Book Review Series – Lori Alexander’s “The Power of a Transformed Wife” – Shhhh…Be Very, Very Quiet, Part 2

170 thoughts on “Book Review Series – Lori Alexander’s “The Power of a Transformed Wife” – Shhhh…Be Very, Very Quiet, Part 2”

1. So while Jesus said adultery is a godly reason to divorce, Lori says no and that you have to stay together. Seriously, who does she think she is setting herself up as an authority above Christ?

   LikeLiked by 1 person

2. Thank-you Tim, for you have spoken what many of us are thinking right about now. The word “anti-Christ,” meaning “in place of Christ” sums up my perspective on Lori, Ken and their teachings, in my opinion.

   When the teachings and Ways of Jesus, the Christ, are rejected by those who profess to be believers/followers of Him, then other teachings must replace His teachings, which sound so good to the person searching for truth and hope within a dysfunctional marriage. I also believe Lori’s reality has been replaced by a virtual reality, so to speak, teaching a false joy theology instead of the true liberty, freedom, and light burden theology our LORD teaches.

   Matthew 23:8-10

   I hope Lori does not call herself a teacher.

   LikeLike

3. I grew up with domestic violence in my home. As a child, it was terrifying-it just seemed like the significant adults in my life went berserk, one with violence and the other with fear. We all did whatever we could to keep my dad from losing it, but as with most batterers, he was very manipulative and could turn any situation into an excuse for being angry. We had police involvement and counseling. My dad scared the counselor at one session an we never went back (it was family counseling).

   I’ve known of a couple of cases of adultery/DV in my church that were actually resolved with a positive outcome, but it was a lot of hard work from the pastoral staff, professionals, and the couple. I need to give my church credit for providing safe places for the abused (it’s the first thing they do), being firm with abusers, and then looking for counseling resources. It’s always “safety first.”

   Finally, I don’t think Lori has a clue what abuse does not only to the affected spouse, but also to the children. My sister rebelled and it took years for her to get out of a very negative lifestyle (’nuff said). I was only home when necessary as a teen and espcaed to college 80 miles away where I totally reinvented myself. I didn’t face what the violence had done to me until I was well into my 40s. i had nightmares, I backed away from anything that appeared confrontational and I could hardly stand to be around my aging father. God is good-I have learned to be assertive without violence (my fear was that I might be like dad) and I’ve learned to forgive my dad without excusing his behavior. He is too old now to be able to do much physical damage, but I learned to enforce boundaries and I am able to use them when he is verbally abusive.

   DV is awful, and it occurs much more often than most people suspect. I do believe God can redeem any situation, but I also believe that happens when it is faced head-on. Sometimes, the only way to solve it is with a separation or divorce. The door always needs to be open for forgiveness, but the actual situation needs to be dealt with, too. We don’t let bank robbers become tellers; batterers shouldn’t be allowed to continue their violence.

   LikeLiked by 2 people

4. This wackjob shouldn’t be allowed to advise anyone, period. I really don’t know how anyone with function above the brain stem could think that anything this looney pants has to say is anything remotely resembling common sense or Biblical in nature. Who does she think she is?!?

   LikeLiked by 1 person

5. Even Jesus didn’t turn the other cheek when the temple guard hit him.

   Jesus replied, “If I said anything wrong, you must prove it. But if I’m speaking the truth, why are you beating me?” John 18:23 (NLT)

   Lori wants women to be silent.

   Jesus wants them to speak up.

   Lori wants them to just accept what happens.

   Jesus wants women to ask question and demand evidence.

   Katy, I love what you wrote here……. “The word “anti-Christ,” meaning “in place of Christ” sums up my perspective on Lori, Ken and their teachings, in my opinion.”

   That’s so true. I was just reading William Tyndale who said that the reason bad teachers in the church are so offended by the preaching of the real Gospel is because you can’t preach Christ without preaching against the anti-christs in the church.

   LikeLiked by 4 people

6. Now, I know many of you may say that a woman with a husband who is an adulterer has clear biblical reasons to divorce him, but

   But, even though the bible is actually pretty ok with divorce for a number of reasons, I’m going to tell you to stick with your husband no matter how much he cheats on or beats you, because it will magically all be better or alternately you will die trying and that will be awesome.

   LikeLike

7. Years ago, I made the mistake of reading a lot of Michael Pearl’s teachings including starting to read his wife’s book, I’m having a brain fart right now and can’t think of the name. It was something about being a helpmeet. I only got about halfway through it and wanted to throw it across the room. My memory is a bit foggy of my Kool aid drinking days but I could have sworn I read something either in that book or on the Pearls website about being in an abusive marriage and if the husband ends up killing the wife, she’ll be rewarded in heaven as a martyr. It’s terrifying to me that some people are so brainwashed and beaten down, that they believe that garbage.

   LikeLike

8. @Sunshine

   If it’s a murder/suicide where will her demonic husband spend eternity? Considering the complementarian churches have let him off in every way so far, maybe
   they think he’ll be granted martyr status too due to his victim’s sanctifying influence.

   The only way to stop an abuser is to take the object of his abuse away from him.

   LikeLiked by 2 people

9. Rachel when I read that I was totally dumbfounded. This is a hot button topic for me and I get extremely riled up. It pisses me off that a woman who is already being victimized will seek help from a jackass like Lori Alexander and get further victimized by being told that in order for her to please God, she has to stay with her abuser and allow herself to be a punching bag. People like Lori Alexander know how to prey on someone’s vulnerability in order to boost their own ego so they can pat themselves on the back, secure in the knowledge that they’re spreading God’s word. It makes me sick!

   LikeLiked by 4 people

10. People like Lori Alexander know how to prey on someone’s vulnerability in order to boost their own ego

    Lori doesn’t have to deal with the consequences of her advice. Nor do any of these male pastors, the Pearls (although it sounds like Debi was abused by her father and Michael doesn’t sound like a great guy either)…

    That is why it should be taken as ‘advice’. To be accepted or rejected on its merits. In this case, rejected, because it has no merit.

    LikeLike

11. Sadly, Ms Alexander may be laughing all the way to the bank. In fact, she may not even be as stupid as she sounds. Likely, she knows that if she writes some highly controversial nonsense such as she has put forth, all manner of Christian persons will buy her book so as to be familiar with the content and comment upon it. Translation, the more outrageous commentary she writes, the more books she will sell and the more money she will make.

    So the bottom line is that if you feel compelled to read the idiotic content she puts forth, please buy a used copy of the book – available on Amazon. In that way she will not benefit from the sale – only the book seller will benefit. If you purchase a Kindle version or new copy of her book, she will get the royalties from that sale. It is hard to believe that anyone capable of writing this book would have an IQ low enough to believe the content found therein. More likely, she is looking to make money by luring people into purchasing her book and it would seem that, on some level, at least, she is succeeding.

    My educated guess is that she will make a killing on this book (lots of gullible Christians will buy it). Subsequently, if her own husband ever tried any of the adulterous stunts described, he’d be out the door so fast that it would make your head spin. When she is sitting pretty on lots of book royalties, she is not going to tolerate it.

    LikeLike

12. LEB,

    If you look at the Amazon ranking for Lori’s book, it appears that very few if any people are buying it.

    Being ranked at “#463,495 Paid in Kindle Store” most likely means the book isn’t selling much.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

13. Avid Reader, True, but it is just out late last year in 2016. It takes a while. Now she is getting press on this forum – word spreads. If one or more knit wit pastor starts promoting her book or else more people hear about it online, sales could pick up.

    The best tactic, if you want to read her book and you do not wish to support her mission, is to buy a used copy. Of course, the better question might be why anyone would want to read such nonsense, in the first place. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that adultery is not condoned by any major religion. Ms Alexander may also secure paid speaking engagements and the like based on having published this book. I think she is more calculating than we give her credit for being. Anyone who was truly that much of a doormat would not have the motivation nor the incentive to write a book. If nothing else, it takes a whole lot of time and effort to do so. She has significant financial gain in mind.

    LikeLike

14. if you want to read her book

    I am quite content to let Kathi read it, thanks.

    I’m convinced a huge chunk of people reading her nonsense are basically people gawking at a car crash. The problem is not really Lori, it’s that these ideas [that women should sacrifice their lives in adulterous/abusive marriages because God Said So] have infiltrated far too many institutions. I just read a fantastic series on modesty culture that looked at the gothard/pearl/rushdooney/etc groups and how all this stuff travels together.

    Lori’s basically just regurgitating Debi Pearl, imo.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

15. Lea,
    Checking at Amazon, it would appear that Debi Pearl along with husband Michael Pearl have made quite a profitable venture for themselves via selling books and CDs. You may well be correct. Lori may be regurgitating their writings with the notion that if it worked to make the Pearls a hefty profit, perhaps it can do so for her, as well.

    It would seem that a certain number of people eat this stuff up – however unappetizing it may be to the rest of us. My guess is that these various women would tolerate a whole lot less in their own marriages as compared to what they recommend for you or I to put up with. Somehow, I think that if Michael Pearl were out there sampling the goods from a whole lot of women other than his wife, Mrs Pearl just might have something to say about it. I think it boils down to “do what I say (and which is profitable for me to write about) versus what I do.

    LikeLike

16. Apparently in Lori’s facebook chatroom she was telling her followers to leave 5 star reviews of her book on Amazon to combat all the negative reviews. She didn’t care if they read the book yet she just couldn’t stand all the negative so she sent a team in to help her numbers. In the same breath, she also told her followers that she is going to leave her book in God’s hands. LOL, right? If that was the case she shouldn’t be telling people how to review her book. Its like she doesn’t trust God enough, she has to help give him a little nudge. You’ll see in the reviews after a few months of basically no one reviewing all of a sudden about 8 positive reviews on June 29. Its so obvious. Her Amazon page has become a battleground for those who love her and those who hate her.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

17. I recently came across the notion of the “submitted wife.” Once in a while, I listen to the ramblings and preachings of Dave Ramsey, a money guru (and Christian evangelical) who helps people get out of debt. I don’t esp agree with his philosophy but he has some good things to say about managing monies. Somehow I managed to get to a seven figure net worth via breaking every single one of his rules but that is another matter – some of what he preaches does make sense esp for people who are currently out of control financially. Generally, however, he tends to get on my nerves so I listen to his programming only infrequently.

    Anyway, a woman called in to inquire how she could reconcile her financially irresponsible husband with also being a “submitted wife.” I don’t recall exactly how he answered her because this was the very first time I ever heard that term so I was focusing more on what it meant. I can just imagine having a husband who is totally irresponsible with money and then being told that God – if not Jesus – wants for you, the woman, to obediently “submit” to such folly. Sounds like a good way for the couple to go bankrupt. If women were not suppose to have brains and use them, why would we have evolved with any? It would have been redundant. Only men would have needed to have brains and we could have just followed their lead like our pet dogs do for us. Certainly, our dogs do not need to be as smart as we are in order to survive as pets in our household.

    I also wonder about the terminology of a “submitted” wife. Why was it not called a “submissive wife?” Why the distinction? I think perhaps because the people who came up with this notion believe that the wife need not be submissive until she marries and then she becomes “submitted” and to but one person, her husband. So, I would conclude that women may, in fact, have brains and utilize these brains for the good of all involved BUT only up until the point of marriage. At that point, she checks them in at the door and becomes “submitted.’ It also seems to me that such a system puts one heck of a lot of burden on the husband to know everything and do everything right.

    I usually do not consult my docile and obedient (sometimes) dog when I have important decisions to make. I make all important decisions myself knowing my dog cannot be of much help in these matters. My dog is, by nature, very docile and “submitted.” She is very much a beta dog. I had an alpha dog before her and actually, I liked that personality type better.

    Worse, truly weak and submissive women – women who are naturally that way – will also produce those qualities in their offspring regardless of gender. So do these men who ascribe to this philosophy also want to produce weak and submissive sons? Wives will contribute 50% of the genetic material for all of the children which the couple produces. Worse, you don’t get to say which gender of your children will inherit which of each parent’s attributes. The whole thing seems like a bad business plan to me.

    LikeLike

18. Lea,

    You’re right that Lori is just copying Debi Pearl who is copying Elizabeth Elliott who was influenced by the book Me? Obey Him?

    It’s really scary how deep this kind of craziness runs. The book Me? Obey Him? was the one that teaches people that disobeying God is perfectly fine because the only thing that matters is obeying your husband.

    LikeLiked by 2 people

19. LEB,

    Of course, adults shouldn’t have to ask other adults for permission to make their own decisions. But we have an uphill battle in the church, trying to educate as many Christian woman as possible on how the Bible actually teaches women to take control of their own lives. We are working night and day to let them know that they don’t have to sacrifice their lives for all these crazy ideas floating around in the church.

    The problem is that we are up against too much pride and greed hiding in the pulpits, ignoring everything that the Bible actually says as they gloat over gaining control over women. No one wants to talk about how the Bible actually tells husbands to submit to their wives. Too many Christian leaders get offended when you knock their sacred cows off the pedestals.

    LikeLike

20. You can get enough idea of the quirkiness of her writing on Facebook and Youtube. Both are free.

    LikeLike

21. Avid, If there is a God, I pretty much think this entity sort of had egalitarian relationships in mind where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts – at least that is how I think of my marriage. Brains are very costly from an evolutionary perspective. if women did not need them, they would not have developed any. I am sure there are a whole lot of sacred cows. I am real radical. I actually believe that Jesus was married but that women did not play much of a role in their husbands missions in those days. if he had a wife, which probability favors, she would not be up in the forefront. I have no issue with women supporting their husband’s mission, assuming it is a good one. I have no problem even with her being in the background. My issue comes with this whole submission issue. Both parities need to compromise with one another if a marriage is to work.

    LikeLike

22. Linn, I believe it is the profit motive driving most of these writings. Look at how successful the Pearls are. I believe people want to cash in on some of this cow.

    Evangelical preaching can be very, very lucrative. Some of these folks amass considerable fortunes spreading “God’s word.” In the old days, when the revivalist preacher would come to town and set up his tent, some of them could shake up the whole valley. That pop song about it was not far from the truth, at all. A good Baptist evangelical minister with a powerful voice and a strong will can bring the house down. They are absolutely incredible performers. He can also collect a good deal of the monies folks have, as well. Some of them are downright thunderous once they get going – a good lightening and thunderstorm would have a hard time competing with some of these ministers, once they get on a roll.

    LikeLike

23. My dad used to counsel battered wives when he preached. He had no problem telling them to leave abusive husbands, conservative as his beliefs are. His argument is David took an oath of allegiance to King Saul. Plus God had anointed Saul king and government is as legitimate an authority as a husband/parent/employer. Despite his loyalty David fled Saul to avoid his murderous rage. He remained loyal–but he refused to come back despite Saul’s promises of future good behavior. Sound familiar?

    King David wound up marrying Abigail after God had her abusive husband die. I guess they had something in common so they bonded when they met. 🙂

    LikeLiked by 2 people

24. I see that Lori’s one week hiatus lasted only two days. She can’t stay away.
    The worst part of Lori’s attitude is that she believes she speaks for God. If someone challenges her (and not deleted) her go to response is, “You are not arguing against me, but against God”.
    Lori is very inconsistent as she often contradicts herself. Even when someone quotes scripture, if she doesn’t like the verse quoted, she will discount the scripture and quote from Biblical Comentaries from the 1800s. She says she doesn’t instruct men (as no woman should), yet she loves to correct male posters and loves💕💕💕when the men compliment her. There is just so much cray-cray!

    LikeLiked by 3 people

25. She gives all of these great examples of the women she mentors and how their lives have changed. I have yet to see her discuss the story of a woman who decided not to utilize her services.

    Ann, no, she can’t stay away. I think she likes the attention as she continually talks about her viral post a year ago and all of the comments she is receiving. She even said that she has had several posts go viral, which I don’t think is true. And, for someone who railed against the amount of time women spend on Facebook on her Always Learning page, she sure has spent a lot of time monitoring there lately. Even with her vacation and squad of moderators she’s still posting on social media.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

26. This lady is seriously full of her selfrighteous sht. First off she cannot come up with anything using her own brain. She would rather be lazy and parrot whatever nonsense she reads elsewhere.
    There are very good resources out there to find truth, historical truth, that lines up with scripture. There are some brainy people out there. One of them is Marge from Newlife.id.au. she is intelligent and hangs with equally smart people. I have been in her blog for days now. She is dispelling every concept the Pearl’s, Gothard’s, Duggars’s, and whomever else can dish out sht that is theologically wrong.
    It is fascinating and liberating . It is life giving.
    This Lori is breeding death with every stroke of her pen, and click of the keyboard.

    LikeLike

27. Marge from newlife.id.au is awesome! Her site is a wonderful resource.

    LikeLike

28. Yes, I concur that site is a great resource. Here’s a fascinating article she did on the meaning of the Greek word authentien from 1Timothy 2:12.

    http://newlife.id.au/authentein-1-timothy2_12/

    LikeLike

29. Avid Reader: Just a correction that “Me? Obey Him?” was written by Elizabeth Rice Handford (not Elisabeth Elliot). Although Elliot has written about “submission” too.

    LikeLike

30. Lori is a fool and she is abusive, though it would seem she is a bit too proud to realize that right now. Perhaps she’ll wake up to the fact at the judgement seat when Christ doesn’t stand to applaud.

    LikeLike

31. Bendeni,

    Thank you for the clarification. Maybe I should have made that more clear that when I wrote that Elizabeth Elliott was heavily influenced by this book—I thought people were aware she didn’t write Me? Obey Him? That was written by Elizabeth Rice Hanford the daughter of famous evangelist John Hanford.

    Now Recovering Grace (the blog for survivors of Bill Gothard nonsense) uncovered some really disturbing allegations about Rice’s father’s ministry that there was a member of his staff who was stealing from the ministry. According to “written accounts by the 1980 staff of Bill Gothard’s organization” the thief was caught by his own wife who kept the accounting records. When she exposed the embezzlement, he screamed unsubmissive wife, left her, remarried and was hired at Bill Gothard’s ministry. Everything was swept under the rug to keep the alleged thief in good standing.

    That’s the kind of nonsense that the Me? Obey Him? book promoted which heavily influenced Debi Pearl who influenced Lori. I’m still flabbergasted that Elizabeth Elliott would spend so much time on her radio program and newsletter promoting that kind of evil.

    If anyone wants to check the sources, here’s the link:

    Click to access John-Stancil-and-Bill-Gothards-Shared-Cover-Up.pdf

    LikeLiked by 1 person

32. Oh, sorry! I re-read your comment and now I see what you were saying. I read it too fast the first time. My bad.

    Yes, it’s clear there are chains of influence here, and a “handing down” of this toxic teaching.

    LikeLike

33. When she exposed the embezzlement, he screamed unsubmissive wife, left her, remarried and was hired at Bill Gothard’s ministry.

    What??? Wow. That’s pretty…wow.

    LikeLike

34. I am quite sure the vast majority of these submissive, adultery-tolerant wives have quite a different standard in their own marriages. I, for one, would like to know exactly how “tolerant” Mrs Pearl would be if she discovered her husband had adulterous affairs. My guess is that not only would she refuse to tolerate it but Mr Pearl would get raked over the coals in any divorce proceeding where division of marital assets was at hand. Ms Pearl and Ms Alexander have a great deal to say about how YOU should practice your marital skills. I doubt either of them would condone the behavior they promote in their own marriages. These women may well “humor” their husbands in one way or another – don’t we all at some time – but I seriously doubt either would be complacent with a serious infraction of the marital contract.

    Unless either of these women writes about her own personal experience in adultery or similar offenses – and how their benign approach to it worked out – I take anything they write with a grain of salt. It is one thing to say “Yes, Dear, when he insists on going out to dinner in one restaurant (when you wanted to dine elsewhere) and quite a different matter to be “obedient” when you discover he is having an affair with Mrs. Smith across the street (while you were at work doing a double shift) or that he has emptied out the marital bank account with a gambling addiction. These women are just looking to make a buck on a philosophy which they likely would not practice if truly put to the test. They are “obedient” in rather superficial ways. Let us see one of them be “obedient” if their husband wanted to empty one of these women’s bank accounts and spend all of their earnings on something very foolish for himself. Somehow, I don’t think so. I will believe it when I see it.

    LikeLike

35. It’s different for them, but I’m sure they will scour the earth to find a woman or two who claim spiritual blessing from staying with their adulterous husbands.

    LikeLike

36. Even a non-Christian like me knows that when there is a conflict between God and man, people are instructed to follow God. Reportedly, scripture instructs as much. Bottom line, as best I know, the God which Christians follow is not favorably disposed toward adultery. In fact, there is even a commandment to that effect – Thou shall not… etc. Now, Ms Alexander, it seems, is instructing wives to tolerate adulterous behavior on the part of their husbands. Does Ms Alexander know better than the God she claims to support? I think not. It is one thing to forgive one’s spouse if said person is truly remorseful for having been unfaithful. It is quite another thing to advise persons to put up with something which is so fundamentally wrong. What spiritual path anywhere condones adultery – none that I can think of. Even polygamists insist on a marriage being in force.

    If one part of her book can be so flawed, how can anyone trust anything else she puts forth. My own view is that both parties to a marriage should give-in and compromise with the other. One takes the lead in some areas; the spouse takes the lead in others. Each has his own skills and strengths – together the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. A good marriage does not strive to emulate the relationship one has with his dog. Rather, the two partners are equal and, ideally, best friends. Together they accomplish that which neither could do singly or alone.

    LikeLike

37. For complementarians your husband is more important than God; you must obey man rather than God. I am not an egalitarian, but if your husband says one thing and God another, it’s obvious Who you should obey. Husbands are not God! Treating them as if they were is idolatry plain and simple.

    LikeLike

38. Rachel,

    Good point. But I’m so tired of all the labels in the church. No one here is egalitarian. We are Christ followers.

    Too many of these Christian books sound like Pharaoh who only wants to let the Israelites go on his own terms. He keeps trying to set limits on what the Israelites can and can’t do. Does God need to ask permission from Pharaoh to set the people free?

    In the church we are still dealing with too many Pharaohs who feel entitled to making long lists of rules that women can and can’t do while missing the whole point—God wanted the people to be free so that they could SERVE GOD.

    No matter how they try to slice it, Complementarianism forces adults to become children who have to ask permission from parents. There’s a reason that Jesus told us adults to act like adults and not to treat anyone like a parent, meaning not acting like children anymore. (Matthew 23:9 also see 1Cor 13:11)

    There’s too many lives getting destroyed by this nonsense. And too many Christian leaders with their necks in the sand. Ok, now I’m getting off the soapbox.

    LikeLiked by 2 people

39. Avid Reader, Not being a Christian, I had to look up these two words to see what the concepts mean. I guess I would fit more into the complementarian view because I believe men and women have different abilities and talents but together they form a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. Having said that, however, one of the two is not more important or more deserving of “authority” than the other. They are equally valuable and they have equal authority. The way they get along is by respecting one another and giving in – each of them – as much as possible when there is a conflict.

    I am not sure how “complementarianism” forces me to assume the role of a child. I know that my husband excels at certain aspects of life and so I defer to him about those matters. He knows I excel in certain other aspects and so he defers to me in those matters. Now if he were to insist on something – even in his area of expertise – which I knew to be wrong, I would not give in and visa versa. Each of us has veto power over any matter so if one person wants to do something wherein the other objects, the person favoring the issue needs to convince the other party.

    I will tell you, it would appear that he is smarter than I because when I buck him on things – which is very often – I tend to see the light and come around to his way of thinking sooner, or later. He often says (and I agree with him) “I don’t know why you always fight me on things. In the end you realize I am right and you always come around.” I respond: “Yeah you are right. I suppose I should just listen to you in the first place. It seems like you are always right in the long run.” The point being, he is smarter than I but he does not have more authority. I “always come around” not because he has more authority but because he has more brains. Eventually, I see where his way was, in fact, the better way. Of course, were he not smarter than I, then I would never have married him. The superior brain power is what attracted me in the first place.

    LikeLike

40. LEB,

    That’s a great question which deserves a much more indepth response—beyond the scope of this thread. With respect to Julie Anne and Kathy, I don’t want to drift too far off topic so I’ll just post the cliff notes version:

    If you’re interested in reading the Comp position, here’s the primary textbook that is used to train Christian leaders on it:

    https://www.amazon.com/review/R2VX1SIIUS1IIM/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00265VGGO

    If you’re interested in reading the other side—the book Ten Lies The Church Tells Women is a great choice.

    Now both sides believe that men and women are different. However, what you described is actually the Egalitarian side where both spouses defer to each other. Decisions are made by evaluating information not by one spouse automatically getting their way every time.

    LEB wrote,
    “Now if he were to insist on something – even in his area of expertise – which I knew to be wrong, I would not give in and visa versa. Each of us has veto power over any matter so if one person wants to do something wherein the other objects, the person favoring the issue needs to convince the other party.”

    Comp theology would never allow you to have veto power. For example, Stuart Scott wrote in The Exemplary Husband,

    “Your wife must obey you unless you ask her to sin.” (p. 119)

    “We must not sit back and let our wives do the evaluating and the decision making. We should certainly enlist their input but the evaluating and the decision making are our own responsibility.” (p. 122)

    That’s Comp theology in a nutshell. Of course they try to deny that but the root of Comp theology is taking away the ability of adults to make their own choices. If another adult disagrees, then you have to obey that adult regardless of whether they even know what is best. Doesn’t matter who’s actually qualified or who knows what they’re talking about. While both sides believe that men and women are different, Comps grant authority according to physical characteristics—the only thing we can’t change about ourselves.

    Think about this. If the plumbing were to break on your house, would you find the most qualified plumber to fix it? Someone with years of experience and maybe some technical training? Of course.

    Imagine that someone else sees a broken pipe and decides that they only want a redhead plumber to fix it. Doesn’t matter how much experience or training, all they need is red hair.

    That’s what Comp theology does. It shuts the door on thousands of highly qualified people to give authority to others based on physical characteristics. We just saw how Bill Gothard’s organization overlooked thousands of better qualified people to hire someone with a very questionable background. It turns adults into children by taking away from us the very difference between adults and children—the ability to make our own decisions and be held responsible for them.

    LikeLiked by 2 people

41. Avid Reader, Excellent commentary. I realize the whole point of this forum is to discuss spiritual abuse. The part I am still not understanding is how the church leadership manages to get people to do what is contrary to common sense. Does it all boil down to the beaten children who are harshly punished for any and all infractions of the rules. Is that how it starts? I do know of any number of beaten children – esp boys – whose goal was to grow stronger than their Dads and give as good as they got. It happens if not physically then psychosocially. My grandfather was violent and abusive. Only one son, the youngest, who he favored the most, grew up to be like him – violent and abusive. The rest of the four sons, did not. The family goal was for some of the sons to grow up to the point where my grandmother and the children could escape from them. That happened. The sons grew old enough to assist their Mom and siblings run away to NYC where they got their own apartment and my grandfather was but a guest if he showed up. He could no longer make the rules.

    I’ve known many boys to say they are lifting weights to they would bulk up and their fathers could no longer beat them. So where does all this Christian stuff fit in? How are the Christian leaders able to effect a different course than what everyone else in sane society does. Maybe many leave the flock when when are old enough to do so and the ones who remain are the people who buy into this stuff. Could this whole thing be a self-selecting process. The ones who buy into it are the ones who stuck around to continue to implement it?

    It seems to me these Christian men who believe this stuff can’t have too much on the ball. If they had sufficient brains and skills, they could lead the family naturally without having to force people into following their will. Maybe they are lacking and this is the only way they can do it. I simply can’t imagine my father having to beat me so as to comply with common sense rules. I can’t imagine him beating my mother or forcing her to comply. These things were unfathomable in my family of origin. Maybe we just all shared the same values so everyone was in agreement with what needed to be done. I wanted all As as much as they did want me to get it. No one had to beat me to do my homework. Same with staying out late, not smoking, not drinking, not having sex with boys, whatever. Good grief, who the heck wanted to do any of that stuff,anyway – not me for sure and not any of the friends I hung out with. I am trying to wrap my head around this whole thing of Church leaders forcing people to do stupid things and I still have not seen the light. How do they do it?

    LikeLike

42. LEB,

    If you’re interested in reading more about the “how” and “why” there’s a great book by Steven Hassan called Combating Cult Mind Control.

    There was also a fascinating documentary that recently aired on CNN called Holy Hell—showed how one guru can take control of a group of very smart people. It has the former group members all discussing what drew them in and kept them connected to the group for so long.

    There have always been and always will be evil people in the world. If Jesus had never existed, evil people would still find ways to hurt others.

    Some people will ask why we still believe in Christ with all the evil people doing damage in the church. Well, we can see the difference between the teachings of Jesus and all the junk that people try to add to it. We believe in Christ without believing in the wolves who will use anything to take advantage of others. And we continue to fight the uphill battle of driving that evil out of the church.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

43. Avid Reader, I am writing down those references now and I am going to read/view them. Good suggestions. Regarding the uphill battle, wouldn’t it be easier to simply join a church without all of this nonsense. Surely, there are good ministers out there who lead sane congregations. They can’t all be bad. My husband had a client who was a local minister. He seemed nice enough – rough around the edges sort of guy but he seemed OK to me. I think he was one of those tough love sorts but that is OK. Some of these youth need just that. I was married by a Baptist minister, even. I chose him because he worked for the hospital where I was employed and he seemed nice enough. I invited him to the reception and sat him at a table with other hospital employees. He had a great time with everyone. I had no church affiliation of my own so I needed someone to marry us. I requested a traditional service which, being Baptist, he was more than qualified to deliver. He did a great job. No notes, nothing. He knew it all by heart. If there is one thing these Baptist ministers do well, it is public speaking. He was the right man for the job.

    There is a whole lot of good about Christianity and I know there are good ministers who teach sensible religion. Why don’t more people just join their churches and leave the abusive ministers high and dry. I am writing down your references now and I am going to acquire that book.

    LikeLike

44. Another great discussion everyone! See, something good can come out of this horrid book! 😉

    LikeLiked by 1 person

45. Someone above asked how complementarian treats women like children.

    I’ve written a post or two on my Daisy blog about it, such as this one:
    _Yes, Complementarianism Infantilizes Women_

    Basically, complementarianism teaches women not to trust themselves, trust their intellect, and tells them not to make choices for themselves, but to continually look to men in their lives (husbands, brothers, uncles, pastors, whomever) to direct their lives for them (the Bible teaches absolutely nothing like this).

    Comp treats women like they are over-grown toddlers.

    LikeLike

46. If Jesus actually spoke all of the things he is alleged to have said, he would be the biggest micro-manager in the history of the world. I am quite certain that Jesus did not teach any of this stuff such as complementarianism or wife-spanking or any of the other nonsense. He dealt in broad concepts not the nitty-gritty details. People also forget that Jesus did not write down anything – not one single word and neither did he speak the King James English. He spoke Aramaic and much has been lost in the translation. For example the actual original text says “young girl” not “virgin” – the two concepts are not entirely synonymous not withstanding the fact that the vast majority of young girls – esp then – are, in fact, virgins. First we have trucking for Jesus, then warehousing for Jesus, next spanking for Jesus and now infantalization of women, also for Jesus. Let’s not forget burning women at the stake for Jesus or torturing people in his name. What is next? Where does it stop? If the man walked the earth today and learned of any or all of this nonsense, he would be absolutely appalled.

    LikeLike

47. Leb, I believe Jesus looks down from Heaven and He is appalled. But not surprised. In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, Jesus describes Himself returning to Earth as a righteous Judge. Many people will come up to Him calling Him Lord, but because they neglected the poor, the sick, and the outcasts Jesus will tell them, “Go away. I never knew you.”

    LikeLike

48. @LEB

    “It seems to me these Christian men who believe this stuff can’t have too much on the ball. If they had sufficient brains and skills, they could lead the family naturally without having to force people into following their will. ”

    This is my experience.

    Men who get a thrill out of demeaning and hurting women and children are turned on by Christianity. Men who are extremely insecure about their manhoods are attracted to Christianity and the Bible. Men who know they are the kind of men women and girls want to say “no” to and escape; are attracted to Christianity.

    My father was a wife beater. Christianity told him everything he wanted to be true; women were created to serve men and never escape them. People should preach hatred towards women and elevate men. My father hated women so much; he hated toddler baby girls.

    The man who repeatedly sexually abused me as a little girl adored everything the Bible said about women. He loved all the wife submission Bible verses and he loved the misogyny in the bible. The Bible benefitted him.

    Areil Castro spirited men are learning Christianity offers them all they want out of women and little girls. These men are figuring out that they will not have to go to jail, be hated, have fear, feel guilt, or shame for their sadistic-fetishes and loser-man-insecurities. They can use Chriaitanty to make their wives and daughters have guilt, feel shame, have fear, and feel hated if we don’t do what these men want.

    Christianity taught me to hate myself for being female and that I could not disappoint men. Christianity taught the man who raped me that men should be in charge of women.

    As a sexually abused little girl, my biggest dream was to be able to tell men NO! Christian men are preaching that they should never have to hear “no” from a female. Areil Castro was not into women being able to tell him “no” either.

    LikeLike

49. Avid Reader said “Doesn’t matter who’s actually qualified or who knows what they’re talking about. While both sides believe that men and women are different, Comps grant authority according to physical characteristics—the only thing we can’t change about ourselves.”

    Exactly! Piper says this all the time: “It’s not about competency.” (For example, the ridiculous parable he spins about the guy dating a woman who has a black belt, being responsible to defend her from an attack.) He’s the leader and she’s the follower, ’cause the Bible says so, end of story. Doesn’t matter if he’s careless, incompetent, abusive, or whatever. Blech.

    (Nice review of RBMW by the way. Piper et al always say “the Bible defines gender roles for the church and the home,” but as you point out in the review, Piper takes it way beyond that into the workplace too.)

    LikeLike

50. Lori Alexander is a sexually sadistic pervert. And she has the same misogynistic fetishes as the Christian man that repeatedly sexually abused me as a little girl.

    I do believe Lori Alexander hates women so much she is trying to make sure the Ariel Castro spirited men of America get what they want out of women without having to go to jail for it.

    The perverted truth is in my experience with women like Lori; they are turned on by men like Areil Castro. It is so creepy how these sexually sadistic women can’t live their pervert lives by themselves. Why they want other women to live a degrading pervert life with them. These women are perverts, and the worst kind of perverts, their perversion has abuse in it. Oh, but they pretend it isn’t abuse, it is biblical.

    It is people with S&M fetishes trying to spread their fetish to other families and no child or woman is allowed a safe word.

    LikeLike

51. @ bendeni

    John Piper is so paranoid and insecure about his manhood. If there is anything I learned from boys when I was fourteen it was if a guy starts going on about manhoods he is a ridiculous poser.

    LikeLike

52. Christianity Hurts, This man who abused you is the most despicable of all creatures. My condolences to you for having fallen prey to such a creature. He distorts Christian doctrine to suit his evil ends. The sad truth is that it really would not matter what religion he affiliated with, he would find some way to distort the doctrines to meet his own ends. As much as I don’t esp favor these evangelical Christian pastors, I am reasonably sure that if he told any one of them what he was doing to you, even they would condemn him. Even they are not that bad.

    It is very hard to come to the knowledge that there are men who walk the earth who would commit such atrocities against children. Christianity may well hurt but these evil persons would distort any religion they happened upon. Look at what the Muslim radicals are doing now. If they are not slamming planes into the WTC, they are beheading innocent persons or drowning them in metal cages – all in the name of God – in their case God is called Allah. It is all the same. They are evil persons looking for a stage on which to conduct their criminal activities. Sadly, you crossed paths with one such evil individual and he exacted his torment upon you. I hope someday you will find peace and heal from the evil which has been perpetrated upon you. We must bear the scars of these villains who walk in our midst.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

53. Christianity Hurts, That has been my take on the whole wife-spanking CDD. The participants have S and M fetishes and they are sexually turned on by it. Where I differ from you is that it is not only the men with these fetishes. It is the women, also. If you read some of the blogs where these women post and sort of brag about their punishments – one upping one another – it becomes quite obvious that they have the fetish, as well as their partner. The Church gives them a legitimate expression of something they want to do anyway.

    I guarantee you that if one of these women grew tired of the lifestyle and/or lost interest in staying with her husband, she’d have him booked on domestic violence in a heartbeat. It is staged but if any of these women decide, for whatever reason, to turn on the man, he is in BIG trouble. All she would have to tell the authorities was that she clearly and openly withdrew consent and he hit her anyway. She could also say that she never gave consent in the first place but that he abused her anyway and finally she just got to a place where she decided to report it to the police. These men are not only sadistic, they are supremely stupid, as well. They have no idea of how this “behavior” could be turned against them with grave consequences. They have no idea of how much legal hot water they could find themselves in given the current sociopolitical climate on this issue. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    LikeLike

54. Rachel, I not so sure of that. If it were possible to look down from heaven to observe atrocities and if one had God-like powers, that person would never allow the atrocities to take place for some 2000 or more years. If such a scenario as you described were possible, then it would make the observer (who could stop the activities but did not do so) almost as guilty as the individuals doing the evils. Evils abound – we hear of them and witness some of them all the time. Some of us even have fallen victim to particular evils through no fault of our own. No divine entity would passively witness them and allow persons to suffer in this manner. Heck, I am certainly no divine entity and I could not even bear to witness my cat kill a mouse. I intervened and saved the mouse – which I now have as a pet in a cage, waiting to be let go when I find the right spot where I think it will be safe. Problem is that the mouse is very cute and I can’t think of one place where it is going to be safe. I wanted to release it in one of our outdoor sheds where no predator can get in but my husband caught wind of the idea and absolutely blew a gasket over the idea. So it remains in the cage, eating cat food, sleeping in the ceramic house I bought for it and running around on the little mouse wheel. I could not stand not to intervene even in that trivial circumstance let alone a God entity witnessing human suffering at the hands of an evil doer and doing nothing. It is unfathomable.

    LikeLike

55. LEB,

    This afternoon, we had a wonderful summer lunch of fried chicken, potato salad, macaroni salad, chocolate chip cookies and lemonade. Of course we should have been eating healthier, but we didn’t really care. It’s summer time! There’s nothing like a cold glass of lemonade on a hot day!

    When I choose to eat junk food, I know its not good for my health. Should someone grab the fried chicken out of my hands and make me eat kale and tofu? Let’s go one step further. If I choose to consistently eat unhealthy food, never exercise, and never see a doctor, can I blame God if I end up with illness? Every time I pick up a plate of fried chicken, should God magically transform it into broccoli and tuna to help me be healthier?

    If I chose to start smoking, should God knock the cigarette out of my hand to prevent me from getting lung cancer?

    Let’s go another step further. If I need money and choose to rob a bank, should God zap me with lightning to stop me from robbing the bank? Or is it my responsibility to make better choices? When robbing that bank results in bad consequences, can I blame God for not stopping me from making that bad choice?

    These are tough issues to consider. Should God interfere with our personal choices? When? How often? Can we really make our own choices if God automatically steps in and prevents us from making mistakes?

    In the church we are often taught that God is in control of everything. Well if that’s true He sure messed up everything. There’s so much evil in the world. Innocent people suffer every day. Children suffer the most. That’s why I believe that when God gave us the ability to make choices, He chooses not to “control” those choices. Therefore, because He WON’T make our own choices for us, God is NOT in control of everything—whether we eat fried chicken, or tofu or do a thousand other things. We get to be in control of our lives everyday, even if we choose to mess up everything.

    None of us want to see people suffer. We give generously to charities, hoping to help suffering children around the world. But when greed takes charitable resources and wastes them, is that God’s fault?

    All of us wonder how a loving God can see the horrific evil out there without jumping in. But if God is supposed to interfere with our personal choices, then we wouldn’t be able to make choices at all.

    There are many innocent people that suffer from the evil choices of others. That’s why we believe that eternity is when God rights the wrongs that happen in this life. Heaven is where people get to enjoy all the good things that may have been withheld from them down here due to the evil choices of others. Heaven gives us hope to keep dealing with the evil world that we all face everyday.

    LikeLike

56. Yes.

    Atheists ask: If God is all-loving and all-powerful why does evil exist?

    What they don’t ask: If God is all-good and all-powerful why does He let me continue to exist?

    LikeLiked by 1 person

57. Piper says this all the time: “It’s not about competency.”

    I’m amazed that people didn’t write him off from that moment because it is so self evidently stupid.

    LikeLike

58. Avid Reader, Yes but the part that is missing in all of this is allowing the innocent to suffer. It is one thing for you to mess up your health (I like fried chicken also and truthfully tofu is also good when prepared properly). I have no problem with that part. If God exists, absolutely this entity should allow you to exercise free will. BUT having said that, permitting innocent persons to suffer is an entirely different matter. Here there is no issue of free will or choice or any such notion.

    Your last paragraph sums it up nicely but it is just all too pat for me. I suppose it is a nice thought and certainly helps the mental health of those who are suffering. It just seems too much of “Deus ex machina” to me or translated “God in a Box” sort of thing. That is when a writer does not think through the conclusion of his book and, instead, just comes up with a sudden, out of the blue and implausible fix all solution to everything so as to end the novel on a high note. Sort of like the Gary Larsen cartoon where a variety of professors ares standing about a room full of blackboards and all of the blackboards have figures on them. At the bottom of one of the blackboards is an inscription “and then a miracle happens” after which the figures continue and it all ends up with a happy conclusion where everything works out. The one professor says to the other “I think we need to look a bit more closely at this part” as he points to the inscription.

    The whole heaven/hell thing just does not cut it for me. On the other hand, if someone is deriving solace and comfort from it, who am I to interfere and say it shouldn’t be so. In the end I am a believer in the “what ever works” philosophy in life. If it helps someone cope, so much the better. This particular notion, however, just does not “work” for me

    LikeLike

59. Rachel, Your logic assumes that you don’t deserve to exist. There is nothing to suggest that such is so. Why should you not be allowed to exist? What have you done which is so terrible that the world would be better off without you? Maybe Hitler should ask that question or the terrorists who blew up the WTC but you? What great evil have you done?

    LikeLike

60. Who is Piper? Is he or she someone who posts here?

    LikeLike

61. Hi, LEB,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Piper_(theologian)

    He is probably the most influential neo-Calvinist pastor of the last 25 years. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

    LikeLike

62. I just looked up neo-calvinism on wiki. I guess it would be safe to say, I don’t well relate to it. I also looked up Piper, thanks to your convenient link. Can’t say as I relate well to him, either. His philosophy seems a bit irrational to me. I think the bottom line is one either believes this stuff or he does not. I seem to be in the “does not” category which is not to say I am all knowing and everyone else is wrong. I just don’t buy what these folks are hawking. Sort of gets back to the “whatever works” philosophy of mine. For me, anyway, this stuff just does not “work.”

    LikeLike

63. Most commenters in this site are not huge followers or fans of Piper.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

64. LEB – If you put John Piper’s name in the search bar on the right you can see some of the posts that have been written about him here.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

65. He sounds like someone whose teachings I am not going to like. I must tell you that being an agnostic and secular humanist, as I am, has certain advantages in that you get spared having to deal with all of these jerks. You can still do all the “good stuff” and practice spiritual growth to your heart’s content BUT you don’t have to deal with all these turkeys and their weird ideas. I have to tell you, however, that of all the stuff I have read about on this site, the CDD with its wife spanking really takes the cake. Before stumbling onto this site – quite accidentally – I never even knew about spiritual abuse. It was one form of abuse I had never heard of. I came here in a very strange way. My husband forwarded me a comment made by a woman who it seems has her own blog. Something about “people like your spawn” or something like that. I don’t remember all the details of her post but somehow, I ended up here and began to learn about spiritual abuse. You just never know what the new day brings in terms of learning opportunities. To say this place has been an eye-opener is the understatement of the year.

    LikeLike

66. LEB wrote,

    “If God exists, absolutely this entity should allow you to exercise free will. BUT having said that, permitting innocent persons to suffer is an entirely different matter. Here there is no issue of free will or choice or any such notion.”

    That line of reasoning doesn’t work.

    If I choose to text and drive and end up in a car accident that hurts someone else can I blame God for allowing that innocent person to suffer? Is it God’s responsibility to prevent the car accident from happening if it was my choice to take my eyes off the road?

    Again these are tough issues to consider. It would be terrible if some innocent person was hurt because someone else chose to take their eyes off the road but here’s the thing—the line of reasoning that blames God for allowing people to suffer is actually demanding that God make our choices for us. If God starts making our choices for us, then we wouldn’t be able to make our own choices at all. Accepting reality means accepting the fact that every decision we make affects others. Accepting the fact that we have the ability to choose between good and evil. If we choose evil, then innocent people will suffer.

    LikeLike

67. @ Avid Reader

    I prayed as a little girl and asked God not to let me get sexually abused again.

    What does God get out of not answering the prayers, cries, and begs of a raped child who goes to church three times a week and believes Jesus loves her?

    When I was still a Christian I read an article about a refugee African woman begging Allah to stop her from being gang raped. Obviously, Allah did not answer her begs as she was being gang raped. I was distraught as to why my God would not stop it from happening to her. She could not help that she was born in the wrong part of the world. That she was brainwashed to worship the wrong God. Could my God not have mercy and hate gang rape enough to help the woman?

    One of my cousin’s husband who is an adulterer, a drunk driver, and abandoned her and her kids; he saw a little girl suffering. He immediately jumped up and rescued the little girl. Even a man like this could not sit and watch something awful happen to a child.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

68. Christianity Hurts,

    We appreciate your willingness to share very personal details about your life to help other survivors.

    This world is such an evil place. There are so many evil people hurting others. Society as a whole has a responsibility to protect the innocent. There are so many hard working social services people out there laboring night and day to rescue children from that type of evil. But no matter how many good people are in the world, there’s still so much pain and suffering caused by evil people.

    Have you been able to file charges against that person that hurt you?

    Have you had the chance to speak to an attorney about filing a civil lawsuit for the damages that he caused you?

    You will never be powerless again. You are a very strong person with a big heart to help others.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

69. Avid Reader, That is why certain people like me are either agnostic or atheistic because neither scenario makes much sense. As much as I do not really like the outcome, the one that makes the most logical sense is that there is no God and there is no afterlife. I don’t esp like it but, truthfully, it is the most logical conclusion. On some level, the whole reincarnation and karma thing makes some sense BUT there are a lot of problems with that one also. What do we tell someone like Chrisitianity Hurts who was sexually abused as an innocent child? Do we tell her that such was her karma from past lives. I don’t think so – that does not work too well for me. it certainly would not work well for her.

    It is absolutely comforting to think that rewards and punishments will follow after death in a heaven/hell scenario. The problem for some of us is that we have to suspend too much disbelief and logic for that to be true. If it works for you, I say great – go for it. I am not against persons having religion. It simple does not work for me. I have to discount too much evidence to buy it. So I say, go ahead and do the right thing anyway – promote good, fight evil – do what you can. No one is any the worse off for that approach and some might even benefit. That is what it means to be a secular humanist. I strive to do all the same things you do BUT I do them for their own sake – to better the world and/or better myself. You and I are in agreement re what should be done. We just do the things for different reasons.

    LikeLike

70. It’s a dangerous game to compare myself to Hitler or Saddam Hussein or Ariel Castro. But when I think of how far I have fallen from what God wanted me to be, moral perfection, I am indeed a sinner in need of mercy from God.

    We are all sinners. While Castro and Ted Bundy are extreme cases we all have the same spiritual deformity that they did. The Bible says as much. That is a major problem the Westboro Baptists have.

    For all have sinned and come short of the grace of God.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

71. Rachel,

    Have you seen the movie—The Shack? If you have, would love to hear your thoughts on it.

    For me, what I DIDN’T like about the movie is that they don’t recognize evil for what it really is. They made excuses for evil. To be honest, that movie made me really uncomfortable.

    There’s a huge difference between good people like yourself that make mistakes from time to time but generally try to treat others right and evil people who willfully choose to hurt others. I was flabbergasted by how that movie made it sound like everyone is the same so we’re supposed to be more understanding and sympathetic to evil people.

    Yes, I agree with you that no one is perfect and we all need Christ as savior but give yourself some credit for trying to do the right thing. You are nothing like Ted Bundy or Ariel Castro.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

72. Sure, Rachel, we all do – but need we beat ourselves up over it. Could we not simply dust ourselves off and try harder to be good persons. Surely some good has come from your life and efforts. Did you give birth to children and try to raise them into being good and productive persons? Did you do anything to help those less fortunate than yourself? Have you learned and perfected any skills which serve to help your fellow citizens. I am sure you have done at least something good in your life. How much true evil have you actually committed?

    No, you are not perfect, I am not perfect, Avid Reader is not perfect but is there any reason we have to dwell on our imperfections? Would not our time be better spend correcting our flaws and also focusing our energies on helping our fellow man. How is wallowing in your sins going to do any good for anyone?

    LikeLike

73. LEB wrote,

    “Do we tell her that such was her karma from past lives. I don’t think so.”

    Totally agree with you there. I can’t accept the idea of reincarnation for the same reasons that you reject it as well.

    “Christianity Hurts” deserves credit for her courage in overcoming some very cruel things and her courage in seeking to help others.

    LikeLiked by 2 people

74. Good post Avid Reader. There is too much “victimhood” going around as an excuse for doing bad things.

    LikeLike

75. Avid Reader, Absolutely she does. It is very hard to deal with the injustices of life. The whole heaven/hell thing is one way to deal with it but that belief system just does not do it for me. I have to suspend to much of my critical thinking mind to swallow this whole package put forth by religion.

    On the other hand, if it does “do it” for someone, I say great. If someone is becoming a better person because of it and if someone is helping others because of it – making the world a better place – I also say great. Whatever it takes to get the job done – helping others, improving the world, stamping out evil, etc. etc. – is fine with me. As long as people are striving to do the right thing, I really don’t care why they are doing it – just so the work gets done.

    LikeLike

76. LEB,

    Have you ever served on a jury? Most of us have gotten called for it at one time or another. We all understand how that process works. People on a jury have to review the evidence presented, listen to arguments on both sides and then make a decision about what they think actually happened.

    Jurors can decide that there’s not enough evidence available to make a decision, but that’s still making a decision about the evidence presented.

    Logic and critical thinking is why I believe in God. People of faith are people of logic and critical thinking skills. We do our research and form our conclusions based on what makes sense to us. We look at the complexity of human DNA and have to make a decision on whether that’s an accident of nature or design by a loving Creator. Of course, you’re welcome to disagree with me but all of us have to make that choice whether we choose to believe in Christ or not.

    All I’m saying is that people of faith are still people of logic and critical thinking. There’s a totally unfair line of reasoning that says that the only way to believe in God is to suspend your logic and reasoning. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

77. Avid Reader, perhaps so. I certainly have no interest in dissuading you from your faith. If it helps you to be a better person and do the right things in life, absolutely you should continue with this line of thinking. You are correct in what you say. You look at the evidence and come to one conclusion. I look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. Who is to say who is correct and who is wrong. It really does not matter, anyway. It only matters what we do after we come to said conclusion.

    Odds are that you and I would do the same things in any given scenario where action was needed on our part. We might, however, being doing these things for different reasons. We would both fall short of the goal and we would both have many flaws – making many mistakes – in the process but so long as we are working toward a given goal – and that goal is positive – it is fine. We simply do not interpret what we see in life in the same way. I am going to theorize that probably 80% if the time, we would agree on what is the best course of action to deal with a given problem or a given scenario. Where we will differ is in those cases where particular actions are based on portions of scripture wherein I have major issues. Those are the areas wherein you and I are going to differ as to what is the best courses of action for a given scenario. Mostly, however, such is not going to be the case.

    To be perfectly honest with you, given a choice, I’ll take a good fundamentalist Christian – with whom I disagree – any day over some of these off-the-wall liberals (like Code Pink, for but one example). The left has gotten so far out of line in some instances that the Christians are a huge bargain, in comparison. I also have huge issues with persons who want to rain on their parade so to speak. What difference does it make if the Christians want to put up religious icons at Christmastime or whatever it is that they like to do. No one is forcing me to look at it or participate in the process. I say, leave them alone. They are not bothering anyone.

    LikeLike

78. All, I think this is a really hard and confusing issue, which is why it is hard to come up with a satisfactory answer. I guess to start with, there is the question of whether where we are is a fall from a better state, or whether we are in an endless cycle of might-makes-right. I think our desire to seek justice suggests the former – we recognize and reject evil and we have a pretty good idea what is evil when we see it. I would suspect that if our minds were the result of a repeated cycle of natural selection and survival of the fittest, then rather than rejecting the use of brute force to manipulate and control, we would celebrate it as ‘fitness’.

    That said, the alternative is hard to fathom. A God who has the ability to miraculously intervene to protect the good and judge the evil who yet does not.

    I’ve been challenged recently by the parable of the wheat and the tares. The master of the field says, don’t pull the tares, because in doing so some of the wheat may be uprooted. I wonder if that is the sad/blessed reality – that God so much loves his own that he allows evil to persist so that they come to salvation.

    For example, an evil rapist may impregnate a women, and the child of that evil rape may become a Christian. So, the tare rapes the wheat and a wheat is produced. If God had uprooted the tare, the wheat would not have been produced. We mourn and detest the evil acts of the tares, yet we are faced with the paradox that in some respects the end result of this evil act is blessing brought by God.

    In my life, I would say that I mourn and detest the emotional and spiritual abuse that was inflicted on me, but yet, if it were not for that abuse, I probably would be still be a Pharisee, completely lacking in grace. Paradoxically, I’ve found it’s only those who have been abused by my former church that recognize how cultic and abusive it is.

    LikeLike

79. Mark, Good post but then there is an equal if not more probable scenario wherein the child so conceived will inherit much of his father’s qualities and turn out to be not such a great human being. Maybe his mother is great and he will inherit her qualities so it is a crap shoot, at best – likely he will fall somewhere between the two. I am ever amazed when patients have come to me complaining about qualities of their teenage children who are doing bad things and running wild. Of course, always, they are separated from the father or else never married to him, in the first place. I tend to calmly inquire: “So what was his father like?” Most frequently, I get the answer: “He was the very same way!” or else “He is no good!” I quietly respond: “That is a shame” or “Gosh, that is terrible.” What I am really thinking is “What were you thinking having children with this man – of course, they are going to be a lot like their father.” Needless to say, I don’t express any such sentiments.

    Now, rape is another thing. I will be damned if I would ever bring an evil rapist child into world. That man has defiled my body and I would want no part of him growing inside of me. You had better believe I would abort a rapist’s child. I don’t believe I have enough good genes to overcome his evil ones or at least I would not chance it. Accidental pregnancy with an otherwise good man, well that is another matter. I probably would have that child. If God wanted more Christians so badly that he allowed a rapist defile me, he had just better find some other way to increase his flock cause I am having no part of it.

    Here is my take on the whole wheat and tare parable thing which you say may bring persons to salvation. If God wants these persons to come to salvation, he had better find some other way to do it versus causing harm to me because I am most definitely not cooperating. Because it might cause some jerk comes to “salvation” is absolutely no reason to harm someone else. For these reasons and many others just like them, I am a firm agnostic and secular humanist. Now if you want to talk about forgiving the rapist and helping him reform, then we might have something to talk about. I am all for forgiveness and service to this person so as to help him turn their life around. Sustaining personal harm on his behalf – hell no!

    LikeLike

80. Mark,

    Just read this today:

    “People ruin their lives by their own foolishness and then are angry at the LORD.”
    Proverbs 19:3(NLT)

    It sounds like what you were trying to say about the parable of the wheat and tares is that God gives each one of us time to grow, change and become a better person. If God instantly zapped us the moment we did something wrong, then we wouldn’t have time to learn from our mistakes. Through the years of our lives, we have all become better people than we were when we first started out. The wheat and tares parable seems to describe how the mercy of God is giving people extra time for repentance. No one gets away with anything. The end of the parable is judgment coming on evil people.

    By the way we have to be careful about these church doctrines that try to make excuses for evil people, saying that somehow this evil person’s choice was part of God’s plan. NOOOO! The Bible specifically warns against the idea of doing evil to cause good to happen.

    “Or can we say—as some people slander us by claiming that we say—”Let’s do evil that good may result”? They deserve to be condemned!”
    Romans 3:8 (ISV)

    Even Jesus grieved over the stubbornness of people because He couldn’t help them unless they allowed Him to. (Matthew 23:37)

    Part of us wants to believe that God is in control—meaning that no matter what we choose to do—somehow it was all part of God’s mysterious plan. We want to have it both ways where we get to make our choices and then if anything goes wrong, we want to blame God for not intervening—demanding that God make our choices for us. Can’t have it both ways.

    Instead, we all need to recognize the power we have to wake up every morning and do something!!!!

    “For God did not give us a spirit of fear but of POWER and LOVE and
    SELF-CONTROL.”
    2Timothy 1:7(NET)

    LikeLike

81. Mark,

    Thought you might like this one too:

    “One thing I have learned: God made people good, but they have found all kinds of ways to be bad.”
    Ecclesiastes 7:29(NCV)

    LikeLike

82. Avid Reader,

    Sorry, but I don’t think this particular parable is a good one and I think your interpretation of it is off the mark. It has several major flaws inherent in its design. First of all the tares (weeds) have no option to become wheat. They can’t “redeem” themselves. Second of all, they did not invade the wheat field – i.e. become invasive – of their own power. Rather, they were put there by someone else i.e. “the enemy.” . It wasn’t “their fault” that they were there but they got burned anyway. They paid the price for someone else’s misdoings.

    Perhaps someone might say that “revenge is best served cold” but that is not it either because the “enemy” who planted the tares is no worse off for the fact that the tares got burnt. Perhaps the poor tares are suffering but not the “enemy.” For all we know, he is enjoying the bon fire, giggling away at all the extra work he caused to be done. Anyway, lots of people actually like bon fires which is why they are so popular.

    As for the revenge angle, I personally happen to like the concept of “vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.” much better. So the bottom line is that the tares got “punished” for something which someone else did. They had no choice but to be tares. Your theory suggests that they could have turned themselves into wheat which, of course, in preposterous…..and worse, the “enemy” is totally off the hook. He causes havoc in the wheat field yet he gets away scott free.

    Sounds more like a scenario wherein the master is saying that “if we deal with this problem now, more harm than good will come of so better we deal with it later when we can do so more safely.” Not especially inspiring, no? Sort of mundane.

    Sorry but I think whoever wrote this parable struck out with it, big time. This one should have gone back to the drawing board before it made the cut. There are some great parables but this is not one of them. Now, not to be overly negative, the parable I like best is the one about not seating yourself at the head of the table. That is an example of a good parable.

    LikeLike

83. LEB,

    My comment was a reply to Mark. I’d love to hear his response on that.

    By the way, try to keep an open mind. You’re very quick to tell everyone else that they’re wrong. Just remember that other people have perspectives too.

    LikeLike

84. I am keeping an open mind and I also want to hear other people’s perspectives. That is how we all learn. I also would like to hear Mark’s interpretation. I am simply saying that the parable is flawed for the reasons I outlined. I absolutely want to hear other people’s perspectives but they don’t always share them.

    As long as I have your attention,however, I would like to address another point with you. You and I both have said that the notion of reincarnation and karma does not quite do it for us. We both have some issues with it. I have been told that there is a reference in the bible where someone says – in the presence of Jesus – that Jesus is the reincarnation of John the Baptist. Now since you are obviously a biblical scholar, you would know better than I about if this passage exists and where. I am simply reporting to you what I learned on the topic from someone else. Allegedly, the statement was made and Jesus did nothing to correct the person who referenced reincarnation i.e. it was not true or some such thing. Should not Jesus have said something if the statement were false. Also this same person (she was the instructor in a class I was taking once) stated that in the early days of Christianity – when it was completely under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church (long before Protestantism came about) there was a belief in this concept – somehow it got dropped along the way.

    Now it happens that in my class was a Roman Catholic priest who had been to seminary – the whole nine yards. He was fully ordained. He said that in the seminary they are taught about the history – as you might expect would be the case – and that such is true. They did espouse it at one time. He also said that a good deal of the other content which the instructor was teaching was also true but it was deep in the Vatican libraries and hidden from the public.

    Again, you seem to be an expert on the Bible. Are you at all familiar with what this instructor was referencing?

    LikeLike

85. Avid Reader,

    While waiting for your reply, I did some google searching on my own. It seems the whole reincarnation notion about John the Baptist is not in reference to Jesus but to Elijah (whoever he was). It seems my memory does not serve me entirely correctly but I took this class many years ago. I do remember the instructor said that the issue came up.

    About the whole reincarnation being dropped from Christianity, I did find a reference which supports that notion. Here is what I found

    On the subject of reincarnation, Indian philosophy seems at odds with Christian teachings. But in fact this doctrine is denied only in the prevailing interpretations of the Bible, and not in the Bible itself. Reincarnation is not an un-Christian teaching. Nor, for that matter, is it an un-Jewish one. It was taught by some of the great early Christian Fathers, including Origen (A.D. 185 – 254) who claimed to have received it in an unbroken tradition “from apostolic times.” Indeed, it was not until five centuries after Christ, in 553 A.D., at the Second Council of Constantinople, that this doctrine was finally removed from Christian dogma. The anathema that was pronounced against it was a consequence of political maneuverings, not of theological purism. Scholars have recently discovered that Pope Vigilius, although present in Constantinople at that time, took no part in pronouncing the anathema, and in fact boycotted the Council altogether. http://www.waystofreedom.com/insights/reincarnation.html

    Again, I am not pushing the whole reincarnation thing. I am simply saying that at one time, it was part of Christian dogma and that it was officially removed from the teachings in 553 AD – more than five centuries after the death of Jesus. Perhaps that is why Jesus did not speak out against the notion. It was apparently part of the religious dogma at the time he lived. I do also know that the book which we call the Bible today represents specific books which a particular Pope chose from a larger group of books and gospels. He – meaning this Pope – decided which books should be included in the compendium which we today refer to as the Bible. Evidently, some of the books and gospels did not make the cut but the problem I have with this whole thing is that it was a single person – the then pope – who made this decision

    LikeLike

86. Good morning LEB,

    Just woke up this morning and realized that you were waiting for a reply. Sorry to keep you waiting.

    I’d love to have the chance to visit the Vatican and study the artifacts in their archives. It must be really cool for the lucky people who get to study all the history they have preserved. What that instructor was describing sounds like an early Gnostic Gospel. We believe that the early church was infiltrated by lots of heresies so the Apostle Paul wrote much of the New Testament rebutting those heresies.

    There are many early writings that sound like someone making up stuff to sell books so naturally someone could have started a rumor that Jesus was the reincarnation of Elijah or John the Baptist. That rumor could have easily spread through the early church and become part of church dogma.

    The Bible addresses the concept of reincarnation by saying that people die only once and then comes the judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

    But I’m with you on looking at this from a logical perspective. The thing about reincarnation that bothers me the most is the idea that we lose everything about ourselves and have to become someone else. What about all the good we did in our lives? Shouldn’t we be rewarded for that? If we become six other people then we’ve lost our personal identity. Instead I’d rather believe that God keeps a “book of remembrance” recording everything good that we did to reward us. (Malachi 3:16)

    By the way, I’m just a nobody who loves to read. Thanks for the compliment. 🙂

    LikeLike

87. LEB, it’s easy to get caught up in the details of the parable and miss the point (not seeing the forest for the trees). I think the Bible says that we are all tares, and it is through the work of the Holy Spirit and Christ that our nature is changed from tares to wheat. But… that is beside the point.

    What I’m saying is that in our fallen world evil, disgusting, terrible things happen. We don’t understand how those evil things can be in “God’s plan”. That’s the “problem of evil”. There are two approaches to the problem of evil. The first approach is the typical Evangelical approach. Flip the question. “It’s not ‘how do evil things happen to good people’, but ‘how do good things happen to evil people'” I think there is very little benefit to that approach.

    Yet, what Jesus is saying in this parable is that there is a bigger picture. There are ripples. The stone of the rape thrown into the pond causes ripples. The immediate ripple is the evil and pain of the rape itself, but only God knows and understands the ultimate effects, and perhaps what the parable is saying is that this short-term evil brings long-term good in God’s plan. That is, that removing the stone, while it looks good on the surface, actually removes the ripples.

    I want to be very careful because I think it can lead us to very trite answers (Evangelicals are again very great at this). “You shouldn’t be upset that you were raped and are now pregnant because God means this for good.” But, I think what Jesus is teaching is that if it weren’t for that rape, some person who God loves and has called to himself might not exist.

    For example, if it weren’t for Pharoah’s evil order, Moses wouldn’t have been trained to be a leader. If Joseph’s brothers hadn’t sold him into slavery, they would have died in famine. We still can be disgusted and horrified by these evil actions, yet recognize that eventually, good came from them.

    I think that is a big aspect of the punishment of Satan. He works and works and works to make something bad happen, like Judas betraying Jesus, yet the end result is that more good comes from the bad he does. Like the Merchant of Venice where evil Shylock not only doesn’t get his revenge on the hero, but the very tool (the Venetian law) he desires to manipulate against the hero gets turned back on him.

    Avid Reader, I think also in the parable is that there are evil and good. The tares are tares in an ultimate sense, rather than initially. It’s not that (in this parable) the tares will learn their lesson and change. It’s that uprooting the tares will damage the wheat – those who will ultimately accept Christ.

    Remember that Jesus preaches against the Pharisees, who claimed that they wouldn’t have killed the prophets. He says not only are they guilty because they would have killed the prophets of old, but that he was going to send prophets that they were actually going to kill so that they had no excuse.

    LikeLike

88. LEB: “I have been told that there is a reference in the bible where someone says – in the presence of Jesus – that Jesus is the reincarnation of John the Baptist.”

    That is what the people think – they think he is the reincarnation of John the Baptist.

    The question is really, who is Elijah. Elijah in the Old Testament was a great prophet, but Elisha, his understudy, receives a double portion of his spirit when he is taken from Earth in a heavenly chariot. Elisha does even more amazing things than Elijah, culminating in a situation after Elisha is dead where a man’s body is placed in Elisha’s grave and the dead man comes back to live.

    The Bible is full of what theologians call “Types”. For example, Jesus says, just as the bronze serpent was lifted up, so shall the Son of Man be lifted up. The bronze serpent was a symbolic representation of Jesus. The Israelites had to look to the bronze serpent to be saved from death.

    In fact, the REAL Elijah appears with Jesus in the transfiguration. On the way down from the mountain, Jesus says, don’t tell anyone about this until I’m risen. The disciples wonder because they see this as a fulfillment of the prophecy that Elijah would come first, but then they realize that it is, in fact, John the Baptist that is the “Elijah” prophesied. So, Biblically speaking, Elijah was a “type”, a forerunner, of which John the Baptist was the fulfillment, and Elisha was a “type” which Jesus fulfilled. Elisha brought two back from the dead – one while alive and one after his death. Jesus brought people back from the dead, and when he died, he not only brought many saints back from the dead, but also raised himself.

    LikeLike

89. Avid Reader,

    Some strange thought occurred to me as I was drifting across to sleep last night. If the notion of reincarnation was purged from the official church dogma in 554 AC that would mean that Jesus – who lived five centuries before that time – would have believed in it, if such was the religious teachings of the time. Effectively then, today, we are believing – if we are believers – something different in terms of dogma than what he was taught – and presumably – believe. That is sort of weird. The other thing which I find troublesome is that the Nician counsel around the same time determined which books were to be official Canon law i.e. the Bible and which were to be discarded. I was doing quite a bit of reading about how the bible came into being last night. It seems that the books gradually evolved and that eventually, to settle controversy, this papal counsel decided on the final version. There was also a chart published which shows which books – of the ones that were in existence then and still now – are accepted by which religions. It seems, which I did not know, that there are differences in which books are accepted by Catholics vs Protestants. Their respective bibles differ but they also listed a whole bunch of other books and stated which sects accept which books.

    So the bottom line is that some Pope and his counsel in 554 AC made the decision as to which books would be included in what we now consider to be “God’s word.” Of course, the Catholics believe the Pope is infallible so they have no problem with this notion. The protestants and esp evangelical ones are not thrilled with the pope and so called papists yet they read and study the very choices which a pope deemed correct so many centuries ago.

    Now onto reincarnation, this 12 series course which I took back in the mid-80s was based on reincarnation and karma. Basically it taught what is essentially the teaching of the Theosophists and the Theosophisical Society. The version of reincarnation which they teach includes the “Askoshic records” which include all the good and bad deeds anyone did in any lifetime. One’s karma in any given lifetime is supposedly a reflection of what he has or has not done. The Eastern religions believe this concept as well. The way they explain someone like Chrisitianity Hurts – here on this forum – is not to say that she did bad things in a previous lifetime but rather that she is an advanced soul who is taking on suffering for the betterment of society and her fellow man. We are not to assume that someone like her is being punished for past lifetime sins but rather that she is an evolved soul. She has chosen a difficult path so she can help others come to enlightenment

    That being said, there are people who are, in fact, being punished for past sins. The person who abused her is creating the need to suffer in a future life so as to “understand” the pain he has caused others. Rewards and punishments follow with you from lifetime to lifetime, according to this system. If one causes harm to another he creates a debt which must be paid off. Her abuser has created a huge debt which he will have to pay off via suffering the pain he caused unto her. Having said that one is also not to assume that someone suffering in this lifetime was necessarily bad in another. He may be paying off a debt but just as likely he might also be an enlightened or advanced soul who has come into a life which will involve suffering so as enlightening and help others. She may have chosen a painful life to advance her fellow humans in their progression. In between lives one reflects and studies what has happened. People chose the life they will come into but their options are limited by their karma

    According to this theory, one continues to reincarnate until he pays off past debts and lives in purity until he reaches a level where is worthy to return unto God. The goal is to live in holiness and purity until he is eventually worthy to return unto God from whence he came. Sins must be atoned for absolutely and one does get credit for good deeds. The believers of this philosophy hold that it takes many, many lifetimes before one can achieve a status wherein he has purified his soul sufficiently to return to God.

    Again, I don’t say I necessarily agree but this is what the Eastern religions believe and this is what the Christians and Jews believed before the Nicean councel.

    LikeLike

90. Mark,
    So in a way, you are confirming the notion I had as I drifted off to sleep. Jesus believe a religious dogma which is different than what his “followers,” i.e. the Christians today, believed. Jesus was not necessarily opposed to the notion of reincarnation because it was part of the dogma of the time when he lived. The idea got purged from the “official” belief system i.e. the official religion in 554 AD when some pope and his counsel decided it must go. It is not like Jesus did this purging. He did not decried the doctrine Rather, somebody, namely the pope who was in office at the time, literally more than 5 centuries after Jesus lived, is the one who made that decision.

    So there is no small irony in the fact that the very folks who decry “papists” – primarily the evangelicals – are effectively following the edicts of one such papist namely the pope in power in 554 AD. That man and not Jesus set the policy. Jesus, who it seems had a whole lot to say about a whole bunch of matters pertaining to religion, never came out and condemned the policy or the notion of reincarnation.

    Here is the part I find even more disturbing. Evangelicals are very “into” the Bible believing it is the word of God. OK fine, but it was a pope – the very type of person they claim to detest – who chose which of various conflicting books was, in fact, the actual word of God. Different individuals wrote scripture and doctrines concerning the happening surrounding the life of Jesus – some of these conflict with one another. Some are considered true while others are considered false. The fact is, however, that some pope i.e. some HUMAN MAN made the decision as to which ones were right and which ones were wrong. So unless the Evangelicals agree with the Catholics that the pope is infallible – which they don’t – they are basing their entire religious faith on the choices made by a pope and other other powerful church officials of the Roman Catholic church. It is a bit disturbing, at best.

    LikeLike

91. LEB, there was a much more substantial process in discovering/choosing the canon than simply the Pope infallibly ruling it. By the time there was a council to determine the books, there was little controversy over what those books were.

    And, it was not a Pope’s decision. In fact, the Mormon’s objection to the canon is that it was Constantine who called the council. It seems disputed that this council actually determined the Canon. Wikipedia has an article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

    LikeLike

92. Maybe Jesus was addressing the topic of reincarnation when He told the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” If Jesus had believed in reincarnation then He would have said “Today you will become a frog.” 🙂

    Now how do we know that Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth? Eyewitnesses. No one disputes that because of all the eyewitnesses whose testimony was recorded for history. So when I read the accounts of people who walked with Jesus, describing what they saw and heard, I’d rather believe the people who were there and saw what happened.

    Of course we should never base our faith on what any one religious leader said. In modern times we all have access to those early writings that were excluded from the Bible (Apocrypha, Gospel of Thomas, etc.) By all means you should read them and decide for yourself if they were inspired by God or just made up to sell books. Personally, I thought the Apocrypha was boring and the Gospel of Thomas just didn’t sound like the way God would speak to us.

    I was just reading a fascinating Catholic book about a nun who had visions of Christ. The devil also appeared to her, trying to imitate Christ. The book describes how she learned to recognize the difference between the two—even when the devil was appearing like the stereotypical Christ figure. She described that when the real Christ spoke to her, there was warmth and tremendous love. When the devil tried to mimic Christ, there was a coldness and condescending attitude.

    Reading through the book you have to decide for yourself if it sounds like the way Christ would speak to us. Here’s an example—in the vision she describes Christ as saying to her,

    “Do not regard your littleness, Josefa look rather at the power of My heart sustaining you. I am your strength and I will give you courage for anything I ask you to endure….”

    “How great are the sins of men but what distresses me the most is that they blindly fling themselves into Hell. Do you understand my grief, Josefa? To see those souls that have cost Me My life, lost forever. It oppresses Me to think that for them My blood was shed all in vain….not only are they oblivious of Me, those souls that have cost Me so dear but they even make Me an object of contempt and mockery….why do they treat Me thus? Have I not given them enough proofs of love?….They trample Me underfoot and ridicule Me, frustrating the designs of My love on them.”

    LikeLike

93. Mark, This is an excellent article you have cited. I have learned a good deal of info from it. You hold that there was widespread agreement as to which books were “true” and which were “false” by the time of the counsel. OK I will take that as a given and the article supports this contention, as well. BUT, having conceded that point, there is still the issue that man or men chose the books. There were many to choose from and I would venture a guess that not everyone qualified agreed with the final choices. In fact, there is still disagreement today thus different bibles for different religious sects. So the Bible is the word of God as it has been decided upon by man or men (I am quite sure no women were involved in this process). If you hold that the men involved were infallible – as the Catholics like to believe – then everything is peachy keen. If you will not grant that any man – other than Jesus – was infallible then it is not so OK.

    No matter how you slice it up, Popes and Bishops had a huge say in this matter. Whether one pope or several popes along with some bishops the final choices are still decisions made by men. Any incorrect choices or else choices made for the wrong reasons then represent adherence to incorrect doctrine – if there is even any such thing as absolutely correct doctrine, in the first place. Jesus has absolutely nothing to say about this process because he was long dead. He was dead for literally centuries. The only way it would make even remote sense is if you believe in Divine intervention for the benefit of the “choosers” and then we get back to that whole sticky Catholic infallibility thing.

    Fact is that Protestantism – of which evangelicals are but one sect – did not even begin until 1517 almost 1000 years after Nicean counsel. One thousand years – that is one heck of a long time. Even, then, Martin Luther had the notion that Catholicism was fraught with all manner of errors. Errors pervade this whole thing. I just can’t see how given this long and protracted history, people can take the Bible literally as the end all and be all. At best it is a guide and a clue to what is going on. It is far from a direct account of the words right out of the mouth of Jesus. To hear some folks tell it, you would think that Jesus sat down and wrote out the Bible. He never wrote one single word in his entire life – not one word. We do not know one way or another whether he was even literate. It just blows my mind that people take this stuff so literally as though Jesus were standing at a lectern somewhere tell them how to live every minute of their lives. My own feelings – the Bible has some very good content which people are well served to implement and it also contains some totally erroneous content. It is a mixed bag from my perspective.

    LikeLike

94. Avid Reader,

    To be fair, reincarnation is not about people assuming animal form – that is called transmigration and it is not generally accepted. Actually, there is controversy surrounding the assassination of Lincoln and the fact is that not all of the eyewitnesses to Jesus were in agreement. That is where this whole discussion as between Mark and myself comes from – meaning who decides which versions of the stories told by the eye witnesses are correct. They did not all agree.

    I have many times heard the various sayings which allegedly come from Jesus and I just can’t relate to them. They come across to me as so vain, so grandiose. He apparently believed he was the son of God and you all believe he is the son of God so it all sits well with you folks. If you don’t happen to accept that fact, as a given, then he comes across as self-aggrandizing.

    For that reason, I try to avoid reading these things because I don’t like having a negative view of a man who so many people venerate. Proclaiming oneself in this manner does not sit well with me. I suppose I have more of a Jewish take on this whole thing although I am not Jewish. He speaks to people as though he were God – which apparently he and you all do actually believe.

    LikeLike

95. Mark,

    Thanks for sharing—that was interesting.

    LikeLike

96. LEB,

    Even with videotape evidence, there’s still people who refuse to believe that we landed on the moon. Their disbelief doesn’t change what actually happened. Even if these people had the chance to interview the astronauts that actually landed on the moon, they would still refuse to believe. Sometimes “controversy” just means that some people are in denial.

    There are endless ways to analyze religion. There are many different gods to pick from. Generally speaking, these gods tell you to do this and do that and maybe you will be good enough to get into Heaven. They want you to sacrifice for them. That’s why the only God that I’m interested in is the one that already did the sacrificing for us.

    When it comes to Christ—there’s three perspectives:

    1) Jesus was a liar

    2) Jesus was mentally ill

    3) Jesus was telling the truth when He said—I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.

    Part of us wants to believe that Jesus was only speaking the truth when He said the things we want to believe. But that assumes Jesus was lying the rest of the time. Either Jesus told the truth the whole time and He really was what He said or He was a liar. Can’t have it both ways.

    By now, we’ve explored this topic pretty extensively. You’ve shared where you stand on these issues and you’ve been willing to listen to what most of us here believe so maybe it’s time to draw this discussion to a close after you have a chance to share any final thoughts.

    LikeLike

97. LEB, one interesting counterpoint is that Jesus himself did not debate what was and wasn’t scripture. He refers to “the law and the prophets”, and when talking about martyrs, he talks about Abel and Zechariah, who were the first and last martyrs in the Septuagint (IIRC). So, whatever process came up with the scriptures of the Old Testament was fine by Jesus.

    As Avid Reader says, we should be able to hear the voice of God through the scriptures. There are other kinds of tests that were used – do they have a prophetic or apostolic origin, were they written at the same time as the events they speak about, are they internally consistent with other books that are recognized, do other books in the Bible reference them, were they recognized as scripture by those in the time or soon after, etc.,

    My understanding is that only a few books were under contention. James seemingly failed the internally consistent test, until scholars realized that James’s definition of “faith” was not the same as Paul’s, and that a definition of faith as “intellectual assent” rather than “saving belief” made them consistent. Jude was also under contention – it was short, the authorship was questionable and there wasn’t much in terms of consistency to test. The Wikipedia articles on the Canon are pretty good.

    LikeLike

98. Well, we can certainly draw the conversation to a close if such is your preference. I am disappointed, however, in that I was just finding you absolutely fascinating to talk to. But if you are growing tired of it, fine. I can accept that. It is very hard to find people with whom you can have these sorts of discussions, anyway. Maybe Mark wants to continue the discussion. Maybe not. I am sure he will tell us.

    One thing to be clear about, however, is that I am not trying to change your mind. I just enjoy exchange of ideas. I know a whole lot more about this entire subject than before we started getting to know one another. I now know about spiritual abuse. Honestly, I had no idea it existed. I am getting a better feel for why things which seem so easy to me are not so easy from another person’s perspective. Mark is exposing me to a whole lot of very interesting church history which I never knew about. So, OK, you and I don’t have to discuss this topic any more. Let’s see how Mark feels about it. If he is also growing tired of the conversation, then we shall call it quits. I am about to read his post next.

    LikeLike

99. LEB, also, the errors that have crept into the church are the same errors that have crept into society. Men seeking power and control over other men by whatever means necessary. If you look at Martin Luther’s 95 theses, many of them were about how the Catholic church was using peoples’ superstitions, fears and guilt against them. In Jesus’s time, the Pharisees controlled and manipulated the Jewish nation by fear of being cast out of the fellowship.

    The rise of bishops and archbishops and ultimately, the Pope (originally the archbishop of Rome) probably seemed a great idea at the time, but it was really elevating men over men. It was one thing to defer to a wiser person. It was yet another to create an office and power for that wiser person.

    Much of protestantism was a rebellion against the Catholic power structure and abuses. Yet, not more than 200 years later, John Milton wrote, “new Presbyter is but old Priest writ large.” So, for all its work to break the heavy chains of Catholic authority, protestants fell back into it, just more localized.

    I would say it’s okay to continue the discussion, although we are way off topic and at some point JA will probably condemn us to the off topic dungeon.

    LikeLike

100. Mark, As I was just saying to Avid Reader, I am really enjoying these conversations and learning a lot. I am hoping you are not quite ready to call it quits. Now, one HUGE problem I have with this whole thing is the notion of eye witness. We all know how inaccurate eye witness testimony is. I have experienced it at least twice first hand and I was appalled at how faulty was my recollections. I was once called to give testimony at a deposition and then at a trial involving a law suit. I was working in the hospital and a man guarding one of the prisoners who was hospitalized fell off a chair and seriously injured himself. I witnessed others fall off this same chair. So at the deposition, the lawyer asks me to give a description of the chair. I am under oath. I do the best I can. I describe the chair in vivid detail as I recall it. I speak of the color, the micropore fabric from which it was upholstered. I speak of the pattern, the design. I am rather glad I had such good recollections of it for something as important as this trial and deposition.

     So now comes the trial. The chair is sitting up front in open court. I am absolutely appalled. The chair is made of hard plastic. There is no upholstery. There is no micropore fabric. There is no pattern or design. It is a simple hard plastic chair. I can hardly believe what I am seeing. This sort of thing has happened to me on other occasions as well – at least two other times that I know of. I was shocked to see actual evidence of something which I recalled as being entirely differently. So I am not entirely convinced as to how accurate eye witness testimony was or is. Things tend to get embellished over time. Also people often have an “agenda” to push. Facts often are modified to fit said agenda.

     I think the old testament is pretty much OK with me also. It is, in fact, more the new testament that I have more issues with. I do have great difficulty with persons who take it way out of context. To me, it is largely allegorical – often very poetic and beautiful in its style. Trying to say the earth is 6000 years old by tracing back the comments in the Bible is so ludicrous that it is beyond the pale. We have hard core evidence that the earth is billions of years old. The whole Genesis thing is a beautiful story but I don’t think it was ever meant to be taken literally. Do people literally believe the entire human race could stem from two individuals or that Noah could possibly take two of every animal on a boat? The vast majority of insects have not even been cataloged yet and their are animals living under deep sea pressure which could never survive near the surface. It is so insane and preposterous BUT it is a very nice allegory. These are beautiful allegories which are meant to inspire. It floors me that people could take them literally.

     So, Mark, what can you tell me of the Gnostic bible? I have read a few wiki articles but I still do not understand it. Who wrote them and are these some of the “rejected” books or is this something entirely different. I am interested in this subject. What can you tell me about them.

     LikeLike

101. Mark, you comment about church errors being similar to society errors are spot on. That is what I meant about the “agendas” I think there were a whole lot of agendas put forth by a variety of powerful church leaders which did not have a solid basis in factor or history. They served the purpose i.e. the agenda of the individual promulgating them.

     You said that Luther indicated that the Church was using people’s fears, superstitions and guilt against them i.e. manipulating the people. That is exactly what I see the fundamentalists of today doing – with their hell, fire and brimestone approach. They capitalize on people’s fears and insecurities toward their own end. How is that so different from what the church was doing way back then. It seems like it is the same thing to me – same manipulation only differing in time and place. It worked then and it works now.

     LikeLike