Jump to content
IGNORED

The Botkinettes have surfaced and they're giving relationship advice again!


Marian the Librarian

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Have fun using us to get all the fine details of the families you are interested in! Glad we can be of help. While you are reading here maybe you will figure out what snark is. 

And she's got a couple of "finer details" wrong.  Perhaps she should read here more often.  ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 553
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I admit it, my eyes glaze over when I read the Botkins. It makes me feel stupid because I don’t get what they are saying after the first sentence or two. They just don’t make sense to me. Circular reasoning, I guess. They are bad writers & I have a writing degree & was a newspaper reporter for a decade. It seems like they just throw words at the page, repeatedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chocolatedefrauded, what gets me the most is how deeply brainwashed they are. It’s painfully obvious that the ONLY influence on their reasoning skills and belief system stems from King Geoff. Daddy said it, so it’s true. The Botkinettes are capable of wrapping things up in fifty-cent words (intended to impress their less-educated readers) and the odd pop culture reference (intended to show themselves as cool and hip and relatable).  Their wordplay, as ridiculous as it is to us, gets eaten up by their intended audience and has made them rock stars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what you get when you believe in Sufficiency of Scripture, that the Bible and only the Bible has ALL the answers.  It typically involves flailing around to make everything fit the narrative, even when it doesn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chocolatedefrauded said:

I admit it, my eyes glaze over when I read the Botkins.

When I was working on newspapers, MEGO (my eyes glaze over) was the editorial comment you never wanted to get. I feel the same way about la souers Botkin and others of their multisyllabic ilk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2018 at 4:44 AM, Howl said:

This is what you get when you believe in Sufficiency of Scripture, that the Bible and only the Bible has ALL the answers.  It typically involves flailing around to make everything fit the narrative, even when it doesn't. 

Especially when you think you believe in Sufficiency of Scripture but in reality you're holding to doctrines that aren't actually from scripture and have to go through all those hoops to convince everyone including yourself that it's actually scriptural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CyborgKin said:

Especially when you think you believe in Sufficiency of Scripture but in reality you're holding to doctrines that aren't actually from scripture and have to go through all those hoops to convince everyone including yourself that it's actually scriptural.

Preach it, Sister! This is truly the essence of what's going on over there in Botlandia. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Nothing to do with the actual Botkinettes, but this popped up in my FB feed this morning and I couldn't help but share it here.

The Romanovs had a court physician named Eugene Botkin.  He is a saint (because he was exiled and martyred with them) and there is going to be a church built in Ekaterinaburg dedicated to him.  

I'm sure the Botkins, most of all the Duck Biologist, would be duly horrified.  :dance:

http://orthochristian.com/113728.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2018 at 5:22 AM, CyborgKin said:

Especially when you think you believe in Sufficiency of Scripture but in reality you're holding to doctrines that aren't actually from scripture and have to go through all those hoops to convince everyone including yourself that it's actually scriptural.

I'll preface this by saying that I'm not within the Christian faith community.  However, I do check in at a few sites like The Wartburg Watch, Love Joy Feminism (Libby Anne) and Spiritual Sounding Board. I post this with the caveat that I do not know much more about Wade Burleson's beliefs than the few things I've read as guests posts or a link here and there.  However, I suspect that Wade Burleson is a thorn in the side of many big names in the Southern Baptist world and probably considered a heretic by some. 

For example, Wade Burleson wrote this guest post over at TheWartburgWatch.com:  Gender Roles Not An Essential of the Christian Faith

He also attended the Southern Baptist Convention this past week and wrote this blog post, which seems relevant to the entire Botkin enterprise: Dr. Al Mohler, a Baptist Woman Home Missionary Teaching the Bible to Pastors, and Drunkenness  Excerpt that seems relevant to the various "sufficiency of scripture" brands like Vision Forum, Western Conservancy, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Gothard and a zillion other ministries. 

Spoiler

 

None of us is God. God doesn't stutter when He speaks, but we're often at a loss when we listen. "He that has ears to hear let him hear," Jesus said. The problem is us, not God.

If I don't think I can make a mistake in interpreting God's Word, then I have a problem with pride. I've placed myself in the position of God, telling you that you better believe what I say. God doesn't like pride, and pride will always lead to a personal fall.

That's why we all better be humble about telling others what God is saying. We may actually be misunderstanding God's Word. To believe God's Word is infallible is a confession of faith in God and God's Word. But to believe my interpretation of God's Word is infallible is a confession of faith in myself and my abilities.

So Christians have a simple job as fallible people who follow Jesus Christ.  We are to always make sure we don't confuse our interpretation with God's inspiration. 

 

  I'd also like to point out the very recent example of AG Jeff Sessions stepping on his own dick by quoting a scripture from Romans about obeying the government -- the very same scripture that was used in the 1830s and 1840s as support for the institution of slavery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Bumping thread to ask - am I the only one who finds this a little...scary? :scared-eek:

Screen Shot 2018-07-08 at 3.30.55 PM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I follow Isaac and that family is gun obsessed. I get it, it's how they make a living but if I ever hear of some militia group that originates in TN, we will all know it's them.  Issac LOVES that his young son James loves guns. LOVES it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, true story: I took a glance at that and thought 'Oh, neat, Early Modern Musical Instrument!" And....nope, it is truly a gun.  Sad, I was hoping for some Reformation-era music. Now that would be interesting and beautiful and something much more attractive. Their current lifestyle is quite repellent, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FilleMondaine said:

Ok, true story: I took a glance at that and thought 'Oh, neat, Early Modern Musical Instrument!" And....nope, it is truly a gun.  Sad, I was hoping for some Reformation-era music. Now that would be interesting and beautiful and something much more attractive. Their current lifestyle is quite repellent, isn't it?

Haha! That's exactly what I thought too. I just can't imagine being gleeful about holding a machine specifically designed to kill people, but I guess the Botkins can do the Botkins...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, teachergirl said:

No, I follow Isaac and that family is gun obsessed. I get it, it's how they make a living but if I ever hear of some militia group that originates in TN, we will all know it's them.  Issac LOVES that his young son James loves guns. LOVES it.

Let's see...lots of small curious children, and lots and lots of guns 'n' ammo. What could possibly go wrong??

:pb_sad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Marian the Librarian said:

Bumping thread to ask - am I the only one who finds this a little...scary? :scared-eek:

Screen Shot 2018-07-08 at 3.30.55 PM.png

What scares me is Nadia’s thinness!!! Could the photo have been manipulated to make her look over-long and lean? Body shaming, fooey: she does not look well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MamaJunebug said:

What scares me is Nadia’s thinness!!! Could the photo have been manipulated to make her look over-long and lean? Body shaming, fooey: she does not look well!

She has always been very, very thin with a long face; I think it’s just a weird angle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

image.png.b801ae07f527d897e50380e389ec71a7.png

She's always been thin, but I think the gun picture got out of proportion somehow. Maybe they stretched it to make the gun look longer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, older than allosaurs said:

 

image.png.b801ae07f527d897e50380e389ec71a7.png

She's always been thin, but I think the gun picture got out of proportion somehow. Maybe they stretched it to make the gun look longer?

I hope that’s what happened. Ah, the t-shirt wedding dress!  Not for nothing are the Botkinettes working on a “HotModEst” line of hair, skincare, makeup and fashion — for the 21st century, even!! They’re not, but it’s amazingly fun to think about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I compare those two pictures it does not look like angle to me. There is less muscle mass to her arms and her face is gaunt with sunken eyes in the gun picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe

Bumping thread to ask - am I the only one who finds this a little...scary? :scared-eek:
1660489856_ScreenShot2018-07-08at3_30_55PM.thumb.png.1b1ad2b2d50446469066244c4b8246a6.png
Maybe she is staying ultra thin to avoid pregnancy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SamuraiKatz said:

Maybe she is staying ultra thin to avoid pregnancy?

Eh, I 'm fairly sure Nadia has had three babies already - and is still as ultra thin as she was on her wedding day.  Her collar bones were very prominent then and her upper arms ... very thin.

21 hours ago, chaotic life said:

with an undersized jaw.

Not something she has control over, methinks.

Her beliefs and the gun pose, however.  Yuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SamuraiKatz said:

Maybe she is staying ultra thin to avoid pregnancy?

6 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

Eh, I 'm fairly sure Nadia has had three babies already

Nadia has 3 kids but she's definitely overdue for another pregnancy

  1. Katherine b. February 2012
  2. Nehemiah b. Summer 2013
  3. Daniel b. October 2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe all those tight, tight, tight holster straps are impeding sperm production....

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.