Grap is making some good points, IMO...
Mimi - pardon my intrusion in all of this.
Graplin IS making some good points. So are many of the others. It has a lot to do with how to deal with the
presentation and how to have
conflict that can be destructive rather than destructive.
You guys can't prove that BACK is LAURA...
No, without a confession from her it can't be "proved."
I personally have formed an opinion, but I don't have "concrete proof."
However I don't need
proof to make the determination that if Laura_Lee and Back are the same person
to conclude (from the postings of both of them) that they are at a bare minimum "kindred spirits," "identical twins," or "kissing cousins" their outlook, opinions, and stated misapplications or outright twisting of Scripture for the sole purpose of justifying GETTING what they WANT.
Such an outlook around here IS a "Wayward Spouse Fogbound" outlook and IS "dangerous" to be accepted and coddled.
It is dangerous to those who might be seeking their own ways to justify "doing what they want rather than what is right."
It is dangerous in the case of someone claiming to be a Christian and attempting to use the Word of God to "achieve" their own ends regardless of what Scripture says, and is no different that Satan's use of REAL Scripture to tempt Jesus. It appeals to emotional and physical needs that ARE real, but twists the truth of God to justify sinning and trying to turn "bad" into "good."
It is dangerous to hurting Betrayed Spouse to have someone tout the idea that "the ends (getting what I want) justifies the means (adultery, "Other Womanhood," etc.)
Supporting someone who is doing that is about as dangerous, in my humble opinion, as allowing a child to play with a loaded gun around other children simply because that child believes, sincerely believes, that they are only one who knows how to accurately and safely handle a gun and no one else has any right to disagree with them.
Shame on us if we don't try to, gently, disarm that child before innocents are harmed. I am NOT saying "shoot the kid" to disarm him. I am not saying bash the kid in the head to disarm him. But I AM saying "stand in the breech," if necessary, so that if the gun goes off I am the one who gets shot.
I AM saying gently, but with deliberate purpose, protect the other children from harm by seeing to it that the gun is taken away and the child is "supervised" and/or removed from participation.
It is NOT our job to "fix" the person. It is our job to STAND for "right and wrong, to protect the innocent, to offer help where we can, to NOT "cross the line" in HOW we defend the innocent," but to state clearly that there ARE absolutes and there IS a "right and wrong."
In short, there is a time for "direct and forceful action" such as "clearing the temple of obvious selfish, misguided, people who want to 'defile' the intended purpose of the temple." There is a time to say, gently, "Peter, Peter, despite what you THINK, you WILL deny me three times tonight." There is a time to say "Nevertheless Father, not my will but yours be done" and stand sacrificially so that others may live.
Regardless of the real identity or purpose of Back, she appears to be just as dangerously deluded as Laura_Lee was and is a very questionable counselor to others who are very vulnerable and have NOT learned to be able to distinguish for themselves what is "good advice" and what is "bad advice."
She was given the opportunity to converse about all the things that she CLAIMS are important to her Scripturally and as Christian, she chose to run away the minute anything was perceived as being different from acceptance of what she WANTS.
She has used extremely "unChristian-like rhetoric" for someone who is supposed to be led by the Holy Spirit.
She openly has advocated seducing the husband of another woman because SHE has decided that "they are not really married and I have decided that HE IS MINE!" (After all, she wouldn't want him if it wasn't God's will....right?)
Allowing her to CAUSE bickering and dissention by others on the system who really do want to try to help others in need is PRECISELY what she seems to want. And precisely what she is getting.
So my plea to other members is to ignore her and to put down the weapons of warfare and DISCUSS calmly any disagreements in style or approach to "conflicting opinions."
For those who may remember the original Star Trek series, there was an episode where an "evil entity" fostered hate, anger, and dissention, because IT lived off of those emotions, even though it resulted in harm to everyone else, and it began with the children. The way this evil entity was stopped was with love and friendship, not with war and fighting.
Anyone want to call it "brew thirty" and cool things down with a round of chilled ale?
God bless.
