Lori Alexander 54: Embracing the Manosphere

[Sarah92]

* reads Lori's latest post turnd around and flicks her in the noise "no! Bad!*

Let kids being kids. Yes teach them to be polite. Yes teach them manners and respect, but being shy isn't wrong. I was a shy kid who turned into an introverted adult. Yet somehow I managed to land myself in a helping profession. My sister doesn't even like people, but she's one of her stores best sales people. Being shy taught me about listening and observing, something Lori is sorely lacking in. Not wanting to talk to a bunch of people isn't selfish. Some of the most beautiful things can be done in silence. 

All this talk of food... What did y'all have tonight? I have yet to make dinner. 

[Koala]

39 minutes ago, feministxtian said:

We had leftovers for dinner...yum for meatloaf sandwiches.

I love meatloaf sandwiches.  We will use our leftover roast for sandwiches tomorrow.  ?

 

[Anna Arkadyevna]

Actually, we really and for true had ice cream for dinner.  I spent two hours this afternoon making blackberry ice cream from scratch, and was too tired to do anything else.  So I told the family that this is what there is.  Amazing how heavy cream, whole milk, sugar and berries can silence opposition.

[Frog99]

1 hour ago, Sarah92 said:

All this talk of food... What did y'all have tonight? I have yet to make dinner. 

DH is working a paramedic shift tonight, so we had a bigger lunch after church. I put a ham in the crockpot before church and then cane home and made scalloped potatoes and fresh steamed green beans. The kids and I had cereal for dinner. 

3 minutes ago, Anna Arkadyevna said:

Actually, we really and for true had ice cream for dinner.  I spent two hours this afternoon making black- berry ice cream from scratch, and was too tired to do anything else.  So I told the family that this is what there is.  Amazing how heavy cream, whole milk, sugar and berries can silence opposition.

We will occasionally do ice cream for dinner in the summer- usually on a Sunday evening after a day at the beach or if we’ve had a more substantial lunch. We rarely have ice cream in the house and the kids think it’s a special treat. I hope it’s a special memory they will carry with them. 

[Sarah92]

18 minutes ago, Anna Arkadyevna said:

Actually, we really and for true had ice cream for dinner.  I spent two hours this afternoon making blackberry ice cream from scratch, and was too tired to do anything else.  So I told the family that this is what there is.  Amazing how heavy cream, whole milk, sugar and berries can silence opposition.

Omgosh that sounds amazing. The perfect dinner. 

[Hane]

Three friends and I went to a raucous matinee (“Hand to God”—a religious satire described as “Avenue Q meets The Exorcist”) and then to a kosher-style deli. I had a triple-decker sandwich of turkey breast, chopped liver, and pastrami on rye (saved half for tomorrow’s lunch), a vanilla egg cream, a latke, and homemade rice pudding. I bought some halvah, lox, and a smoked whitefish to enjoy later at home.

[Petronella]

Re dinner:

Because we homeschool, and I work at home, and my husband works part time, “sitting down to dinner” at the end of the day hasn’t been a thing in our house. We’ve already spent a lot of time together by evening, and usually had a big cooked lunch or ate out at work or we’re just not very hungry at night and happy with a snack.

But now! The younger one is starting school, and my husband will be in the office more, so dinner is about to become important. They’ll be coming home hungry and I’ll be eager to hear all about their days and share about mine.

Note to self: must widen my kitchen repertoire! When the kids were younger they only wanted plain food, but now I can mix it up a bit ?

[TeddyBonkers]

It's a force of habit to make my kids' plates first, because when they were small the food needed to cool down. *shrug* 

And keep the dinner ideas coming, because I'm writing menus and shopping lists for the week based on this thread.

[SongRed7]

12 hours ago, Koala said:

We just got home from vacation. 

Where did you go? living vicariously through you all! 

 

[wallysmommy]

The horse of TRUTH has arrived ridden by Sir Ken of the Self-Righteous.  He is defending his lady’s honor against the evil non-virginal, tattooed, debtors. He will slay those Jezebel, blaspheming dragons!

[Petronella]

23 minutes ago, wallysmommy said:

The horse of TRUTH has arrived ridden by Sir Ken of the Self-Righteous.  He is defending his lady’s honor against the evil non-virginal, tattooed, debtors. He will slay those Jezebel, blaspheming dragons!

Ugh. Blech! Wall-o-text.

His whole thing boils down to preaching how Christianity should involve leaving sin behind once you're forgiven, not just sinning freely because you know you'll be forgiven. Fine. Good.

But what he fails to do is persuade that women having jobs (or wearing leggings, or using attentive, gentle discipline with their kids...) are sins. (Hint: they're not!!)

He completely ignores that people's complaints about Lori are to do with what she has decided is sin, not an excited "hey, I want to sin!!" battle cry.

*Shudder* He's just such an ignorant, pompous, vain little man. (Oh, and he also complained that people get "personal" about him and Lori. You know what, Ken? There's not much more personal than belittling other people's clothes, parenting, finances, and sex lives, so suck it up.)

ETA: He also refers negatively to the "grace and positivity" taught by popular Bible teachers and I'm like, um, sounds nice? Maybe try some?

[Hisey]

21 hours ago, molecule said:

I grew up with extended family with eating habits similar to what @violynn has described.

In my mom's family, men ate first, and then the women and children ate together afterward.

The men were always doing heavy labor on the farm. When my mom was little, they were still using plow horses rather than tractors, and there was a lot of livestock that needed to be cared for. The main meal of the day was at noon. The idea was that the men needed to be in and out fairly quickly so they could go back out and return to work.

Thank you for sharing this. I do wonder. . . couldn't the women have eaten and then called the men in to eat (that way they wouldn't have stood around hungry, and could get back to the fields quickly too).

I used to do that, if I want to relish the meal without little kids around. I'd eat myself when it was done, then feed them (this was when the hubby wasn't home)

[molecule]

5 minutes ago, Hisey said:

Thank you for sharing this. I do wonder. . . couldn't the women have eaten and then called the men in to eat (that way they wouldn't have stood around hungry, and could get back to the fields quickly too).

I always figured that the women nibbled a bit while they cooked.

Ken is really ticking me off today. He dares to ask us to pass on what Lori says and agree to disagree (boldfacing is mine):

Quote

Please do not fault Lori for her faithfulness to what God has called her to do in teaching the younger Christian women. If you cannot join her, why not choose to pass on by and allow some disagreement over what the Word teaches and how our society is best served by cohesive families? After all, we are one in the body of Christ, or at least part of America where ideals should be allowed to be expressed freely without harm and persecution over our disagreements.

Why is he asking us to do that for Lori's benefit when she doesn't do the same for others? How many times has she used her blog to tear apart another woman's teaching or criticized another blogger for blogging while her children are young? She dug into Lysa TerKeurst last year to blame her for her husband's infidelity--yet this year, when Lysa announced the restoration of her marriage, we heard nothing from Lori. She regularly beats up on Beth Moore. When a woman comments in disagreement over one of Lori's posts, Lori often makes it into a whole post that refers to the woman as being a "Christian" and not agreeing with God.

Ken, get your own house in order before you start calling us to task for doing what your wife does so publicly and mean-heartedly.

[wallysmommy]

11 minutes ago, Petronella said:

 

*Shudder* He's just such an ignorant, pompous, vain little man. 

Lord Farquaad?

[AlwaysDiscerning]

This was one for only ONE minute. She posted, Ken responded and then she posted again (the deleted) one. So now Ken gets to have the last word. 

 

[delphinium65]

1 hour ago, molecule said:

Why is he asking us to do that for Lori's benefit when she doesn't do the same for others? 

Exactly.  If Lori could show a little of that good ol' Christian love for others I'd be much more inclined to give her some benefit of the doubt.  But nooooo, we're supposed to 'choose to pass on by and allow some disagreement over what the Word teaches.'  How about you go first, Kennie-boy? Practice what you're preaching, and knock it off with the hypocritical, holier-than-thou attitude. 

[AuntKrazy]

So - it's interesting to me that Ken is attempting to throw antinomianism back in the face of those calling Lori a legalistic pharisee, as it avoids the true issue of Lori adding criteria that is no where in Scripture.  It's that she twists the Bible into telling women who have careers that they are in sin simply for working.  She calls women sinful for going to college, ascribing a false morality to education itself.  It is not antinomian to call out someone for trying to impose rules beyond what is in the Bible.  No one is saying that we can lie all we want, steal all we want, cheat on our spouse all we want because we have been saved.  That is what the antinomianists did.  They didn't simply go to work or school or participate in any number of MORALLY NEUTRAL activities.

If Lori believes she is called to be at home, that is fine, but it's flat out wrong to call those who have the freedom in Christ to worship Him by working sinners for obeying His leading in their lives.  
 

Accusing people of antinomianism is the old false dichotomy at work.  Disagreeing with legalism, or saying Lori is legalistic is not the same as advocating a moral free for all.  I'm not "a Jezebel" for having post graduate degrees and a career where I am the boss.  Work is where I most see and worship and encounter Jesus. 

We object to legalistic moral judgments being passed on women for things that are not moral issues at all.  That is NOT antinomianism.  

[Imrlgoddess]

Ok.  First off I will admit I don't fully understand this term "antinomian", I did a Webster search and have read the definition.  This is what I'm gathering Ken is trying to say (please correct me if I'm wrong):  He is calling the people who work outside the home or who accept and live their homosexuality yet carry the title "Christian", antinomian.  He's saying they falsely believe they can live as they want, go to church and still receive the grace of heaven because of faith.  The Webster definition includes this:  the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation

Sooo.... does this mean a woman obtaining a college degree and using said degree is a morally reprehensible act?  That the tattooed homosexual will burn in hell no matter how many soup kitchens they work in?  If this holds true....then what is the point of doing anything good...ever?  Regardless of your perceived transgressions?

[Sarah92]

8 hours ago, TeddyBonkers said:

It's a force of habit to make my kids' plates first, because when they were small the food needed to cool down. *shrug* 

And keep the dinner ideas coming, because I'm writing menus and shopping lists for the week based on this thread.

I just tried sliced acorn squash coated in spices and Parmesan and it's great in my opinion! 

Lori doesnt needs devotional because her devotions consist of reading her five Bible verses and then a bunch of red pill posts. 

And really Ken likes to think he's simply brilliant when he can't comprehend that Lori isn't always right and her writing is open for criticism. Criticism =/= approval of sinful behavior. They are so caught up in a delusion that they misinterpret and exaggerate other people's words.  Also Ken is just a gas lighting, sad little Farquaad sometimes. 

[quiversR4hunting]

On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 1:53 AM, feministxtian said:

First...the answer to the question of "why should he serve you and what does he get in return" is one of those passages of scripture they never read.  Ephesians 5: 25=33 (NIV)

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

This was our 2nd reading yesterday at church (Catholic). The priest said we need to back up to Ephesians 21 because that is the most important verse in the entire passage:

Quote

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

I think the priest is a wise man  He didn't say anything about the rest of the passage besides we are to serve each other, in marriage, in community, etc.

As for food serving - my mom's side of the family is/was Catholic and my dad's family was Christian in name only, no church until much later in their life. But both sides of the family were farmers. Both sides did it the same way - food is set up, kids go first, then a bunch of "no, you go, no you go, no I insist, etc" between the adults) but typically the MEN are pushing the women to get their food before themselves. And if people wanted seconds and the food was set up in the kitchen (buffet style) you got yourself up and got it yourself. Now if one of the young kids or elderly relatives wanted something, someone would get up and get what they wanted for them.

[AuntKrazy]

37 minutes ago, Imrlgoddess said:

Ok.  First off I will admit I don't fully understand this term "antinomian", I did a Webster search and have read the definition.  This is what I'm gathering Ken is trying to say (please correct me if I'm wrong):  He is calling the people who work outside the home or who accept and live their homosexuality yet carry the title "Christian", antinomian.  He's saying they falsely believe they can live as they want, go to church and still receive the grace of heaven because of faith.  The Webster definition includes this:  the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation

Sooo.... does this mean a woman obtaining a college degree and using said degree is a morally reprehensible act?  That the tattooed homosexual will burn in hell no matter how many soup kitchens they work in?  If this holds true....then what is the point of doing anything good...ever?  Regardless of your perceived transgressions?

That is exactly what Ken is saying.  Historically, the theological idea of antinomian came to mean those who would claim to be Christian but flagrantly disobeyed the Ten Commandments.  It is a flagrant disregard of good works as the outworking of salvation; especially the idea that morality does not matter at all to one's relationship with God.

Ken and Lori are calling all those who live lives with "sin" as they have defined it as "antinomian".  as Theopedia says:

"Theological charges of antinomianism typically imply that the opponent's doctrine leads to various sorts of licentiousness, and imply that the antinomian chooses his theology in order to further a career of dissipation."

https://www.theopedia.com/antinomianism

It's just a theological (and patronizing) way of Ken trying to call Christian women who disagree with Lori "Jezebels" or "immoral", "immodest", etc.  He is saying that we have no morality.

He is deliberately obtuse about the Christians who question Lori's morality as emphasizing minor points to the detriment of the gospel - that is, the contention that Lori advocates the submission of women that has nothing to do with either the Bible nor a personal relationship with Jesus.  

 

[ladyicantxplain]

Quote

 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.” - Ken, in today's post

What the Bible REALLY says:

 

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

 

This man is preaching and did not bother to look up whether or not he was quoting the scriptures correctly.

 

Now, normally I do not nitpick at people like this, but since he has placed himself out there in public, if he is going to preach, he should quote the scriptures properly.

Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness HAVE BEEN FILLED: with the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.  Doesn't matter if they are working outside of the home as women, or if they are preaching online as women, or behind a pulpit as women.  Doesn't matter if they have tattoos or not, and it doesn't matter if they lost their virginity before marriage in their past. 

They are filled, in their spirit, with Christ's Spirit which is now ONE with their spirit, forever.  They ARE righteous.  That is their identity now, as born again believers.

Period.

Quote

Far too often after a post on simple admonitions of serving, submission, and keepers-at home, we hear, “You are not a Christian!” or “You are doing damage to Christianity!”  Ken, in today's post

Well, I suggest he tell Margaret that she needs to stop telling other women AND men "You are NOT  a Christian!  You are on a Christian woman's blog!" instead of focusing on those of us who are calling her (Lori) out for her gross misrepresentation of the Word of God with her public preaching.

[ladyicantxplain]

51 minutes ago, AuntKrazy said:

He is deliberately obtuse about the Christians who question Lori's morality as emphasizing minor points to the detriment of the gospel - that is, the contention that Lori advocates the submission of women that has nothing to do with either the Bible nor a personal relationship with Jesus.  

 

Yes.  This is it in a nutshell.

Those of us who have abandoned or been rescued from strict Comp'ism are NOT the enemy of the Gospel.  

There is nothing in the Word that supports this nonsense of unilateral and unquestioning "submission" of women to their husbands, or any other man on this earth.

THIS is what I take offense with, and rightly so, since it is an affront to the very Gospel of the Kingdom of God.  The Kingdom of God is where we are, and in the Kingdom (here, and now), there is one Head, and that is Christ.  

Does the family need to be restored in our society?  Absolutely.  Is it right to want to see Jesus Christ's redemptive LIFE in all families that have been affected negatively by this world, and by the enemy of Christians's  souls?  Absolutely.  Is the solution to enforce strict Complementarianism?  Hell, no.  HELL, no.  That is religion, created by the minds of broken men.  We cannot "fix" broken men and women by doctrines of broken men and women: the Word is what redeems, and His name is Jesus, not "the bible says."

So many women whom I know who once followed Lori and tried to follow her teachings, had disastrous results.  Utterly disastrous.  This is because it is an adulterated "gospel"  - it is not the simple truth from the Word.  It's got all the influence of "the commentaries of old" in there with it, as though some old misogynists somehow spoke more truth than Spirit filled men (and women) of today who preach egalitarianism.

 

 

[ladyicantxplain]

Stay out of "The Commentaries of Old", then, dear Lori. Scripture is sufficient.  No need to consult those Commentaries, particularly the ones your husband is mentioning in his post today.

[feministxtian]

The last time Lori learned something new was the day she and Ken got married...she learned how to manipulate the shit out of good ol' Kenny-boy 

That bitch ain't learned anything new from Scripture...she reads her preconceived idiocy into it.