 yr old, an easy recovery from a c-section, and children who had no concept of a schedule. We also happen to like hiking and traveling, but realize that other parents think that our trip would be their version of hell.)

[usmcmom]

So, I've sat around with my feet up most of the day because...sinus infection. To give myself some giggles, I searched for Ken's comments here on FJ. I only read a few before I was laughing myself off the sofa.

It is so worth a look back, FJ friends, if you need a laugh. I had forgotten how many times he "really left for good this time." And did he really threaten legal action against Google (Goggle) if they didn't change the whole "Lori is a monster thing." Was it Koala who kept throwing his own words back at him, quote after quote after quote? It was kind of like watching Frank Burns with Hawkeye and Trapper on MASH.

*happy sigh* Those were the days.

Okay, back to our regularly scheduled program.

[Loveday]

Someone tries to set Lori straight on the true meaning of 'desire' as it's used in the Bible, and of the entire verse that she's so woefully misinterpreted:

Young’s Literal Translation: “Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.’â€

The Hebrew word used in Genesis 3:16 & 4:7 is teshuka. Teshuka means to desire, to long for, to crave. It is also used in Song of Solomon 7:10.

The curses on Eve are: sorrow & pain; desire & subjugation; and death; not one of those curses is a sin. They are punishments – the natural consequences of the sin committed. God does not compel us to sin, we do that freely of our own sinful nature. The curses describe the fallen world we live in, so logically the opposite of each curse describes the perfect life in Eden.

God is 100% sovereign, there is nothing you or I or even the shrewdest feminist can do change the nature of this fallen world. We cannot circumvent His curses.

It's been up for about an hour; I'm sure it will be zapped before the evening's over. :roll:

[jerkit]

Someone tries to set Lori straight on the true meaning of 'desire' as it's used in the Bible, and of the entire verse that she's so woefully misinterpreted:

Young’s Literal Translation: “Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.’â€

The Hebrew word used in Genesis 3:16 & 4:7 is teshuka. Teshuka means to desire, to long for, to crave. It is also used in Song of Solomon 7:10.

The curses on Eve are: sorrow & pain; desire & subjugation; and death; not one of those curses is a sin. They are punishments – the natural consequences of the sin committed. God does not compel us to sin, we do that freely of our own sinful nature. The curses describe the fallen world we live in, so logically the opposite of each curse describes the perfect life in Eden.

God is 100% sovereign, there is nothing you or I or even the shrewdest feminist can do change the nature of this fallen world. We cannot circumvent His curses.

It's been up for about an hour; I'm sure it will be zapped before the evening's over. :roll:

The fact that she's engaging you means she probably won't delete it.

Meanwhile, I've been banned for asking "why does desire = control"?

[Loveday]

The fact that she's engaging you means she probably won't delete it.

Meanwhile, I've been banned for asking "why does desire = control"?

Oh, that wasn't me. I don't know any Hebrew, for one thing! :embarrassed: And last I looked, Lori hadn't answered this, so she may not have seen it yet.

I can't understand why she banned you for such a neutral question. Well, except that it's Lori. :cray-cray:

[2xx1xy1JD]

Feel free to skip this if you hate sermons.....

FWIW, I was taught that curses are not commandments. The curses in Genesis are things that suck, because the world is in a somewhat broken state. The ultimate goal is to fix the world and get to the idyllic Messianic era, at which point curses will no longer apply. As part of the journey toward that point, we work to diminish the curses - for example, by working to extend lifespans, by reducing maternal mortality, by working to find better and easier ways to produce food, and by working to end patriarchy. I found a teaching that says that the lion lying with the lamb line from Isaiah shows that in the future Messianic era, we will see the rise of the feminine and an end to male domination. The original model for the world was male and female, together in human form, created in the image of God. The modern embrace of egalitarianism and rejection of male dominance, therefore, is a way of fixing a broken world and restoring it to the way that God intended it to be, and a sign that a more idyllic era is on the way.

[Koala]

From Lori's blog post today (which is a copy and paste job from one of her comments):

Your children want YOU.

Lori Alexander:

My children definitely feared us growing up

Lori Alexander:

Ask my children how controlling I was...They had to sneak junk food, so I wouldn't get mad at them. I think they were actually afraid of me, which I don't necessarily think is bad.

Lori Alexander:

Too many children have no fear of their parents, thus no fear of authority.

Umm yeah....I am sure Lori's kids would have totally hated being away from her :?

[usmcmom]

Don't know if this is the right thread for this, but maybe Ken also needs one of those little pocket Constitutions, based on this comment on Cabinet Man's blog:

"It seems a little evil to me when mean people excuse their meanness because they are hiding behind a moniker and a blog that protects its 5th amendment rights by saying that what is written is intended for humor, when it clearly is not, No, what we have here is diametrically opposing world views, and you and I have no intention of being mean to those who disagree with us, or threatening them, or their livelihood"

Fifth Amendment? Wait, what? I thought I was free to post here because of my freedom of speech, not my freedom to avoid self incrimination.

And why do these people always have to bring the Constitution into the argument? :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: For the gazillionth time, KEN - NOBODY IS INFRINGING UPON YOUR RIGHTS! None of your rights - not your right to free speech, not your right to avoid self incrimination, NOTHING. There is no official interference or consequence for what you are saying on your little blog!

[Coconut Flan]

Ken can not grasp some basic facts of life. He doesn't understand that other people are entitled to opinions that may be different from his and that this is perfectly fine and of no harm to him. It's a complete mystery to him that publishing a public blog results in public commentary about the blog.

I wonder how the man has gotten where he has when such simple concepts are beyond his grasp.

[moodygirl86]

Why do these people always have to bring the Constitution into the argument? :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: For the gazillionth time, KEN - NOBODY IS INFRINGING UPON YOUR RIGHTS! None of your rights - not your right to free speech, not your right to avoid self incrimination, NOTHING. There is no official interference or consequence for what you are saying on your little blog!

Not to go OT, but I read an excellent piece by a guy the other day, about a homophobic lecturer he had in his university days. The author spoke up, which no one else on the course had the courage to do, leading to an altercation. The writer called his teacher a bigot, to which the response was "How dare you not accept me as I am!"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/2 ... n-my-face#

Anyway, back to scheduled Lori snarking.

[Firiel]

Don't know if this is the right thread for this, but maybe Ken also needs one of those little pocket Constitutions, based on this comment on Cabinet Man's blog:

"It seems a little evil to me when mean people excuse their meanness because they are hiding behind a moniker and a blog that protects its 5th amendment rights by saying that what is written is intended for humor, when it clearly is not, No, what we have here is diametrically opposing world views, and you and I have no intention of being mean to those who disagree with us, or threatening them, or their livelihood"

Fifth Amendment? Wait, what? I thought I was free to post here because of my freedom of speech, not my freedom to avoid self incrimination.

And why do these people always have to bring the Constitution into the argument? :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: For the gazillionth time, KEN - NOBODY IS INFRINGING UPON YOUR RIGHTS! None of your rights - not your right to free speech, not your right to avoid self incrimination, NOTHING. There is no official interference or consequence for what you are saying on your little blog!

Well, we DO keep asking those pesky questions about what he believes...