Tags
blogging, culture, faith, insanitybytes, love, opinion, red pill girls
I’ve been really struggling to understand this tangled, convoluted mess call red pill religion and why I am so repulsed by it, why I find it to be such a cult filled with dangerous teachings that are really the anti-thesis of everything Jesus Christ taught. The anti-Christ. To make matters worse these are often people claiming faith, using scripture to justify their positions.
LeeLee in Babylon has given me something to work with and I don’t mean to be impolite or disrespectful, but this stuff is simply not okay. So lee lee has written “of course women are objects, ” in response to a feminist who has suggested that women are actually people.
Women are actually people, lee lee, made in His image, having such worth and value He died for us. We are the sons and daughters of a most high God, we are not meat sacks. We are spirits who happen to have a body.
She says, “The dogma of feminism is that women possess a brightly burning, otherworldly spiritual value that cannot be extinguished or even diminished by any negative choices, attitudes, or behaviors – “
Actually, that’s really not feminism at all. That is much closer to what following Jesus Christ is all about.
She continues, “Let’s be clear: If you are a human being reading this post…. you are an object. Your value isn’t lurking somewhere outside of your physical existence, it’s located solidly within it.”
Well now, so much for storing up treasures in heaven or how the last shall be first. We are allegedly meat sacks, nothing more than our sexual market values, having no worth beyond what is lurking within us, which happens to be sinful, fleshly, and bad, so good luck with that one.
Naturally this being red pill rhetoric, she concludes by blaming women for failing to live up to our alleged burden of physical performance (sexual performance) by declaring, “By failing to live up to the burden of being an object – by being fat, slovenly, loud, aggressive, slutty, or selfish – women truly can lose value.”
As an object, as an asset of markit-ability, as a commodity perhaps this is true, but we are not flat, two-dimensional projections of the porn culture, our only worth and value aligned solely to our sexuality and our ability to sell products and fantasies. That is a worldly definition of “women,” it stems from the pornographic culture we all live in.
In the comments of this post lee lee said to me, “You are an object. This means you are what you do and feel.” I don’t believe that at all. I am actually so much more than what I do and feel. In fact, what “I feel “is really not who I am at all, it is simply a subjective response to what I am perceiving.
However, for the sake of argument let’s suppose I am what I feel. In that case, I feel as if we as a culture have failed young girls, have left the broken ones behind and failed to protect them, have allowed them to internalize the porn culture we live in, so they now define themselves as “women,” as objects, having no worth and value beyond our sexual market values.
I feel as if we have done a grave disservice to these girls. I feel as if those of us who are in Jesus Christ, especially the men, must try to reach out and see to it that women and girls understand that our value as women comes not from our sexual marketability, but rather from Christ within us.
I say “the men,” not because they have caused it or it is somehow their fault, but because in the porn culture that endlessly seeks male approval, the older women have often been relegated to the rubbish heap, so we now have no authority, we are the enemy, and we cannot teach the red pill girls how to perceive themselves as Jesus Christ does.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
Why you waste you precious time on those idiots,i’ll never know – but hey whatever turns your crank. I would like to point out that as I march through my 50’s and look back,I realize that much is driven by sexuality when we are young. Which makes sense as we have indulge to reproduce. it will be hard to separate our innate sexuality from sexy dressing and flirtatious acts. I don’t disagree with you IB that we have gone passed what I would consider healthy or good for self – but it will not be easy to roll it back as it has become systemic. For instance if you see a woman in jeans and a T-shirt with 4 inch heels,it looks trampy. But if you go to a high powered rich lawyers office the women all compete to see who has the most expensive high heels, (Louboutin, Prada, Fendi,Jimmy Choo,etc) – and they are considered rich not trampy. there is a dichotomy around sexuality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! Well, we’re all “precious idiots” in Christ’s eyes, Paul. I’m going to have to post that on my fridge, it’s a great reminder.
We’re living in a world where everything has become an idol, wealth, power, sexuality, and we have become all about our I-dentity, which apparently is now going to be culturally defined by our sexuality. I see the collateral damage that stems from this foolishness everyday and it destroys lives, it causes great suffering. It’s also false, it’s a deception, it is not the sum total of who and what we are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent point IB -it is about idolatry, be it sexuality,power,wealth,etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are a group of women out there that are very powerful, and not at all the way you describe. Yet, there is also a huge cross-section of women that think if men cannot by them Prada, then they do not deserve their time. Wallet size does matter to women every bit as much as the visual does to men, but it’s more than that. I was listening to a sermon yesterday and it said don’t be self-righteous about your own sin, or we can’t be self-righteous about our own sin….something like that. I think it does come down to emotions like safety though and not the amount of money. Our world has created a vision of safety that is disturbing though….certainly can’t be covered in the comments section of a blog. Guess what? Guys like to feel safe too, and provide safety. It’s certainly a complicated topic. As far as young girls, I see some powerful young girls on the rise that are forces to be reckoned with, and they have no reason to feel shame. Some guys too I might add….
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find it somewhat amusing that you and Paul, both guys, speak of Prada, Louboutin, Fendi, all designer labels I presume? Not my world at all. I couldn’t tell one designer label from another. I’ve gotten pretty good at recognizing Jaguars however, the cars. Nice cars, I like them. 🙂
We’re living in a very materialistic world and I would really prefer that we don’t progress into perceiving people as commodities, as just objects assigned worth and value based on nothing more than designer labels. That’s not a good path to go down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
See these boots that look like many other women’s boots?
They are Louboutin “Kaitube” and are on sale for $1,545.00 Canadian. It is the name that women pay for and that is just to compete with others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! Well no wonder! It seems as if I have an epic fail to compete here, as in, you’d have to be a moron to buy those boots! And the prize at the end of this game is what, a man? Perceived social status?
Oh bother! My problem is that I just have no patience for such silly things, something probably evident by my lack of… wealth, status, and power. I did win at love, however 🙂
LikeLike
Exactly – and I am the same way IB: money and status mean very little to me. Here’s the problem that I struggle with: if one pays no attention to money, one never has any money and that can be darned annoying. I have to find a happy medium where money means little but I pay enough attention that i’m not abjectly poor. 😀
LikeLike
LOL! We are kindred spirits, Paul. I really have no use for money, but my dad used to remind me that I like the things that money can buy, like food and shelter. This is so true. So one must be careful not to completely reject money or it might just return the favor. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Insanity, why do you have such a low view of life in the body? Being a human is not about being a “meat sack” — as I said to you before, God created humans as physical creatures and called it *good*. Your claim that we are spirits inhabiting bodies sounds very much like dualism to me, which I associate more with Aristotle than with Jesus Christ.
Perhaps this is why my post is so offensive to you, because you seem to see spiritual life as something that happens apart from our bodies. I find that very hard to ground. You reference our treasure in Heaven, but Jesus makes it pretty clear that we build this treasure up based on what we do in our “meat sacks” — you know, the service you perform for others, your love, your prayers, the way you use your time.
I hate to tell you this, but Christianity is not going to free you from physical existence to go to some higher, ethereal spiritual existence. The heavenly city is a physical place descending upon the physical earth, the Resurrection bringing beautiful, physical bodies out of the earth for us to exist in.
Being in a body is not a shameful, low thing. Being infected by sin is. But this is not the fate of a Christian. We have the Holy Spirit with us right here, right now, redeeming us as a down payment while we wait for full *physical* redemption.
LikeLike
Well, I suspect I do not have a “low view of life in the body” since we are all about biology here, biology in this context being a study and celebration of life in the body. But still, we do possess souls, we have higher selves, we are not the sum total of our sexuality, we are not objects! Or, as I sometimes tell non believers, we are not simply random bits of biological goo that have sprung forth from nothingness.
So the Brock case that led you to declare women are objects, the very root at the heart of that train wreck was a couple of kids perceiving themselves as nothing more than objects, she by rendering herself unconscious and he by dragging her behind a dumpster. This entire hookup culture heavily influenced by alcohol is nothing but the perception of human beings as sexual objects, having no humanity, no higher selves, no value to one another beyond the sexual. It’s ugly, it’s disrespectful to ourselves and others, and it destroys lives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure why you keep equating my position that humans are objects, meaning our value is found within the life of the body and not outside of it, with the idea that humans are nothing more than their sexuality.
Sexuality is a part of being human life. Sexuality is very important and valuable. Sexuality is only one way of experiencing and expressing humanness. A well-lived life certainly includes using sexuality responsibility and creatively, but it also involves many other types of relationships and ways of relating to other people, the earth, and God.
When I say humans are objects, I’m not saying humans are sexual objects. This is what you seem to be hearing. But I’m saying that being an object is also about production, emotion, relationship, and so on. There’s nothing shameful or degrading about it.
To assess yourself as an object means you treat your body and mind and the body and minds of others with deep respect and care, because this is where life and humanity happens.
LikeLike
“I’m not sure why you keep equating my position that humans are objects, meaning our value is found within the life of the body and not outside of it, with the idea that humans are nothing more than their sexuality.”
Well, because you wrote a post in response to a discussion about rape in which you declared, “women are objects.” Than you proceeded to talk about women as “fat, slovenly and slutty,”all things that allegedly lower SMV.
So, from this post and others you have written, you seem to believe that women are objects defined by their sexuality. That fits in well with what the red pills promote.
Is there supposed to be some non sexual way I can perceive a discussion about rape, the objectification of women, and slutty, slovenly, behavior? These are all subjects that carry heavy sexual implications. To make it more confusing, you have now assigned worth and value to women based on their alleged non slutty, non fat, non slovenly status. So naturally I concluded that you believe women’s worth and value comes exclusively from our sexuality, our status as objects.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB,
I prefer to think of women (and me, too) as people, not objects. “Object” seems quite devoid of humanity.
However, according to the Oxford Dictionary, “object” is defined as “A person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed”. So, technically speaking, LeeLee is correct, but it’s not a good way to describe people, especially women.
The awkwardness of “object” reminded me of how I felt when, speaking of a pregnant woman, you stated “that her body has been invaded, violated, an illegal alien has taken up residence there.”. That may be true, technically or medically speaking, but it was a poor way to describe a pregnant woman.
LikeLike
“That may be true, technically or medically speaking, but it was a poor way to describe a pregnant woman.”
Yes it is, it is devoid of humanity and very clinical. It designates women as biological objects, as commodities in an equation, rather than people. That is the same thing the red pills do with their sexual markit values, where people are now reduced to their reproductive rating.
And that is also how we arrive at a human being amounting to nothing more than a clump of cells. So either human life has worth and value because we are created in His image or human life only has value based on arbitrary human rules that are subject to change with the times and mores.
LikeLike
Are you agreeing that your statement about a pregnant woman was “devoid of humanity and very clinical”?
LikeLike
Of course I am agreeing. My whole point was to show that “people as objects” is what leads us to a “clump of cells,” which is what leads us to “fine, than I am just an object, a clump of cells being invaded by another clump of cells.” People either have human value based on being created in His image or we do not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey ‘Rickety,
Looks to me from the below that you are having a “functional discussion” with Memi!
Whatever else she may be, she is a pretty good host, here on her own blog.
She, myself and some others had a pretty functional discussion back on her “safety” post.
You may want to give it a read. It may fill in some blanks for you, as it did for me!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I tend to think that the Red Pill/Game Cult mindset is less a product of a pornographic culture than of Cultural Marxism. These Manospherians are really not offering any return to traditional masculinity at all; they have merely re-defined the sexual androgyny and gender politics of the Radical Feminists.
“You are an object. This means you are what you do and feel.”
This is exactly what Communism teaches about human nature. Communism teaches that we are mere objects and that one’s individuality is subordinate to one’s social utility. Game Cult/Red Pill ideologues believe the same thing although they will never admit it directly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you’re onto something very smart there. I guess I think of cultural marxism, rad fems, communism, as the porn culture, “porn” meaning people not having any humanity beyond their social utility.
LikeLike
“You are an object. This means you are what you do and feel.”
This is exactly what Communism teaches about human nature. Communism teaches that we are mere objects and that one’s individuality is subordinate to one’s social utility.”
If anything, it’s the opposite (though ideologies seldom fit precisely into one package). It’s a very liberal view (the anti-individualist view) that every person is equally special/valuable/good regardless of what they do. The “object” view of humanity (which would seem to align with the “flesh is grass” and “body is a temple” view…the abandoned building analogy lee lee used is similarly metaphorical) places the onus directly on the individual.
We are what we do, not what we “identify” as. So if a person does a lot of bad things, he or she is a bad person, not a good one just because he or she would like to identify him/herself as good regardless of how they behave.
And if a person does a lot of self destructive and/or harmful things he or she is diminishing his/her own value. Value isn’t preserved simply because an individual would like to think of him/herself as special. This is what the “free market” would also indicate. Perhaps it is a clinical view of things, but it is also a fairly accurate one.
She has repeated numerous times in her very short writeup (starting with the second sentence) that ALL humans are objects in her estimation, not just women.
LikeLike
From my perspective, the “object” view of oneself is far more alligned with successful outcome than the “non-object” view. I understand that the burden of performance lies primarily with me, not others. If I behave poorly or make poor choices those choices will reflect poorly on me. This is true regardless of my personal wishes/ desires.
LikeLike
I can’t seem to reply to your last comment so I’ll continue here. Being slutty, slovenly and obese do lower a woman’s SMV, but those negative character qualities are also community concerns. A slovenly woman isn’t showing respect for the standards of the community for example, she isn’t contributing beauty to the community. (This is true for men as well… my post clearly stated that *humans are objects*, not just women, but you seem only offended by the idea that women are objects which is typical of feminists).
You can’t separate sexuality from humanity. The first thing the Bible says about God creating humans is that he created us male and female. It’s extremely difficult to talk about human existence without talking about sexuality. So yes, I’m talking a lot about sexuality, but sexuality is so much more than SMV, I wish we could discuss it as such.
Did you even read the post about rape? It’s about how and why rape is a more serious crime than other forms of assault: because it damages the victim’s sexuality, a core part of their identity. NOT their SMV (though it might), their sexuality. Their ability to form sexual bonds, to use their sexuality in a healthy and creative way (creating a family, etc).
The point is that the act of rape against the objects of our bodies damages our abilities to use our bodies to express our humanity fully. None of this has been (primarily) about a woman’s SMV. SMV is something I don’t think or write about much as I’ve been with my husband for nearly 10 years, so the sexual marketplace isn’t a big part of my life. But my sexuality still is.
LikeLike
“This is true for men as well… my post clearly stated that *humans are objects*, not just women, but you seem only offended by the idea that women are objects which is typical of feminists”
Actually, the title of your post is “Of course women are objects.” So, no your post is NOT about “humans are objects” at all. Second of all, I don’t like the idea of anyone being perceived as an object, so trying to introduce men into the equation does not make it somehow better. And third, you seem to believe that a feminist is anyone who can be described like this, “The dogma of feminism is that women possess a brightly burning, otherworldly spiritual value…” I’m not a feminist at all, but I sure do believe that people possess higher selves and “otherworldly spiritual value.”
“Did you even read the post about rape? It’s about how and why rape is a more serious crime than other forms of assault: because it damages the victim’s sexuality, a core part of their identity.”
Actually, it damages their mind, body, and spirit. It’s a violation of trust, it shatters our sense of safety, it renders us powerless. It is a theft of our personhood. It converts us into an object. Rape as a violation of ones sexuality, as an alleged “core part of our identity,” is the least of the problems that stem from rape. It is the theft of personhood that does so much damage and so declaring that women are just objects anyway, really is not helpful.
You say you don’t write much about SMV and yet here in your comment you’re speaking about how a woman who is, “slutty, slovenly, fat” actually harms the entire community in some kind of collectivist sin caused by her failure to live up to the standards of SMV. And you call this beauty? So now not only is her worth and value tied exclusively to her SMV, but if she doesn’t comply she’s an epic failure who has now harmed the whole community.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, why shouldn’t we as Christians believe that we have no higher selves, but are all merely sexual objects (particularly women ofc)? Isn’t that what our religion is all about? /s
What stuns me is the context of this post. A feminist pointed out that humans are not objects, in response to a quote that was justifying the rape of an unconscious person. In response, we get this grotesque post, insisting that people ARE objects. My Lord. Does she even understand the implications of her response?
Anyway, loved this post, Insanity. ❤
LikeLike
Can you quote me saying that people are merely sexual objects? Because that was absolutely nowhere in the post.
LikeLike
LeeLee,
Your post was in response to a feminist criticizing someone who was equating rape victims to objects. So, while you may not have explicitly stated that women were sexual objects, you did somewhat imply it.
You are now denying it, and tbh I don’t really think that you believe women are sexual objects. But you should understand that given the context it’s rather confusing.
LikeLike
I feel like an object when I roll out of bed… Does that count? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL, yes, that counts. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Phew! Lmao 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
About a year ago, some ISIS religious leader pronounced that rape was not a sin because when a Jihadi raped a woman, his sexual power somehow purified her. That position is not really all that radically different than what these Churchian Gamers argue, that women are simply objects whose emotional needs factor beneath the ‘Alpha Male’ desires.
(Just as an OT side-note, the ISIS cleric who issued that statement had a fatal encounter with an Iraqi missile last week; so presumably he’s met another Judge, One Who takes a different view of feminine worth).
That being said, though, there’s a definite unhealthy trend in our culture towards androgyny. While male or female isn’t strictly speaking tied to physical appearance, there is a component of security with one’s gender connected with it. Of course, this is variable by age and economic status, but still shouldn’t be wholly discounted. But the Gamers and Feminists both go to extremes without a healthy balance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmm, well I guess that ISIS leader can try explaining his opinion to God now.
There really is an unhealthy trend towards androgyny and if you declare yourself to be contentedly either female or male, there’s a social backlash against that, one is expected to apologize and back track, to explain how all things are actually equal and boys can wear dresses too if they like and girls can play with trucks. It’s just gotten crazy.
LikeLike
The belief that body & soul are separate is Gnosticism, not Christianity. The analogy that Lee Lee uses for a drunken rape victim is an “abandoned building.” If humans are mere objects, then the analogy works. In Christianity there are no empty humans. All possess a soul, all are precious in the sight of God and are therefore not objects. The belief than objects have souls is animism, not Christianity. The loss of one’s faculties whether due to alcohol or drugs or birth defects or disease, does not exclude one from having a soul. Attempting to dehumanize the imperfect as less worthy is fundamental to the argument for eugenics. A lot of the manosphere cult’s beliefs revolve around eugenics and are not the slightest bit Christian.
Mary Magdalene was a whore possessed by 7 demons. God chose to redeem her by His Grace, not because of her works or her beauty or her SMV. Always remember, the last will be first.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sue Bee? Is that you? It’s Anita…aka…unashamed…Ask A Lutheran…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Anita! It is me. Long time, no see! 🙂
LikeLike
Small world, huh? 😉
LikeLike
She certainly gives me the heeby-jeebies. It’s all quite reminiscent of the pagan temples where the prostitutes were part of the worship.
It’s hard to tell if LeeLee really believes what she writes or is an extraordinarily bad communicator or simply misunderstands some topics that are often misunderstood and/or poorly communicated. Whether her mistakes are absolutes in her mind as they appeared in some parts of what she wrote making her words into very serious false teaching, or she simply ought to take God’s advise in James 3:1 to heart and consider removing herself from the blogger world for the sake of the judgement day is hard to say. She certainly said of all humans, men and women alike cannot be spiritual beings or even have a spiritual part of ourselves which denies much of God’s teaching. But as I said these are difficult topics that cause many to stumble.
Hopefully any who read her post get guidance from the Holy Spirit to find the scriptures that rebuke her. Actually come to think of it I know an article or two that are already on the Internet and already list many of the specific Bible passages that I’d like to refer to, in another post that would likely become quite long. I’ll go find them and then link them before hitting “post”.
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2009/01-13a.html
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/SoulAndSpirit.html
There are other related scriptures that come to mind but perhaps that’s plenty to be going on with.
Cheers, IB.
LikeLike
“She certainly said of all humans, men and women alike cannot be spiritual beings or even have a spiritual part of ourselves which denies much of God’s teaching.”
She neither stated nor implied this.
LikeLike
Thinking further, I’ll ask her and she can respond over there.
This is not my interpretation of what she said at all.
LikeLike
Eep. It reads as pretty skeevy and makes me think of the prostitutes that were part of the pagan temples. But the topics that she attempts to write about are some that many find difficult to understand and/or to communicate. It definitely reminds me that bloggers need to consider James 3:1. I thought the scariest part was early on when she denied the spirits of all men and all women.
I’ll link you a couple of articles that already discuss a lot of the scriptures I thought of while reading her big hot mess.
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/SoulAndSpirit.html
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2009/01-13a.html
On a slightly different note, I think women appreciate physical beauty in a different way than men. Maybe that’s a part of what leads some to devalue themselves and misunderstand everything, allowing themselves to be turned into meat sacks and even advocating for all women to be viewed in those devalued ways while apparently thinking that they are doing no such thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Help. IB. I don’t know if I posted twice or not at all. WordPress just isn’t showing it to me.
LikeLike
Sorry, just wordpress speed bump or pothole or something.
LikeLike
There are two different definitions of object being used here.
ob·ject
noun
ˈäbjəkt/
1.
a material thing that can be seen and touched.
“he was dragging a large object”
synonyms: thing, article, item, device, gadget, entity; More
2.
a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed.
“disease became the object of investigation”
synonyms: target, butt, focus, recipient, victim
“he spent five years as the object of a frenzied manhunt”
LeeLee is using the first, although she’s still wrong if she means people are only material. Humans are more than things that can be seen and touched.
IB is using the second definition. It IS a sin to treat other people for our use and she’s right to be outraged if LeeLee is using the second definition.
Defining terms is sometimes the first thing to do when there is disagreement over an equivocal term.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Words can be fascinating. The thing is, neither definition applied to people sits well with me. We are not a thing, an object, or an article. Neither are we to be someone’s “target, victim, or focus.” Which than leads us to “objectify,” which means “to degrade to the status of mere object.” We reduce the value of people, of ourselves, when we degrade ourselves to the status of object.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree that neither definition is appropriate to people, but we actually are spiritual beings with material (biologic) bodies, so we are partly made of stuff. My point is you can’t really have a conversation when your terms are equivocal. I suspect that LeeLee means women are objects in the exact way the red-pills believe they are; that women are made for men’s use, which is the second usage. But she’s defending her use of object based on the first definition. She needs to make clear which one she means. Her contention that it’s sin for a woman to not beautify her surroundings by being thin, etc., makes me think she’s equivocating by saying she’s using the first, that we’re made of molecules, but really believes that we’re the second, things for other people (men) to use.
I don’t disagree that women have a particular gift of making beauty, but this attitude, that women are useful only in their beauty, is exactly a result of the pornification of our culture. Turning people into objects is what resulted in the gas chambers and gulags.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And further, what of the women who can’t be beautiful, thin, or productive? Are they “hemorrhaging” value? Since when do we assign “value” to people? This IS Cultural Marxism, that people are economic units and their value is in what they can produce; in this case, produce beauty by existing as thin, neat, and chaste.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, that is what really concerns me in the greater scheme of things. Cultural Marxism and the assigning of value to people as if we were objects.
We have worth and value because we are created in His image and He said we have such value, He died for us.
Or, we have worth and value completely dependent on our usefulness and value to others. In which case babies become nothing more than an inconvenient clump of cells, slavery is soon justified, the disabled are deemed no longer cost effective, and anyone not thin, chaste, and neat, must be cast away. Eugenics are right around the corner.
That said, there’s nothing wrong with making yourself useful or paying attention to what worth and value you bring to the table.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep. And speaking as a person who has had severe health problems and has also had weight issues and health issues that went hand in hand and that both got worse from the popularly believed modes of how to be thin I know just how dangerous this objectification and vain thinking about women can be. I’m thankful that God has granted me wisdom and courage to turn on the popular misinformation as well as healing! But I’m also thankful that God sees me so very differently than this ugly and ungodly viewpoint allows for!
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB, I know this type of false teaching challenges your equilibrium and for good reason. So I went back tried to brave the awful to try to see more of how she managed to write such a heinous blog post but keep pretending it was all good. She did answer some of her commenters who agreed with her or only partially disagreed, as is always far easier. How would I begin to get on the same page with her and find some common foundation to build a productive conversation from when I see her denying God’s Truths so thoroughly and completely? When she offers no part of God’s word as a part of her human reasoning? She seems to think she’s trying to be with God and she is completely lost as to the incredible conflict she has set up between herself and God’s teaching by believing that we are inherently flesh and that our spirituality and relationship with God is born out of that …and yet irrationally claims that she still thinks spirituality is real. Of course once she claims spirituality is born out of physicality she can really understand nothing about them. Although I doubt she believes it to be true, by her reasoning every physical life God created would also have body, soul, and spirit. She says a few different things a few different places in the parts I could cope with reading before I’d had enough false teaching to spread her very Babylonian LeeLee concept that we are flesh; flesh is our origin and our nature and our eternal destiny. She is a purely carnal person but apparently trying to both hold tight to the carnal while grasping at reflections of the spiritual. She is not alone. well, she may be alone or close to it in her extremity and her elaborate self-deception surrounding it. But we all struggle with being carnally minded and even with trying to hold onto our carnal connections and desires and justify them.
Since she didn’t use a single actual scripture I decided not to play her foundationless game of discussing opinions and trying to sound smart or right under her blog. Since you’ve invited her to come here and discuss that will have to suffice for the sake of rationality and reason and caution. But what is needed in addressing her error is the truth straight out of God’s holy book to tell us what God thinks about these things. We are commanded to capture every thought and compare it to his Word.
I think the closest I can get going backwards and looking for where her understanding of scripture and mine diverge with her thinking that our original nature and our ongoing eternal nature is pretty much all about the physical is either based in a misunderstanding of the creation story or more likely in a misunderstanding of our eternal afterlife. Of course it’s difficult to know since she doesn’t actually speak about God’s word, so much as vaguely allude to it.
What God actually tells us in the very beginning in Genesis is that God created the heavens and the earth and every other thing in it, (a physical temporal world different from is eternal existence and full of limitations by comparisons but marvelous and complex.) THEN he said “let us make man in our image.” From the start, before he created mankind, he decided to make man to be like Himself in a way that was different from all the inanimate within creation and different from all the physical life he had just created. Adam was first and foremost made in God’s image.
Following that there is a rich and wonderful study that anyone can engage in of many spots throughout the Bible that teach us us about our own spiritual nature as well as about the differences between ourselves and the rest of creation. It’s a study that could go on throughout life ever expanding. Some of the relevant scriptures that may need to come early if LeeLee’s above referenced blog post is one’s jumping off point are referenced in the articles linked above.
Then in the book of Revelation God teaches us even much more about the after life. But Revelation is difficult as a study. And it is difficult to discuss on the Internet. I am running out of time here and now. God has been good to me in this time of greatest stress in life and of having more to do each day than can possibly be done. I’ve been getting in prayer and meditation and restful “activities” like chatting with you here, mostly in the wee hours. So I went looking and quickly found an article for further reading to put here in place of composing further comment on Revelation or on the nature of the afterlife as reflected in other places in scripture. Funny enough it’s from the same website as the other two links. I’ve met the man who mostly writes for that site although we live several states apart. But I mostly know his wife, since I spend most of every campout (opportunities to meet great folks from all over) chatting chatting chatting with other wives and mothers.
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2006/04-06.htm
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s been pretty gross reading what can only be an intentional misrepresentation of another person’s argument. If it’s not intentional, then you are blinded by an insatiable desire for outrage however you can muster it.
LeeLee’s position doesn’t place the body over the spirit, but acknowledges that everything you’ve ever experienced has been physical. Have you felt the presence of God? Your body facilitated that. Have you heard His still small voice? Your body facilitated that. Have you had the Spirit rise up within you? YOUR BODY FACILITATED THAT.
You are an object AND MORE. Why does that word bother you so much? Why do you people get so upset by the idea that you have an actual physical presence in this world that matters? The Lord created it! Treat it well! Don’t be a slut! Don’t be a glutton! THOSE THINGS DEVALUE YOU.
LikeLike
“Don’t be a slut! Don’t be a glutton!”
How about, try some compassion for your sisters, especially those who may be disabled, facing various health challenges? Not everyone whom the world perceives as “fat, slovenly, and slutty” is there by choice. There are many elderly, disabled, and ill people in the world. There are also the lost and broken, and still others who suffer from mental illness. We are called to love people, to walk a mile in their shoes, not to point fingers of judgement at them and label them unworthy.
LikeLike
Again, you’re taking an argument, spinning it to make it seem hateful, and spitting out pious garbage.
The subject of LeeLee’s post is the empowered sinner, someone pursuing a lifestyle or ideology opposed to God’s intention for men and women, NOT the disabled, infirm, or enslaved. Obviously I have compassion for those people and I’m sure LeeLee does too. Insinuating we don’t is an ad hominem.
Loving people doesn’t mean enabling them or ignoring their destructive activities. Telling someone an action is self-destructive and opposed by God isn’t judgment. If you think it is, you’re a moral relativist. And nowhere, NOT ONCE, did anyone label these people unworthy.
LikeLike
It is hateful, there is no spinning going on here. What is being said under the guise of Christ’s name is simply not okay.
Naturally lee lee has banned me and called me abusive, as she says here, “I had to block her. Her last comment was bordering on abuse so I deleted it and added her to my banned list.”
Do you know what my last comment was? Nothing more than John 3:16-17, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
Think about that. I as a Christian have been deemed unworthy, abusive, for quoting one of the basic tenets of our faith.
LikeLike
Having followed that comments thread, I know you didn’t simply quote John 3. You falsely accused her of condemning the people she was writing to. You often come to her website accusing rather than discussing. You don’t present your arguments in love, but with the foremost desire to villify the person you’re debating with. THAT would be why you were accused of being abusive and banned. And again, you toss out the idea that LeeLee “deemed [you] unworthy” as though she pronounced your name stricken from the Book of Life. Ridiculous.
Here’s what’s being said “under the guise of Christ’s name:” Your body is worth something, sin and misuse detracts from that value. Here’s what you’ve inserted to confuse people: YOU’RE **UNWORTHY** NOW, BYE. Read LeeLee’s most recent post and you’ll gain some insight you didn’t bother asking for.
LikeLike
“Having followed that comments thread, I know you didn’t simply quote John 3. You falsely accused her of condemning the people she was writing to. You often come to her website accusing rather than discussing”
First off, you do NOT know whether or not I quoted John 3:16-17 because she refused to publish it. Second, I do NOT “often come to her website,” since this is only the second thread I have ever tried to speak to her in.
LikeLike
I can’t reply to the last comment that you made insanity bytes, the one where you explain that you were banned. But this is from my heart so please handle it carefully:
Actually I saw that comment before it was deleted and that was not all it said. You also told her you “had been trying to point her to Jesus” and that she seems to be “all about condemnation”. In my observation it seemed to me as if you were treating Lee lee as if she is a staunch anti Christian heretic in need of conversion. Have you ever as a believer been preached to as if you were not? It’s very insulting and it’s hurtful. And only God knows the true relationship He has with His children. I know Lee lee personally and I have seen nothing but the fruit of the Spirit in her life. You may disagree with her views and personality but you are both of the belief that Jesus is the only way to heaven, whether you believe she believes that or not. The minor disagreements (read: not biblically mandated for salvation but based on interpretation such as women shouldn’t be preachers, or should only wear skirts etc) can sometimes be tools of the enemy to create dissension. I can assure you to the best of my knowledge (again only God knows 100%) Lee Lee means no harm to you or any of His flock. Lee Lee is a thinker and she likes to express and explore her ideas. In no way is she a heretic for bringing up controversial topics. Her matter of fact tone may seem that she is broadcasting her ideas at truth, when in reality she is just exploring them. Furthermore she is always open to any truth that lines up with the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it is pretty gross looking at out right falseness, wrongness, and or intentional deceit. It’s right there where God tells clearly tells us to be adamantly opposed to false teaching.
And you have joined yourself to the false teaching
“Have you felt the presence of God? Your body facilitated that. Have you heard His still small voice? Your body facilitated that. Have you had the Spirit rise up within you? YOUR BODY FACILITATED THAT.”
You and LeeLee consistently and adamantly advocate for what is in direct opposition to God. You have not one iota of scripture to back up your carnal philosophy that the body proceeds and takes precedence in such a way as to require a body to facilitate that Holy Spirit’s impact on us. You chose it. You screamed it. And you did not even pretend to offer any scriptural support for your internet screaming. You then chose to throw in your wild assertions and personal commands to the Internet world at large to stop being slutty and slovenly, implying everyone who knows God’s truth about our spiritual natures as he created us and dares to stand up for that basic reality must by virtue of not bowing down to your carnal philosophies and bullying be guilty of those things. That’s ad hominem and worthless to anyone who does not respect bullying.
I stand by God. I beg him to guide me and teach me and even to correct me when I’m wrong. He has demanded my obedience even to stand resolutely against your internet screaming and emotionalism and false teaching.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If it is you, Sue Bee, you are still a first rate theologian! ☺
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well thanks, but I cannot hold a candle to you! I just parrot what little I understand from the real theologians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey IB, I restored the comment that got you banned from the trash, along with a reply containing the screenshot of you lying about it here.
LikeLike
You did a good job with your latest post. Testifying to the goodness of God is how you spread the gospel.
I do still sense some hostility however, since you accuse me of lying, but that is easily set aside. Also, I must address this, “The people who were upset by my post were in all likelihood people who realized on some level that if this was true they may have devalued themselves in a serious way. Obese women, women with a history of promiscuous behavior and/or abortions, etc.”
I just need to tell you, I’m really not “obese, slutty, slovenly, promiscuous, or prone to have an abortion.” I’m actually just a sister in Christ.
LikeLike
IB, just because I care about you I want to reassure you/remind you that I wouldn’t assume you are by virtue of something as worthless as Internet ad hominem from those who directly state that any who disagree with their reasoning are likely to be guilty of some particular set of sins. That’s a travesty in God’s eyes. And you have others too who would never fall for such a baseless accusation.
There are many things I would never do with my body because of strict prohibitions from God. It would be wrong for me to go out to a local bar and hook up with someone for a one-night stand. It would be wrong for me to live with a man I’m not married to. There are many other things I choose not to do because in my reasoning, in my trying to be wise and to draw closer to God and/or to take good care of my body as a good steward they might do some form of harm. I no longer get perms because of the toxicity of the chemicals. I strive to eat more organic and grass fed and less factory food.
I don’t do drugs either and in fact have never made that particular mistake. However what right have I to boast in the flesh? None. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory. And I am no exception. If I start listing out every good thing I’ve done and every bad thing I’ve avoided (even if I only thought I did so to defend against the unworthy ad hominem bait), it would be boasting in the flesh.
If I assume sins of others because they disagree with me or even because I detect some sensitivity in them to a particular topic I have made myself a clanging symbol.
The Christian way would be for me to admit that I’ve had tons of health problems in my life and at most bring up my clean eating as a matter of education or encouragement to others by sharing how vastly my health is improved now over ten years ago and possibly other parts of the story some of which might reflect well on me in some way but some of which would be embarrassing in some way.
The Christian way would be for me to admit that I am a sinner and give God the glory for washing away my sins and pray that it’s some help to others.
You, IB, are not a clanging symbol! And you are not alone even out here in the weirdness and the rampant evils of Internet land!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, scratchmom, much appreciated. I cannot boast in anything myself either, except perhaps the goodness of God and His great love for us. We can never go wrong when we just place our eyes on Him.
LikeLike
Actually I saw that comment before it was deleted and that was not all it said. You also told her you “had been trying to point her to Jesus” and that she seems to be “all about condemnation”. In my observation it seemed to me as if you were treating Lee lee as if she is a staunch anti Christian heretic in need of conversion. Have you ever as a believer been preached to as if you were not? It’s very insulting and it’s hurtful. And only God knows the true relationship He has with His children. I know Lee lee personally and I have seen nothing but the fruit of the Spirit in her life. You may disagree with her views and personality but you are both of the belief that Jesus is the only way to heaven, whether you believe she believes that or not. The minor disagreements (read: not biblically mandated for salvation but based on interpretation such as women shouldn’t be preachers, or should only wear skirts etc) can sometimes be tools of the enemy to create dissension. I can assure you to the best of my knowledge (again only God knows 100%) Lee Lee means no harm to you or any of His flock. Lee Lee is a thinker and she likes to express and explore her ideas. In no way is she a heretic for bringing up controversial topics. Her matter of fact tone may seem that she is broadcasting her ideas at truth, when in reality she is just exploring them. Furthermore she is always open to any truth that lines up with the Bible.
LikeLike
And actually you’ll notice my screen name is lilac pill.. Because red and blue = purple (and lilac is prettier :p) meaning Lee Lee and I don’t always agree on the same topics. But again, from what I know about her, she is a Christian. So please be careful before you call brothers and sisters names without knowing all of he information.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m joining the conversation late, and for that I apologize. Martin Buber, in the middle of the twentieth century, wrote a book about two kinds of relationships: I-It relationships and I-Thou relationships. I-it relationships treat the other as an object; I-Thou relationships treat the other as a person. If we are dealing with a person, we should treat the other as a person–that is central to the “love your neighbor” command. Anything we think or say or do that turns other people into tools for us to use or obstacles for us to overcome is flat-out wrong. Buber goes on to say that some people try to use God as It rather than Thou. It’s a very interesting book. J.
LikeLike
Yeah, we’re all objects, men and women. And much more than only that or we couldn’t be individuals. Both of us; men and women. Men are hammered -justifiably- for abusing the physically weaker sex. But since Eve tempted Adam, we’ve conceded that women lead the massive social changes, such as female contraception/abortion supported casual female sexuality. Enough blame for all sides….
Granted, men tend toward physical bullying; women are more subtle. It is destructive either way. Evidence our current social breakdown, evidenced by our “red pill girls” as mentioned. By the trade in dead baby parts, too. When it’s bad enough to scare enough of us, we’ll likely straighten out … again. For a while, anyway. Plus ca change’ …
LikeLiked by 1 person
“When it’s bad enough to scare enough of us, we’ll likely straighten out … again. For a while, anyway.”
LOL! Well that’s good to know. Somewhat reassuring, too. 🙂
LikeLike
It’s taken me a few days IB, but I’ve found another good link for consideration by anyone jumping off from this discussion in their Bible study, anyone who wishes to capture every thought and compare it to the Holy scripture in order to discern if it truly matches up to what God tells us or differs or even contradicts. Let’s all try to make God the final say when we try to challenge or teach others or when we feel challenged by others. Return to scripture and care what God actually says more than we care for our feelings, our reputations, our pride, or our previous understanding.
http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/The-Rapture-Dispensationalisms-CandyStick
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: OF TWISTED WORDS => LANGUAGE TO DIVIDE AND TO CONQUER – Citizen Tom
Well, here I sit, all fat and slovenly, losing value even as we speak.
Listen up, people, and I’ll make this as simple as I can for ya:
I do not have value because I have managed to avoid becoming fat, slovenly and slutty. I have value because the performative Word of God has DECLARED IT SO. When He looked at His creation and declared it Good, God called forth my value into existence. This is an objective truth, for that is what the Word does – *it brings into existence that which it proclaims*. I have worth because God made me so.
As Christians, we are to see all human life through that lens. We do not get to assess higher or lower value on ANYONE based on our subjective observations. We don’t get to decide. God has already decided this one.
Though not all will be redeemed, Christ died for all. He deemed each and every one of us worthy of dying for.
That ought to tell you a little something about our inherent value in God’s eyes, and that is the value we are to see in ourselves and others. That’s your default starting point: this fat, slovenly slut standing in front of me is of such value that I should lay down my life for her, should that be required of me.
THAT is the level of love that we are required to show to our neighbour.
Assigning a subjective value to anyone, for any reason, is dangerous territory. When you begin to think of certain people as “less than”, you treat them as “less than” as well.
We are called to be better than that. We are called to *be Christ* to others so we don’t have the option
LikeLike
The option of seeing them in any other way than Christ does.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen! Preach the Word and show all of us how it’s done! Now that’s what I’m talking about. That’s the Christ I know.
LikeLike
Thank you for identifying the male role in reaching out to women to let them see a different culture other than a “porn culture.” Older women have a valid voice in society if we teach younger men (and older men) to respect them.
LikeLike