Lori Alexander 52: Looking for Debt-free Virgins Without Tatoos

[RidiculousFundies]

I'm new to these Lori threads, I'm more of a Jrod and Duggar kid enthusiast. But I went to this woman's blog and holy hell. I couldn't read the latest post to the end. Everything she writes is hateful, shaming, awful, just so awful. Seriously, how is someone like this a real person? Surely she is a next-level top-notch troll? 

I'll take Jrod and her rv full of hairspray and eyeliner any day

[ladyicantxplain]

Ahhhh, here we go again today with the "female bible teachers" drivel.

This is what I was talking about yesterday when I said Lori hasn't studied the Bible for herself.  She's been reading "commentaries of old" and "learning from men who have studied the bible for years" and she's arrived at this perversion of scripture in her own mind, which is far from what the actual bible says in the original language.

As men and women study further, they gain more revelation of Jesus Christ and see more clearly what the whole counsel of the Word of God is.  They see that the word "MAN", which Lori has emphasized in her doodle, actually means this:

tis: a certain one, someone, anyone

Original Word: τις, τι
Part of Speech: Indefinite Pronoun
Transliteration: tis
Phonetic Spelling: (tis)
Short Definition: any one, some one
Definition: any one, some one, a certain one or thing.

NAS Exhaustive Concordance

Word Origin
a prim. enclitic indef. pronoun
Definition
a certain one, someone, anyone

This word MAN is mistranslated (BY THE COMMENTATORS OF OLD, no doubt, who wanted to control women by putting it in there as gender specific when it wasn't!)

See also TPT, a translation that Lori has not yet used, because "KJV Only"...

1 Timothy 3:1 The Passion Translation (TPT)

Leaders in the Church

3 If any of you[a] aspires to be an overseer in the church; you have set your heart toward a noble ambition, for the word is true!

Footnotes:

1 Timothy 3:1 Some translations have “men,” however, the Greek word is not gender specific.

Lori and Ken have had a religion of control, NOT A PROPER EXEGESIS OF SCRIPTURE resulting in Christianity that brings LIFE.

[PinkPrincess0213]

I'm sorry Lori, the post you cite is done by a woman. And women are led by their emotions, and I'm going to assume that she was so emotionally wrought by these women having success and name recognition that this post is unreliable.

So I'm going to need to see a post researched by an unemotional, completely rational man telling me not to follow any of these women.

 

[feministxtian]

I have always understood the words "man" and "mankind", in context to mean a generic "you" or "all the people" or "everyone" regardless of gender. 

Lori and Ken have NO CLUE as to proper biblical exegesis nor interpretation. I can recommend a few good study aids. The purchase of a good study bible wouldn't hurt either and/or Strong's Concordance wouldn't hurt either. Might learn something that way. 

[ladyicantxplain]

Just when I thought it could not get any weirder, she is telling people that babies are not born into sin, and "become" sinners when they choose to sin.  Her logic seems to be that if babies were born into sin, babies would be sent to hell if they died.  So, since her version of god isn't sending babies to hell after death, this must be true. 

While I agree with her that babies are  not being sent to hell by our loving Father, there is a problem with this logic: this version of god is picking and choosing children by age.  If what she says is true (babies are born without being sinners), then children who DO choose to sin at some age (oh, let's say they choose to lie at age two) ARE being held accountable suddenly for being sinners!  So, by this logic, toddlers are sent to hell if they die in as "sinners", but not babies. 

I just cannot follow this woman.

There is but one human being that was born without sin and His name is Jesus Christ.

 

[BullyJBG]

I can't believe Trey still posts in the comments! Wasn't he called out as a fake already?

[Lgirlrocks]

Most people will tell you that babies, if they die, go to heaven because they don’t have the cognitive reasoning to understand religion.

[ladyicantxplain]

@Lgirlrocks, I believe that to be the closest to the truth we can get since God doesn't hold people responsible for things they do not know about.  Babies cannot believe in their hearts and confess with their mouths that Jesus is LORD.  Even though some small children can (such as toddlers), it doesn't mean they understand what they've spoken.  

Anyway, you can't say in one breath that "foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child and the rod of correction will drive it far from him" (and then proceed to beat your child with a weapon to inflict pain, or "flick" your infant's cheek hard for biting while nursing, or "blanket train" your one year old with spankings), and then turn around and say that "babies are innocent"...

That's my beef with this "theology" she is preaching.

[Sarah92]

So I think Lori misses a huge piece of this whole women are more emotional/easily deceived thing. Healthcare. Women make up a vast majority of nurses and more and more doctors. Additionally, women are envolved in social services and the mental health field in large numbers. These fields require quick decision making, logical thinking, and the ability to work through a crisis in a calm manner. If Lori was right this wouldn't be possible.

And the women not teaching the Bible to men is b.s. Who do you think laid a foundation for many youth hundreds of years ago? Women teachers. So they're responsible for teaching the most vulnerable the Bible but can't be trusted to accurately teach men.......They can be trusted to homeschool until a child graduates high school.... But not teach men. Someone please explain this magic trick for me. When do me cross over to this magical land of being more logical and knowledgeable by default? 

[delphinium65]

6 hours ago, Sarah92 said:

Additionally, women are envolved in social services and the mental health field in large numbers. 

Would Lori see any value in that? Or would she say all of the problems they deal with should be solved by prayer and 'with God ALL things are possible'? 

[EowynW]

Today's post is an article by Rusty Thomas. 

[SongRed7]

23 hours ago, RidiculousFundies said:

I'll take Jrod and her rv full of hairspray and eyeliner any day

I used to think Jrod was the worst (don't get me going there)...but it's not Lori hands down.  But comparing the two is really like comparing having shingles or having full-body poison ivy.  I don't want either. 

 

On 8/3/2018 at 2:05 PM, Sarah92 said:

So Ken is now blaming 2.0 for not messaging him privately about the racist/red pill people that Lori reposts. As if it's other people's responsibility to make sure a blogger maintains some level of integrity. It's not like this is the first time Lori had been called out for this behavior.

I was away for a few days and missed this.  Is there a link with him talking about this?

 

[PinkPrincess0213]

Is this same Rusty Thomas who has the dying son?

[louisa05]

9 hours ago, Sarah92 said:

And the women not teaching the Bible to men is b.s. Who do you think laid a foundation for many youth hundreds of years ago? Women teachers. So they're responsible for teaching the most vulnerable the Bible but can't be trusted to accurately teach men.......They can be trusted to homeschool until a child graduates high school.... But not teach men. Someone please explain this magic trick for me. When do me cross over to this magical land of being more logical and knowledgeable by default? 

Some parents at the Christian school felt that women could teach their teenage sons subject other than the Bible, but that we could not discipline them. So that went well...Nothing more fun than having a teenage boy (or two or three) in your classroom whose parents have told him that you can provide him instruction in your curriculum but can't enforce any classroom or school rules. In the eyes of the most extreme of those people, women teachers could not ask their sons to do or not do anything in class. If boys wanted a hall pass, for example, we were supposed to give it with no questions asked. We could not give them any directions other than how to do an assignment and even that was questionable. One father wrote me an irate letter when I vetoed his son's proposed research topic on the grounds that (very early internet era and the kid didn't have access anyway) not enough reliable sources would be available. I had no right or authority to tell a male, even a teenage one, that he could or could not make a choice. 

And two of the three principals I had there were women, so that made it worse. One gave up and appointed the male athletic director as the "director of behavior and policy" so those boys had to answer to a male. 

 

[Sarah92]

19 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Some parents at the Christian school felt that women could teach their teenage sons subject other than the Bible, but that we could not discipline them. So that went well...Nothing more fun than having a teenage boy (or two or three) in your classroom whose parents have told him that you can provide him instruction in your curriculum but can't enforce any classroom or school rules. In the eyes of the most extreme of those people, women teachers could not ask their sons to do or not do anything in class. If boys wanted a hall pass, for example, we were supposed to give it with no questions asked. We could not give them any directions other than how to do an assignment and even that was questionable. One father wrote me an irate letter when I vetoed his son's proposed research topic on the grounds that (very early internet era and the kid didn't have access anyway) not enough reliable sources would be available. I had no right or authority to tell a male, even a teenage one, that he could or could not make a choice. 

And two of the three principals I had there were women, so that made it worse. One gave up and appointed the male athletic director as the "director of behavior and policy" so those boys had to answer to a male. 

 

Dearest goodness that sounds like hell. That's complete nonsense. How are those boys going to deal in the real world when they get a female supervisor? Or even a female coworker who has more seniority? 

[louisa05]

7 minutes ago, Sarah92 said:

Dearest goodness that sounds like hell. That's complete nonsense. How are those boys going to deal in the real world when they get a female supervisor? Or even a female coworker who has more seniority? 

I left that place 18 years ago. So they are all long in the real world. No idea how they did. Except the one whose dad wrote the letter. He got a real education, on his own dime, at a public university and left his dad's super fundy restrictive church and all religion. I ran into him at a Shakespeare festival about ten years ago and learned that. *Fundie kids can and do leave!*

One was finally "asked to leave" (a courtesy before they expelled him--he hadn't quite hit that criteria yet) by one of those female principals. Among a few other offenses in ONE week, he had chased me down the hall screaming profanity at me because I had the nerve to fail him on a test that he did not write a single answer on. He had written his name on it, then laid his head down on his desk and went to sleep. His parents actually defended him and expected me to let him take it again whenever he chose to. Which probably would have been never. 

I can't remember his last name or I'd go scrounge around social media and see if I could find out what happened to him. 

[smittykins]

I’ve read that there are some who believe mothers shouldn’t teach their sons past a certain age because that would be giving them “unbiblical authority over a man.”

[quiversR4hunting]

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 9:39 PM, polecat said:

If I wear a "thong bikini" and some guy eyes my ass, I'm a super-slut.

What if I am wearing dress pants and some guy has his eyes glued to my ass? I know I am some sort of slut for wearing pants but it isn't a thong, so I figure it less of an infraction.

But I am not a slut if I wear a nice pencil skirt that is below my knees, right? (And no cleavage)

All hail! The queen of modesty - Rizzo

[Loveday]

2 hours ago, PinkPrincess0213 said:

Is this same Rusty Thomas who has the dying son?

I'm guessing it is. Lori refers to "the upcoming passing" of their son in a comment on that post, which I found a very odd thing to say. 

[SuperNova]

Spoiler

Far too many Christians believe that children are a burden, rather than a blessing. The same reason why the world marches into death camps to murder the preborn is the same reason why a lot of Christians prevent having children. They do not possess a Kingdom worldview nor understand the battle to fulfill the Great commission in our poor fallen world

The crazy here is staggering. I'm not sure what a logical response to this would be. It would be like trying to talk sense to the man that stands in the grocery store parking lot ranting about Jesus and asking for quarters. This is not Christianity, it's mental illness.

And then at the bottom of the post:

Spoiler

*Rev. Thomas has a father’s mantle and spreads a patriarchal vision to reclaim the masculine identity that has been neutered by the feminization of America. He and his wife, Kendra Thomas, home schooled thirteen children at the Thomas Nation’s University of Righteousness.

A father's mantle? Who the hell does this man think he is? And oh my, University of Righteousness. 

 

[quiversR4hunting]

2 minutes ago, SuperNova said:

A father's mantle?

What in the hell is a "father's mantle"? Or do I not want to know?

[onekidanddone]

2 hours ago, Sarah92 said:

Dearest goodness that sounds like hell. That's complete nonsense. How are those boys going to deal in the real world when they get a female supervisor? Or even a female coworker who has more seniority? 

Quit like Steve Maxhell and then go home and have a three animal cracker fast to cleanse the ebil

[EowynW]

Ah yes, the old "lets outbreed 'em" mentality. Lots of that when I was growing up in that world. 

[polecat]

1 hour ago, Loveday said:

I'm guessing it is. Lori refers to "the upcoming passing" of their son in a comment on that post, which I found a very odd thing to say. 

It's not odd at all when you realize that she gets off on it. I can't remember the context now, but she once made a really nasty comment about her pastor's (or assistant pastor?) "dead wife." She just revels in "tragedy porn." She's vile.

[Loveday]

1 hour ago, polecat said:

It's not odd at all when you realize that she gets off on it. I can't remember the context now, but she once made a really nasty comment about her pastor's (or assistant pastor?) "dead wife." She just revels in "tragedy porn." She's vile.

You're right. I just found it a weird way of putting it. She's almost gleeful about it. No, no almost--she really IS gleeful.