Lori Alexander 17: Pooping on Someone Else's Lawn

[louisa05]

What? But this doesn't make sense! I mean the first covenant was made by the patriarchs of israel and God, Jesus the son of God came to fulfil the Scripture and forge a new covenant. Jesus said that the ancient Scriptures aren't erased just fulfilled,  how can they think that Paul, simply a ma, can dispensate from Jesus commandment when Jesus himself didn't dispensate anybody but had to fulfil Scripture to set people free? Paul never claimed anything like that. 
Ok I am just an ebil agnostic but if they don't follow Christ and don't consider his word definitive but in need to be perfected by Paul, I don't understand how they define themselves Christians.

Dispensation was a 20th Century invention that fundamentalists and many evangelicals embraced.

The current dispensation ( basically a period) is the age of "grace" or the "church age" not technically the age of Paul. But since this dispensation was begun in their teaching at the death of Jesus (resurrection is not a deep concern for this), it means they emphasize the Epistles as guides for this dispensation. It is not that they don't believe in Jesus or the gospel but that they believe that is not applicable to this time.

Of course even in the absence of that theology, Protestantism was founded on the theology of Paul rather than Jesus.

[jerkit]

6 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

 

 they emphasize the Epistles as guides for this dispensation. It is not that they don't believe in Jesus or the gospel but that they believe that is not applicable to this time.
 

 

Yes, this ^ is exactly what I mean. I have googled trying to find that comment, but I haven't been successful. I'm nearly certain that it was a comment on a blog post and a reader asked a question about Jesus and Lori responded that the Alexanders put emphasis on epistles rather than the gospels. 

[BlackSheep]

15 hours ago, jerkit said:

If I'm not mistaken, Lori and Ken are hardcore dispensationalists, meaning they think they are living in a Pauline dispensation or time period. Jesus ended the Old Testament dispensation and Paul ended the Jesus dispensation. IIRC, lori once said that theologically they put much more weight on the teachings of Paul than the teachings of Jesus.

Gasp.

This is the first I've heard of such a belief.

14 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

 

Dispensation was a 20th Century invention that fundamentalists and many evangelicals embraced.

The current dispensation ( basically a period) is the age of "grace" or the "church age" not technically the age of Paul. But since this dispensation was begun in their teaching at the death of Jesus (resurrection is not a deep concern for this), it means they emphasize the Epistles as guides for this dispensation. It is not that they don't believe in Jesus or the gospel but that they believe that is not applicable to this time.

Of course even in the absence of that theology, Protestantism was founded on the theology of Paul rather than Jesus.

 

Jesus and the gospels aren't applicable to this time?

I thought that I disagreed with Lori and her ilk on surface issues, but turns out that it goes much deeper than that.

[onemama]

34 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Dispensation was a 20th Century invention that fundamentalists and many evangelicals embraced.

The current dispensation ( basically a period) is the age of "grace" or the "church age" not technically the age of Paul. But since this dispensation was begun in their teaching at the death of Jesus (resurrection is not a deep concern for this), it means they emphasize the Epistles as guides for this dispensation. It is not that they don't believe in Jesus or the gospel but that they believe that is not applicable to this time.

Of course even in the absence of that theology, Protestantism was founded on the theology of Paul rather than Jesus.

I agree with this present "age" being referred to as the age of grace or church age.  

But I disagree that Protestantism was founded on the theology of Paul rather than Jesus.  First, Paul bases all his theology on Jesus.  Who Jesus is, who we are in Him, how that is to look in our lives, what Church is (body of Christ) and how that plays out in our lives, are the central topics of Paul's epistles. He was given the job of bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the gentiles, and most of us are gentiles, not Jews. Paul was overseeing many church plants and he did so by means of writing letters as he was often either traveling or imprisoned somewhere.  

Second, every protestant Church I've been a member of has held Jesus and his teachings as central. I don't know one Christian who believes the Gospel or Jesus teachings are not applicable today. 

Ken and Lori, Michael and Debi Pearl, the Baylys... are something else. Maybe they are Christians, but their emphasis is on works, on their "theology of sexuality", rather than on Jesus and the finished work on the cross.  I think anyone who places too much emphasis on a secondary issue will end up straying from the Gospel.  

ETA: I was very sad when I watched a video of the Gospel Coalition where they explain why they believe "Complementarianism" is essential to the Gospel. I didn't get it and I found their explanation lacking.  That's what I mean by straying.  John Piper is great, but he says some very odd things when he starts to talk about marriage or men and women in general. Jesus didn't appear to make those distinctions, did he?  If Martha invited him, he went to her home. If Mary was at the tomb, he told her to go tell the others he was risen.   

But in my opinion, Paul is often misunderstood, too.  He went to women's homes (lydia) and commended the work of female deacons (Phoebe, I think).  He never told men that their "headship" is authority, and didn't call them the "spiritual heads" of their families or "spiritual overseers" of the Church.  The idea that men have greater spritual authority is not found in the Gospels or the Epistles.  

But I may be wrong... I just don't think that placing such emphasis on gender roles is healthy or helpful for the furthering of the Gospel. If anything, it causes it to sound irrelevant and misogynistic.  Jesus is anything but irrelevant or misogynistic! 

[louisa05]

I agree with this present "age" being referred to as the age of grace or church age.  
But I disagree that Protestantism was founded on the theology of Paul rather than Jesus.  First, Paul bases all his theology on Jesus.  Who Jesus is, who we are in Him, how that is to look in our lives, what Church is (body of Christ) and how that plays out in our lives, are the central topics of Paul's epistles. He was given the job of bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the gentiles, and most of us are gentiles, not Jews. Paul was overseeing many church plants and he did so by means of writing letters as he was often either traveling or imprisoned somewhere.  
Second, every protestant Church I've been a member of has held Jesus and his teachings as central. I don't know one Christian who believes the Gospel or Jesus teachings are not applicable today. 
Ken and Lori, Michael and Debi Pearl, the Baylys... are something else. Maybe they are Christians, but their emphasis is on works, on their "theology of sexuality", rather than on Jesus and the finished work on the cross.  I think anyone who places too much emphasis on a secondary issue will end up straying from the Gospel.  
ETA: I was very sad when I watched a video of the Gospel Coalition where they explain why they believe "Complementarianism" is essential to the Gospel. I didn't get it and I found their explanation lacking.  That's what I mean by straying.  John Piper is great, but he says some very odd things when he starts to talk about marriage or men and women in general. Jesus didn't appear to make those distinctions, did he?  If Martha invited him, he went to her home. If Mary was at the tomb, he told her to go tell the others he was risen.   
But in my opinion, Paul is often misunderstood, too.  He went to women's homes (lydia) and commended the work of female deacons (Phoebe, I think).  He never told men that their "headship" is authority, and didn't call them the "spiritual heads" of their families or "spiritual overseers" of the Church.  The idea that men have greater spritual authority is not found in the Gospels or the Epistles.  
But I may be wrong... I just don't think that placing such emphasis on gender roles is healthy or helpful for the furthering of the Gospel. If anything, it causes it to sound irrelevant and misogynistic.  Jesus is anything but irrelevant or misogynistic! 

I don't agree with dispensationsalism. Their definitions of their dispensations are not up for debate however because they defined and named them. So I'm not really understanding your need to agree or disagree with the facts of how that theological system defines itself.

Protestantism falls apart without Romans. Mainline or otherwise, the basis of Luther's theological split with Catholicism was "salvation by faith alone" based on passages in Romans not on anything said in the Gospels. The understanding of Jesus and salvation is based on Pauline interpretations.

That doesn't mean that Jesus is not taught about or regarded as Savior--all Protestants from mainline to dispensationalist fundamentalists emphasize Jesus and salvation through Jesus. But the core of Protestant views of him is Paul not the gospel.

[onemama]

7 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

I don't agree with dispensationsalism. Their definitions of their dispensations are not up for debate however because they defined and named them. So I'm not really understanding your need to agree or disagree with the facts of how that theological system defines itself.

I wasn't implying that you agree or disagree with dispensationalism and neither was I stating my agreement or disagreement with the teachings of Dispensationalism. I was just saying that I agree that "the age of grace or age of the church" is a term I've heard in Protestant Churches and in my (one or two hours of) Dispensationalism class 16 years ago. 

 

17 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Protestantism falls apart without Romans.

The doctrine of salvation by faith doesn't need Romans.  Jesus himself said that salvation is by faith:

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

As for the rest, I'm afraid I haven't studied Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation enough. I was raised in a non-denominational non-Catholic church. From there I went on to Evangelical churches of different denominations, finally settling with fairly traditional doctrine in churches that don't overemphasize teachings such as complementarianism, cessationism, calvinism-vs-arminianism.... In my opinion, we can learn a lot from studying the works of theologians but eventually, we must come to our own conclusions.  Adhering to one person's interpretations is dangerous and tends to lead to less  personal involvement with Scripture. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

51 minutes ago, jerkit said:

Yes, this ^ is exactly what I mean. I have googled trying to find that comment, but I haven't been successful. I'm nearly certain that it was a comment on a blog post and a reader asked a question about Jesus and Lori responded that the Alexanders put emphasis on epistles rather than the gospels. 

Sorry my reaction wasn't towards you but towards Lori &Co. Thank you for the info.

Their position sounds heretical to me, but what do I know,  I grew up Catholic and now I am an unbeliever.

[TeddyBonkers]

I grew up Lutheran, and remember being taught that Luther's turning point came from his study of Ephesians "for it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is a gift from God". Enter the 95 Theses, Diet of Worms, smuggling nuns in fish barrels, etc.

My formal education ended before Zwingli, sadly. 

I'm far from a dispensationalist. I believe that if you're going to call yourself a Christian then you follow Christ's teachings before Paul's or Peter's or King David's or Job's. I mean really, according to your beliefs, one of them was the son of God, so wouldn't his words carry more weight? 

^all "you" in that paragraph are the royal "you", not any one person in general.

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

I have often thought that when Lori mentions that she's living in the Word, she means the word of Michael Pearl.

If she was truly grounding her beliefs and actions in the NT and the words of Jesus she would not be the rude, judgmental, abusive, dismissive, hypocritical monster beyotch she is.

And --- Today's blog  post on why homeschooling is best because there is PORN public schools

I call shenanigans -- well actually outright lies -- on today's story about 3rd grade boys finding porn on school computers by searching for Pokemon images. The "story" says the 2nd hit on the pokemon pictures search turns up pictures on the best sex positions.  No. Wrong. Lie.  I just did that search, as well as other pokemon searches. Nary a porn link among any of the results.  Not. A. Single. One.

So either the boys used another naughty search term or Lori lied (gasp).  Also, do school computers use filters in order to screen out porn ? I know some public libraries do.  I don't have children so I'm not up on this .

[louisa05]

I have often thought that when Lori mentions that she's living in the Word, she means the word of Michael Pearl.
If she was truly grounding her beliefs and actions in the NT and the words of Jesus she would not be the rude, judgmental, abusive, dismissive, hypocritical monster beyotch she is.
And --- Today's blog  post on why homeschooling is best because there is PORN public schools
I call shenanigans -- well actually outright lies -- on today's story about 3rd grade boys finding porn on school computers by searching for Pokemon images. The "story" says the 2nd hit on the pokemon pictures search turns up pictures on the best sex positions.  No. Wrong. Lie.  I just did that search, as well as other pokemon searches. Nary a porn link among any of the results.  Not. A. Single. One.
So either the boys used another naughty search term or Lori lied (gasp).  Also, do school computers use filters in order to screen out porn ? I know some public libraries do.  I don't have children so I'm not up on this .

School networks filter tons of stuff. Most social media. Forums. As a teacher I had to get the tech guys to set me up so I could access YouTube for teaching purposes. I had to get a few Holocaust sites unblocked as some pictures made them get blocked by our filters. So, no, 3rd graders didn't access porn on school computers or even on their own device using a school network. I have to turn off wifi to look at FJ on my phone while subbing.

[TeddyBonkers]

UnGodly mother who sends her kids to public school here, so take this comment with a boulder-sized grain of salt:

Our school has a policy "no cell phones in school". If they are out, they get taken away. And the school has a "safe search" on Google images. Geeze, it's almost like those public schools want to protect children from viewing things that might be inappropriate!!!

[BlackSheep]

I grew up in a small, conservative (but not fundie-level) church. Mr. BlackSheep and I attend a large church that's very different, very contemporary by comparision.

In both cases, the teaching was/is about following Christ. None of this dispensation business... never heard of it until today.

[onemama]

Lori and company are forever talking about how a wife is supposed to submit to her husband "as the church submits to Christ".  

How well does the Church submit to Christ?  He gave us one new commandment: love one-another as I have loved you.  He also gave us quite a few other instructions, like love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you, if someone strikes you on one cheek, offer him the other and if he asks you for your coat, give him your shirt too.  Judge not, or you will be judged, take the beam out of your own eye before you try to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.  If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. If you want to lead, you must be a servant, as Christ, the Son of Man came to serve, not to be served. If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off....

Is the church submitting to and obeying Christ? 

ETA; An interesting article on "male headship" http://juniaproject.com/5-myths-of-male-headship/ 

Lori and Ken would have no time for this writer. 

[Loveday]

I call shenanigans on the porn in school, too. My husband constantly has to battle with his seventh graders (12-14 year olds) over inappropriate use of their Chromebooks and cell phones, but it's not because of porn. It's because of games and music. As far as I know, he's never caught a kid watching porn when he should have been working on a quiz.

 

Just noticed my latest post count title:  apparently I'm now 'taking porn by the horn.' How apropos. 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

I like how the image of the child she uses in post today has an LL BEAN backpack. Again, showing her privilege. That ain't a walmart backpack that most parents have. 

Wonder what her story is as to how she landed on the woman bondage image. Did she google pokemon for that?

[Koala]

19 minutes ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

Wonder what her story is as to how she landed on the woman bondage image. Did she google pokemon for that?

You win the internet today.  Just so you know. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

13 minutes ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

Wonder what her story is as to how she landed on the woman bondage image. Did she google pokemon for that?

 I love you!

Anyway to her readers her story makes sense, I mean yesterday they googled the transformed wife and found a pornographic image! 

I found odd that the poster that criticised the image didn't complain about her prudish eyes being defrauded by an impure image or the general appropriateness of that pic on a godly blog. Instead she said that her male family members may stumble seeing it. Probably by now she knows that all her female readers could have protested en masse and Queen Lori wouldn't have been bothered. But it was a problem for the sacred penis holders...and she APOLOGISED! We read her writing the most hurtful things to women without flinching even in front of her husband indirect criticism, but if men risk to be aroused by an image posted on her blog she APOLOGISES! She's as misogynistic and disgusting as her idol MP.

[onemama]

1 minute ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

She's as misogynistic and disgusting as her idol MP.

And DP. She's a misogynist too. 

[December]

3 hours ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

So either the boys used another naughty search term or Lori lied (gasp).  Also, do school computers use filters in order to screen out porn ? I know some public libraries do.  I don't have children so I'm not up on this .

 

Even many years ago when I was in high school they had internet filters. I've seen them used in public libraries, but only for designated kids' computers (for the adult ones, it would amount to censoring information access). 

 

I'm sure it's possible that something inappropriate popped up on an innocent search. Filters aren't perfect. I remember a teacher trying to do a lesson on government back in the day, and instead of typing WhiteHouse.gov typed in WhiteHouse.com (which used to have "adult content"). It just turned into a lesson on how to turn off your computer monitor if you stumbled on something obscene, and telling the teacher so the school could block the site. Somehow, we all managed to escape unscathed. 

Stuff happens. It sounds like the kids in her example were smart enough to report something inappropriate to a trusted adult. What more could reasonably be expected? Not seeing how it would be grounds for pulling kids out of public school by itself... it's not like someone was screening Eyes Wide Shut for a kindergarten class.

[Maggie Mae]

We sensor by having 10+year old computers in the library. Kids sometimes come in and watch YouTube during recess, but the computers are so slow they frequently give up and go outside. 

There's also an internet filter on the network so I have to turn off wifi to look at the internet. 

It varies by school. 

[feministxtian]

I teach at a school that caters to ADULTS and can't even access youtube or facebook here. LIke...the thread on Sarah, David and Russell I can't even open b/c it has facebook in the title. That bit about porn is pure bullshit...and remember guys, I live in Las Vegas...the one liberal spot in the desolation otherwise known as Nevada. 

[Free Jana Duggar]

8 hours ago, TeddyBonkers said:

UnGodly mother who sends her kids to public school here, so take this comment with a boulder-sized grain of salt:

Our school has a policy "no cell phones in school". If they are out, they get taken away. And the school has a "safe search" on Google images. Geeze, it's almost like those public schools want to protect children from viewing things that might be inappropriate!!!

Yea, I call BS on the post about porn also.  Schools have all kinds of filters on the computers.  

In my experience on my own computer at home, I have never come across porn.  Maybe a woman halfway falling out of her bikini or a Viagra ad, but not outright porn.

Does Lori realize that even the wonderful homeschooling mothers can't watch the computer 24/7.  They have to use the bathroom, take a phone call, or tend to one of the babies ('cause you know they have a dozen).  A child at home can access porn probably even easier as I'm sure any filters for home are not as good as those at a school. 

[louisa05]

33 minutes ago, Free Jana Duggar said:

In my experience on my own computer at home, I have never come across porn.  

I did see a tied up naked woman on a blog yesterday. 

[Pammy]

The idea of Protestantism prioritizing Paul's theology means that when Protestant churches talk about Jesus, they have a tendency to reach for the ways Paul explained Jesus. It doesn't mean that we don't talk about Jesus, or believe in Jesus, or worship Jesus.

Nobody is saying that ordinary Protestants prioritize Paul himself over Jesus himself. (Jesus is God -- Paul was a preacher.) It means only that we primarily understand Jesus the way we do because Paul was awesome at explaining stuff. We get it when we read Paul, so we kind of over-rely on Paul's perspective.

Example: If you believe Jesus was an atoning sacrifice... Jesus *did* that -- but it's Paul who explained that event in those words. Jesus didn't explain that event in those words. Jesus didn't say, in any gospel account just before the crucifixion: "Wait, now, I'm a gonna go be an atoning sacrifice." We understand what Jesus did as 'an atoning sacrifice' because other parts of the New Testament have helped us understand it that way -- mostly Paul.

Another example: We don't put, "The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed." On the statement of faith... Jesus preached that, and it's important, but when Protestants define the deep beliefs of our theology we rely on what Paul wrote, more-so than on the preaching of Jesus.

This is what it means to be primarily reliant on Paul (for our theology) even though our theology (and Paul's) is all about Jesus.

[Koala]

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

I did see a tied up naked woman on a blog yesterday. 

And in reference to that picture, the Modest Mentor said:

Quote

I had no clue that the picture I had used was so provocative

Quote

 I thought it was an innocent picture 

Cause there's usually an innocent explanation for a tied up naked woman.