Jump to content
IGNORED

Lori IS learning...just not from you. Or you. Or her.


Recommended Posts

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:
I so appreciate your reply. I'm sorry I'm not very good at keeping my questions short, am I? Of course I understand if you don't feel it's helpful to keep my question on the blog. I thought I was being a good example of someone that Lori could teach. After all, someone who isn't confused or struggling or seeking, is more likely to be a teacher than a student, aren't they? Is not the definition of a student one who seeks knowledge rather than one who already has it?


{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:
Questions are great! It makes it seem like you think you don't know what you are talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm suddenly reminded of the old saying, "Those who can't -- teach."

Lori can't parent, so she tells other people how to do it.

She can't "wife," so she tells other people how to do it.

She can't learn, so she tells other people how to do it.

She can't write, so she verbal vomits all over her blog.

Maybe the last one isn't a great example of teaching ... But still valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you cannot listen to what God tells you directly because it could be nothing more than indigestion if it is not greatly supported by His Word.

:wtf:

Ken, was that in English? I think you missed a clause there, or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wtf:

Ken, was that in English? I think you missed a clause there, or something.

Wasn't that line about indigestion in A Christmas Carol (Scrooge talking to Marley's ghost)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wtf:

Ken, was that in English? I think you missed a clause there, or something.

I noticed that too (or should I say I struggled with it?) but it wasn't all that much more incomprehensible than the rest, so I let it go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many things to say today:

1. Way to insult your readers Lori!

You have some great questions and I am surprised that more readers did not ask them, because they seem so obvious.

2. Sex is not a need. Your existence will not cease if you don't have sex.

3.

You bet, and for that matter God makes a promise to us that He WILL meet ALL of our needs… does He not?
And then she says sex is a need (see #2). So God will have sex with you.

4. Paul Tripp is FAR too libbbbrrulll for Lorken. You should read some of his books, Lori. But you're "very selective" who you learn from, so you probably won't.

5.

Read the rest of the article, but the bottom line of my message is not to make anyone feel that their desires are all wrong, for they are not.
THEN WHY THE HECK DO YOU DO THIS EVERY SINGLE DAY, LORI?!

6.

We know we cannot tell a broken wife that all she has to do is get her theology and doctrine straight and she will be healed.
Umm, that's precisely what you do, Lorken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have needs that stem from the physical aspects of our being. We need food, clothing, shelter, sex, and a need for safety. All things related to the physical are true “needs†and if they are not met our existence ceases.

Ken forgot to mention basketball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many things to say today:

1. Way to insult your readers Lori!

Gag.

First, Lori...when you don't explain something clearly and someone asks follow up questions, your response should never be to make yourself feel better by putting down others. You write like crap and you're dumb as a stump. Don't try to drag your readers into your world of stupid.

In other words, if I say, "It's raining Kool-Aid right now", and 99 people out of 100 think I'm so far gone that they don't respond, but one person asks, "How is that even possible?", my response should not be to say, "What a great question! Why didn't you idiots think to ask me that question, because it seems so obvious?".

Second, Lorken...you are now deleting so many comments and editing the others that intelligent people asking intelligent questions have simply abandoned you. You're asking an empty auditorium why there is no applause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken forgot to mention basketball.

Wait, we cease to exist without sex?? My cousin is a (good) priest. I better warn him so he can find someone to care for his dog after he disappears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gag.

First, Lori...when you don't explain something clearly and someone asks follow up questions, your response should never be to make yourself feel better by putting down others. You write like crap and you're dumb as a stump. Don't try to drag your readers into your world of stupid.

In other words, if I say, "It's raining Kool-Aid right now", and 99 people out of 100 think I'm so far gone that they don't respond, but one person asks, "How is that even possible?", my response should not be to say, "What a great question! Why didn't you idiots think to ask me that question, because it seems so obvious?".

Second, Lorken...you are now deleting so many comments and editing the others that intelligent people asking intelligent questions have simply abandoned you. You're asking an empty auditorium why there is no applause.

She deleted a really great comment on Pup's thread explaining the meaning of the word help meet in the original language. It was about being two halves of a whole, complementary, but equal. And for Lori's crowd, would have been really useful. She deleted it lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolutely nauseating

There is only a remnant, Angela, who want to hear and learn Truth. The rest want their ears tickled and pick and choose what to believe.

Translation: If you believe differently than me, you just want tickly ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolutely nauseating

Translation: If you believe differently than me, you just want tickly ears.

They just can't leave the True Christian[tm][/tm] crap alone, can they? If it's not the Gospel According to Lorken, then it's not really Christianity. :roll: Personally, I would rather hear a sermon that makes me feel uplifted and inspired over more of Lori's poorly written drivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They just can't leave the True Christian[tm][/tm] crap alone, can they? If it's not the Gospel According to Lorken, then it's not really Christianity. :roll: Personally, I would rather hear a sermon that makes me feel uplifted and inspired over more of Lori's poorly written drivel.

FLESHLY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is for normal women. But not for men, especially command men and certainly not Lori, who has risen above her fleshly needs and is assholier than thou to the nth degree. I doubt that Lori and Ken see themselves as filthy worms, because they have The Perfect Family, the (Now) Perfect Marriage and The Perfect Faith and if you disagree you are the filthy worm going to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bolded needs to be a user title.

Ken's response to Momof9 is more of the same wall of text without an actual answer. I question if Momof9 actually followed the "win him without a word" attitude while saying something, as Kenny Boy suggested, would she end up abused physically or emotionally? Her post seemed to indicate a lot more than typical marital communication troubles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone catch the exchange between Ken, Shelly, and Lori? :pull-hair:

(Highlights in bold)

Shelly:

I'm confused about why sex is a need rather than a desire? Some people are called to abstain from sex entirely and devote themselves to God and ministry. If we aren't married we are supposed to abstain from sex and some never get married. Also, if someone had homosexual tendencies, acting upon them would be sinful, so some homosexuals who desire to live rightly before God choose to abstain from sex. Husband's and wives of those in the military may have to go a year or more without sex if they're faithful to one another. All survive. This says to me that sex is not a true physical need but a want. Can you explain this please? My husband and I were actually just having a bit of a problem about this idea. A baby has obvious physical and emotional needs that he can't meet human, he needs loving caregivers to meet those needs. My husband hates holding our 2 month old and the baby is often left to cry if I'm unable to hold him in that moment, even if my husband is sitting right there with his hands free. He thinks sex is just as important as the baby's needs and I disagree. Even if I did agree it certainly infuriates me that he won't meet the baby's needs sometimes.

Ken's reply:

There are many things we can survive without, but my words were directly related to physical needs. We have base physical needs where we die if we do not get them met, but men, and some women have huge surges of testosterone in them that is God given, and this need is to be met by a spouse. I would say the Bible adds a big PERIOD on the end of that statement as Paul writes that "it is better to marry than to burn" and once married the authority of your body for sex is no longer your own, but belongs to your spouse (1 Cor. 7:4). I am not making this stuff up :). If God did not consider it a true physical need why would he have placed such emphasis on servicing this "desire" over so many other desires that we have?

How is this not condoning marital rape???

continued:

I refer you to an interesting article on Focus on the family where they come right out and state in the title: Sex Is a Physical Need

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/sex_and_...

So I have to side with your husband on this one, but I would love to take him to coffee and find out why he would not pick up your precious baby when she is crying :{. Too many young husbands unfortunately do not bond as they should with their newborns, at least not the first one, but once they come to see the real precious gift God has given them as their baby turns 1-2, and the joy that they bring, the second, third and forth are often met with more "open arms" so to speak.

He sides with her husband on what? The insane notion that his desire for sex should be just as important as his child's NEED to eat???

Continued:

It is not possible to know the full story here, but I can say that if your two month old is like our first one, colicky and always crying, at some point in time all you can do is try to let them cry in peace and hope they fall asleep.

There generally is a quick cure for both sides of this equation. You acknowledge that your husband's sex drive is a need you were made to fulfill. If he had not married, or was still single or widowed he would have to allow the Lord to lessen this need or bring someone into his life who can fill it, but he is not. He has you. Tell him you really believe your baby needs him to hold her at least 20 minutes a day, or pick any number that is reasonable to you, and that you hope he will acknowledge this need just as you are acknowledging his need for sex.

Yes, she was "made" to entertain her husband sexually :roll: :roll:

Continued:

This may not apply to your situation, and should never be in any marriage and family, but the lie he may be telling himself is that "this little thing is the reason I don't get my sexual desires/needs met the way I want them to, and now she is asking me to hold the screaming mimi without any consideration for my needs." Again, wrong thinking, but until you do your part first, then get into his head and find the lies he is telling himself, you have little hope of replacing his lies with a truth he will accept.

The truth is his baby does not need him to hold her because she has you, BUT he is the one missing out on the bonding that comes both ways when skin touches skin in the arms of a parent. He can never get these years back, nor will he be a husband who loves his wife sacrificially if he is unwilling to help with the babies. Keep expectations low, but keep your hopes up high :).

So her husband is rationalizing that the baby is a threat (the reasoning of a small child I might add), and she should respond by catering to his whims and making him leader? Got it ;)

Further, did Ken just imply that babies don't need their fathers anyway because MOTHER?

If so, I can assure him that's a false assumption. My husband rocked our babies many a mile, because they wanted their daddy. He changed diapers and wore them in a baby sling, and did anything else that needed done. Our son went through a phase where he went to sleep ONLY if daddy was rocking and singing to him. My husband spent many blurry eyed nights sitting in the rocker with him, singing Christmas carols (he was born at Christmas time, and since that's what he was used to, that's what we stuck with).

Shelly:

I didn't meant to imply he never holds the baby, he does. :) He doesn't particularly enjoy it and I often have to ask and am met with some resistance but he does hold him. This is baby number 4. He is a wonderful and attentive father to the older kids. He just doesn't particularly enjoy babies as he doesn't have many options to comfort them if they cry since he isn't a nursing mother. It just baffled me in that instant that he could see sex as an actual physical NEED but not be concerned when the baby is crying because of discomfort or just a desire for physical closeness just as he has. It's very difficult for me to rationalize as a mother who is bonded to her child as God and nature intended.

You're probably absolutely right that he sees the baby as something that hinders his needs and then he's asked to hold the problem. I hadn't thought of it that way so thank you for that perspective! I'm sure you remember after having four children yourself that when the kids are young it can be so difficult to meet everyone's needs. It leaves you feeling spread so thin and often it's the spouse that gets the short end of the stick because the squeaky wheel gets the oil. But I hear what you're saying. Thanks for your reply and I hope my providing more detail painted my husband in a more accurate light. He's not a big jerk that hates babies! Haha. Like I said it's just hard for me as a mother to understand the lack of attachment... but he doesn't have the same hormones I do so I guess I can't expect it to be the same.

Again with the acting like it's a big stretch to expect these manly leaders to recognize their children as their own and parent them accordingly.

Lori:

I sure remember, Shelley! I thought of Ken as just someone else who needed me but my thought process wasn't pretty back then. It's so easy for us to think they're big boys now and can take care of themselves. I so wish I could have a do over and always try to put Ken first, even with four little ones...

And again. Paint the man as a helpless child whose needs should be put ahead of a real child with real needs. But he's also a leader, and must be submitted to and obeyed at all times. Ridiculous.

Ken:

Thanks for the clarification, as it does make it sound like you two are much more normal, you just have a two month old and that is tough on both of you!

I find it interesting how women can see so clearly the attachment they get from their hormones, especially the chemical release in their brains that comes from that "let down" feeling when they nurse, but they can't put two and two together to see that this is exactly what a husband longs for with his wife. A new nursing mom needs no sex because she is high on love chemicals rushing through her brain. Go hold the baby and get some more each time you do, or you nurse, and what does he get, crying. He cannot ever stop the crying by nursing :).

If you love nursing, which many women do, equate that with sex for men and many it helps bridge the gap in thinking. Two different sets of chemicals, but certainly both very powerful in creating the happy chemicals that every body needs to live a happy life. It is not the man's fault that the women gets to meet babies needs and husband's needs. The Bible says husbands are to meet the wife's needs for sex, but it doesn't say a word about a husband holding a baby. Instead God places huge surges of chemicals in the mom to do that, that a man does not get when he fulfills his responsibility to his child. It's not fair :). Kidding of course. Viva la Difference!

Why I am not surprised that Ken keeps hinting that a husband shouldn't be expected to hold his child anyway?

Also, I would like to venture a guess that if Ken ever went through the lactation process, he'd be singing a different tune. From a mama who has nursed for a grand total of over 2 years of my life, let me tell you, a walk in the park it wasn't.

You haven't lived until you've thought you'd pass out from the pain of first time nursing (Yes, I had a wonderful lactation consultant. Yes, it still hurt). Or better yet, until you've watched in horror as breast milk sprayed across the room at the mere sound of your baby crying. It's fun when you realize you produce enough milk for a small village too! Good times. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Koala, many thanks for your work with their writing. :worship: I couldn't do it.

Once again, Ken surpasses the level of misogyny he has sunk to previously. It boggles the mind how he writes so much, yet keeps coming back to the same bullshit line of man need sex, woman put out. :ew:

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.