Lori Alexander 79: False Female Bible Teachers Elevate Jesus’ Words over the Apostle Paul’s

[Alisamer]

On 7/17/2021 at 3:02 PM, HoneyBunny said:

Today’s WTF…girls addicted to porn is so not in the Bible. Instead of the Bible possibly being wrong, it’s all ‘cause of the feminists. 
 

Yet more evidence Lori has never read the whole Bible. Three words: Song of Solomon. 

And yeah, Lori is the angriest bitterest bitchiest lying liar fake "Christian" in the universe. OK, maybe tied with PP, though I think he probably enjoys life more. 

She's so intensely hateful and un-self-aware that I wonder how she's not been forced to get a cognitive evaluation and some medical help, at this point. I think Lori is in desperate need of psychological evaluation, looking at her writing she seems to show signs of potential mental and/or personality disorders, but she's so incredibly awful that no one close to her seems willing to bother trying to get her any help.

I'd feel bad for her if she wasn't such a horrible waste of oxygen.

[SongRed7]

uh OH...don't look now but one of the Alexander offspring (or spouses) are pregnant.  I wonder who? Son Ryan and wife have 4, Steven and Emily have 3, Cassie and her husband have 4 and Alyssa has 1.  Lori tweeted about "pregnancy being hard but worth it" a couple times recently.   Even though Alyssa was looking into adoption, I wonder if she's pregnant.  She had mentioned many, many times how hard pregnancy was  on her but I wonder if she got pregnant again? Plus. she has been very quiet on IG lately. 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2021 by SongRed7

[SueEllenMishke]

Lori on IG today with a double shot of misogyny and racism:

 

 

[Sarah92]

Lori trying extra hard to get in with the Bible bros. Just mentioning CRT gets them foaming in the mouth. Add some sexism to that racism and you are practically a god among them.

Lori when was the last time you straight up shared the gospel in a kind way? 

[fluffy]

Emily (Steven's wife) is pregnant. Will be fourth baby.

[Caroline]

4 hours ago, SueEllenMishke said:

Lori on IG today with a double shot of misogyny and racism:

 

 

So proud to have raised a sinful and rebellious culture-wrecker!  Lori, you're too much.

[usmcmom]

Every time Lori talks about a new grandchild, I think of the story she posted about Ryan and how he caused such trauma with Emma around her eating. She was just a baby and Lori was so proud of Ryan’s cruelty.
 

Then there was the time Lori mocked Emma in how she missed her parents. Lori wrote something like “She just lost it,” and she used that term a couple times. 

I am saddened to learn of any child being born into that family because it seems that none of Lori’s kids are smart enough to keep their children away from her and Ken. Lori enjoys being cruel and her own grandkids are not exempt from it. 

[kpmom]

Was Emma also the grandchild who got upset when Lori and Ken rode their bikes ahead of her and she was scared she wouldn't be able to catch up to them?  And Lori basically told her to suck it up?

If so, Lori seems to have a bug up her ass about that particular grandchild, poor kid.

[usmcmom]

5 hours ago, kpmom said:

Was Emma also the grandchild who got upset when Lori and Ken rode their bikes ahead of her and she was scared she wouldn't be able to catch up to them?  And Lori basically told her to suck it up?

If so, Lori seems to have a bug up her ass about that particular grandchild, poor kid.

Yes; I think that is the one I was remembering. When they got back to the house, Emma got upset again and wanted her parents. According to Lori “she lost it” on the bike ride and “she lost it again” back at the house. 

[Botkinetti]

Lori is just an awful human being. 
She can demand instant obedience but when she doesn’t get it I think she enjoys getting angry at her grandchildren and making them feel worse. These episodes also give her something to write and feel superior about. Two birds with one stone. 

[louisa05]

Lori finally heard about Beth Allison Barr’s book. She has refuted it, of course, with her usual brilliant arguments. Mostly consisting of “she’s wrong” and she’s an evil career woman. 
Not sure she knows she’s mentioned in the book, though. I feel like her tone would be much more bitter if she did. 

[Pammy]

Lori has a strong reaction against Beth's assertion that “Then the Reformation tragically cemented the idea that women should be wives and mothers (p. 123). Later the Victorian age introduced unbiblical notions of modesty and purity (p. 156).”

She bases her objections on some proof texts that aren't even related to Beth's point. Asking regarding modesty, "What does she do with this verse? “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety…” (1 Timothy 2:9)." Which is easily answered.

Biblical modesty is about social class and wealth. Victorian modesty is about sex. Misreading Bible passages as if, by using the word 'modesty' they must be referencing the Victorian concept is absurd. It would only be possible if Paul was, in fact, a time-traveling Victorian merely writing from Biblical times during a visit. Paul, a resident of Biblical times, uses modesty just like everyone else in his time and place -- to advocate against using women's clothing to mark out the wealthy and elevated classes in a community that emphasized equality. He couldn't have meant anything else because there was nothing else to mean.

She raises as a second prooftext regarding purity, “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committed fornication sinneth against his own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18). -- which anyone can see, does not contain purity, either directly or by implication. It's about fornication: which is to say that it's about sex. Purity, on the other hand, is about ethics. It is linked with conscience. Yes, there are sexual ethics (of course) but that's not the only kind of ethics that exist. From the Bible's perspective to be 'pure' (which has been obtained by no one but Jesus) involves flawless ethics in every area of life for one's entire life. For Jesus' Jewish audience it would additionally involve flawless adherence to the Torah law. Theologically, purity (of a sort) can be inferred as one of the gifts of forgiveness through salvation -- but that's another topic.

However, what purity is not, is virginity, chastity, abstinence, or marital faithfulness. It's not about sex. Having those things does not make a person pure, and lacking them does not make a person impure.

Bottom line, Lori: it's not about sex. Shocking. I know.

[louisa05]

If Christians were forced to view modesty as not showing off wealth, a lot of them would be in trouble. The mainline church loosely affiliated with my college was often referred to as “Country Club East” in town. And poor college kids weren’t particularly welcome there. Then there’s the Prosperity Gospel adherents. They can’t prove their godliness if they can’t show off their wealth. 

[Sarah92]

Random story but I think it fits well with the concept of modesty being more about not displaying wealth and being humble. I remember doing a block party as a teen for a mission trip. We were in a different state helping a church plant that was being developed by a pastor and his wife. 
 

The block party was held in a lower income area and everyone was dressed very casually in shorts and t-shirts. The pastor’s wife arrived wearing a nice skirt, blouse, and I believe pearls and didn’t help with the block party. Now perhaps she was coming from a meeting and maybe she was introverted or shy so didn’t want to be involved but it felt awkward having someone so dressed up just standing there while we were sweaty and messy. Perhaps it was her whole attitude idk. 
From what I recalled they soon dropped the plant and moved back south. 
 

But Lori would probably criticize the women for being in shorts instead of someone displaying wealth in an inappropriate way. 
 

I think as someone who grew up poor the way Christian’s frame the whole topic of modest annoys me even more. I’ve been more bothered by people flaunting wealth then someone wearing a bikini. 

[older than allosaurs]

22 hours ago, louisa05 said:

If Christians were forced to view modesty as not showing off wealth, a lot of them would be in trouble. The mainline church loosely affiliated with my college was often referred to as “Country Club East” in town. And poor college kids weren’t particularly welcome there. Then there’s the Prosperity Gospel adherents. They can’t prove their godliness if they can’t show off their wealth. 

We have a neighbor in that "so insulated that they're clueless" category. My daughter calls that level of wealth "stupid rich."

[louisa05]

Lori’s lecture about food in today’s post is a how to manual for disordered eating. 

[SongRed7]

On 7/24/2021 at 12:00 PM, louisa05 said:

Lori finally heard about Beth Allison Barr’s book. She has refuted it, of course, with her usual brilliant arguments

I couldn't have said it better...here arguments are basic "this is what I think without an context therefore this is what it means"  Like this passage (bolding mine)

LORI: "Junia was not an apostle, and who says Junia was a female? “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles…” (Romans 16:7). Paul called him a “kinsman” which is a man. Kinswoman is for women. That should clear it up! "

 

SMH...while there is some debate, most Bible scholars who have studied the ancient Greek texts, support that Junia was a woman. And I've also seen the the word "kinsman" she uses (from the KJV)...actually translated as "relative"....not denoting male or female.  So Lori's "That should clear it up" isn't actually that obvious. 

[SongRed7]

3 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Lori’s lecture about food in today’s post is a how to manual for disordered eating. 

ON FB? I'm blocked and can't see it...screen shot?

 

[louisa05]

It's on the blog. It's about control and self-denial. Quote: 

Quote

Do you say “no” to yourself when it comes to eating and food? Do you have to eat something before you feel a hunger pain? Do you continue to eat even after you are full? Can you ever go between meals and not snack? Do you consistently show self-control when it comes to eating? Does food have control over you instead of you controlling your appetite?

 

[feministxtian]

Her Homemaker's Creed....when was the last time Lori did any of that????

[Alisamer]

22 hours ago, louisa05 said:

It's on the blog. It's about control and self-denial. Quote: 

 

The ghost of Gwen Shamblin has possessed Lori.

Rufus help us.

[Pammy]

Yesterday Lori read the whole book of Job, and all she got out of it was, "JOB’S WIFE WAS A FOOLISH WOMAN!"

Just kidding. Of course she didn't read the book of Job. Why would she do a thing like that?

---

Today Lori buys into a marketing ploy (allegedly) about a hundred years old from General Mills Inc.

General Mills, wanting to ensure a loyal and long lasting customer base and build their profits, encouraged women to 'pledge' themselves to a 'Homemaking Legion' and view their chores as an identity, which would then guide their consumer activities.

I've translated the pledge from 'homemaking' to 'being a housekeeper' as a way to emphasize both its common sense (yes, being a housekeeper is a form of employment) and absurdity (unpaid labour is not goodness, glory, or virtue in-and-of itself).

I believe being a housekeeper is a noble and challenging career.

I believe being a housekeeper is an art requiring many different skills.

I believe being a housekeeper requires the best of my efforts, my abilities, and my thinking.

I believe a house reflects the spirit of the housekeeper.

I believe a house should be a place of peace, joy, and contentment.

I believe no task is too humble that contributes to the cleanliness, the order, the health, the well being of the household.

I believe a housekeeper must be true to the highest ideals of love, loyalty, service, and religion.

I believe house must be an influence for good in the neighborhood, the community, the country.

Edited July 27, 2021 by Pammy

[SongRed7]

As a professing, Christian my heart weeps at the latest Tweet:

 

The Transformed Wife 

@godlywomanhood

·“Oh, but so-and-so female preacher has led many to the Lord…” So? “The fact that something produces seemingly good results is no reason for Christians to accept or practice it.” (Dave Hunt) Measure EVERYTHING by God’s Word.

 

So....actually leading people to the Lord, bearing fruit  is....bad??  Wow...this is a new low. 

 

[Pammy]

20 minutes ago, SongRed7 said:

As a professing, Christian my heart weeps at the latest Tweet:

 

The Transformed Wife 

@godlywomanhood

·“Oh, but so-and-so female preacher has led many to the Lord…” So? “The fact that something produces seemingly good results is no reason for Christians to accept or practice it.” (Dave Hunt) Measure EVERYTHING by God’s Word.

 

So....actually leading people to the Lord, bearing fruit  is....bad??  Wow...this is a new low. 

 

I know for Lori, it's all about, "People without penises can't preach!" -- but, in the abstract, there are quite a few prominent examples of preachers who have 'led many to the Lord' and turned out to be scumbags of the highest order. So there is truth there: stand-alone evidence (like people in the audience experiencing conversion) doesn't really build a case for or against why someone should (or shouldn't) be welcome to preach.

To be clear, scumbags using charisma and faking the whole front while saying all the right words to lead people to the Lord is bad... even if people do respond. Women (or men) honestly preaching and getting the same result is good. It can just be hard to tell them apart, so we shouldn't put too much emphasis on that particular 'fruit'.

[Alisamer]

34 minutes ago, SongRed7 said:

So....actually leading people to the Lord, bearing fruit  is....bad??  Wow...this is a new low. 

Lori actually pushes people away from the Lord, so is that now good? 

All these people are delusional crazies and need to sit down and shut up, and actually read the Bible they spout on about.