Pastor's daughter called me barely tolerable, what am I to think?

[oldethennew]

note to Brothers and Sisters:

this is satan's world right now; and he rules and influences, and baits, and tempts in order to
separate you from your True Saviour, at any cost - be on your toes little ones, else he will bring
you down to his level using any way he can to try and make you immoral from belonging to God!!!...

 

[selfdissolving]

note to Brothers and Sisters:

this is satan's world right now; and he rules and influences, and baits, and tempts in order to
separate you from your True Saviour, at any cost - be on your toes little ones, else he will bring
you down to his level using any way he can to try and make you immoral from belonging to God!!!...

well i hoped the devil packed a lunch.

Romans 8:33-39

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Mii]

The pastor seems to think it was my fault that everything happened saying I need to take responsibility and there are consequences for my actions...I asked him what I did to hurt anyone..he said he didn't feel slighted..so what exactly am I taking responsibility for? He proceeded to tell me my feelings are not his responsibility, even though it was his family who directly insulted me...so to me it really is his responsibility, or at least his family's.

That's says a lot of things in a breath but at the same time leaves many things out.

What type of church even is this? Also your age would bear relevancy in such a situation. If you just turned 18 for example and it was a childhood relationship, they wither and die (or to put it nicely, the Lord moves you). It was something meant for your maturation and there is a lesson in every relationship. I don't believe in purposelessness. There are things that are "less maturing" and some that are "stunting" but that's part of the maturation process as well. Resource allocation, and learning where you can and cannot grow naturally. Certainly the Lord can plant you in incredibly adverse conditions and you can produce some of the tastiest wine (metaphorically) in existence, but that's his move...not ours. Generally speaking, unless you can see the purpose of a challenge, it is best avoided placing one's self in adverse conditions and this appears to be that.

It could be this is a "nudge" to move on. My experience has been that things like this happen to move you forward, and it is usually unpleasant but teaches you a lesson on "what you would do" if such a situation occurred in the future. It could take you quite a long time to analyze (maybe a decade) the past and what precisely happened, and I do find that the Lord allows periods of "looking back".

Soldier on.




Going back, I do find the pastor's response sort of odd. I at least hear people out, but seeing pain/confusion/unresolved conflict are things that I would go to great lengths to help out as I may. I don't have a daughter and I am not a pastor as yet, but I don't think I'd have a problem being a bridge. Giving you a little bit of intermediated closure (through me and not her if she was not open to it) as much as the situation allowed for.

dust from your feet and keep it moving. They were never your friend when they can't even speak to you now about what troubles them. And what they don't realize is ending it like this with you, the silent treatment that blocks your existence from their attention on the Net, has an emotional toll it will put on they themselves as time goes on.



You can only allow that to happen to you if you let it. And that gives that person more power over you than the one act of blocking you out. Because the emotions will carry in you day to day beyond that. And your life has never and shall never depend on being accepted by any one person. You have power over your life, not your friends, or even family. You decide what makes you happy, and whom you will allow to impact you emotionally.

This whole segment is great advice, I appreciate it.







I'm not sure I agree that it's them not finding closure and taking it out on you 100% of the time, although that can indeed occur. I've done this myself, but then later forgiven them. I still feel that I have nothing more to say...and that is incredibly rare for me. It could very well be that it was long past time to leave a relationship and I "overstayed" and as a result, there was no real ending. It's a strange feeling. If they sought me out, I would certainly hear them...but there are many times I've tried to make amends when a person had no real interest in doing so (it seems) that it's really just surface level even if it did occur. Even when it's something minor, it feels like a loose end...I realized there will be many loose ends, and frayed edges before my life is out and that is disconcerting but it helps to align my focus with what truly matters.

@OP sometimes people can be so confoundedly rooted in themselves that they will not allow you what you are looking for. It hurts, and it is baffling, but it is not rare. It's something I've only found solace in prayer about. This may not be a big thing, but definitely don't let it become a sticking point with your relationship with the Lord. It is definitely frustrating when he is silent for things that are causing us distress, but often that is because our focus is misaligned.


Keep us updated, it's a frustrating situation. Brick walls can be maddening.

 

[selfdissolving]

That's says a lot of things in a breath but at the same time leaves many things out.

What type of church even is this? Also your age would bear relevancy in such a situation. If you just turned 18 for example and it was a childhood relationship, they wither and die (or to put it nicely, the Lord moves you). It was something meant for your maturation and there is a lesson in every relationship. I don't believe in purposelessness. There are things that are "less maturing" and some that are "stunting" but that's part of the maturation process as well. Resource allocation, and learning where you can and cannot grow naturally. Certainly the Lord can plant you in incredibly adverse conditions and you can produce some of the tastiest wine (metaphorically) in existence, but that's his move...not ours. Generally speaking, unless you can see the purpose of a challenge, it is best avoided placing one's self in adverse conditions and this appears to be that.

It could be this is a "nudge" to move on. My experience has been that things like this happen to move you forward, and it is usually unpleasant but teaches you a lesson on "what you would do" if such a situation occurred in the future. It could take you quite a long time to analyze (maybe a decade) the past and what precisely happened, and I do find that the Lord allows periods of "looking back".

Soldier on.




Going back, I do find the pastor's response sort of odd. I at least hear people out, but seeing pain/confusion/unresolved conflict are things that I would go to great lengths to help out as I may. I don't have a daughter and I am not a pastor as yet, but I don't think I'd have a problem being a bridge. Giving you a little bit of intermediated closure (through me and not her if she was not open to it) as much as the situation allowed for.




This whole segment is great advice, I appreciate it.







I'm not sure I agree that it's them not finding closure and taking it out on you 100% of the time, although that can indeed occur. I've done this myself, but then later forgiven them. I still feel that I have nothing more to say...and that is incredibly rare for me. It could very well be that it was long past time to leave a relationship and I "overstayed" and as a result, there was no real ending. It's a strange feeling. If they sought me out, I would certainly hear them...but there are many times I've tried to make amends when a person had no real interest in doing so (it seems) that it's really just surface level even if it did occur. Even when it's something minor, it feels like a loose end...I realized there will be many loose ends, and frayed edges before my life is out and that is disconcerting but it helps to align my focus with what truly matters.

@OP sometimes people can be so confoundedly rooted in themselves that they will not allow you what you are looking for. It hurts, and it is baffling, but it is not rare. It's something I've only found solace in prayer about. This may not be a big thing, but definitely don't let it become a sticking point with your relationship with the Lord. It is definitely frustrating when he is silent for things that are causing us distress, but often that is because our focus is misaligned.


Keep us updated, it's a frustrating situation. Brick walls can be maddening.

this is wise counsel here. thank you @Mii

 

[Whispered]

Do not fear the enemy of God because we are assured he was defeated when Jesus died on the cross.

The Book of John chapter 16:The Work of the Spirit
4.But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you of them. “I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convince[a] the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.


The Book of John chapter 12 verse 31. (Linked to the entire chapter for context) 31 Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out;

The Fall of Satan and the Victory of Christ
".....God’s Sovereign Sway over Satan

Though Satan is called “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31), Daniel 4:17 says, “The Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom he wishes.” And Psalm 33:10 says, “The Lord nullifies the counsel of the nations; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation.” Yes, Satan is the “ruler of this world,” but the ultimate one—God—holds final sway...."

 

[oldethennew]

even if this is 'true' - (5)yrs.) of 'churchy communication??? let's get real here = this is either a 'set-up' thread,
or just another plain ole demonic one' = no body loves another 'in Christ' for this amount of time and then turns on them
for no reason that they can 'fathom'???
(((Pastor's daughter)))???

 

[mlssufan01]

even if this is 'true' - (5)yrs.) of 'churchy communication??? let's get real here = this is either a 'set-up' thread,
or just another plain ole demonic one' = no body loves another 'in Christ' for this amount of time and then turns on them
for no reason that they can 'fathom'???
(((Pastor's daughter)))???

I really wish I could explain it to you, believe me, I do. I could try posting the pastor's emails (taking names out) to perhaps let you see for yourself. Maybe it's selfish to want to reconcile but I just honestly believe it's what the Bible says to do...at the same time knowing I can't make them. But you're right, the 5 year thing truly hurts. I wish I could understand, I really do.

 

[oldethennew]

no one here will ever get the 'whole real story', but what you have shared really makes no sense -
we would like to share these scriptures with you and others in the same boat'...,

MATT. 18:15-16-17-18.
Moreover if your brother-sister shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between
you and him alone: if he shall hear you, you hast gained thy brother. =
16.
But if he will not hear you, then take with you one or two more, that in the mouth
of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17.
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church,
let him be unto you as an heathen man and a publican.
18.
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

another words, if you are obedient on earth, it transmits into the 'Heavenly-Realm'...

if we are doing our 'duty to Yeshua', then there will always be heavenly results, even
most of all, the precious blessing of 'peace' within ourselves...

 

[Princesse]

In my opinion, your failure to grasp the text has contributed to your confusion. While you know the words it appears you’re unclear regarding the reasons for their utterance.

Darcy and Bingley attended a country ball. Their arrival in town was discussed by everyone and many are making designs. Including Mrs. Bennett. Their primary interest in the pair was in relation to their wealth and standing. That’s the smoking gun.

When they arrive at the ball, many attendees were openly discussing them and the money they received yearly. $5,000 and $10,000 respectively. That was a large sum at that time. Darcy was an aristocrat and Bingley hailed from the merchant class. Both would be an incredible catch for a young lady. Their wealth would secure her comfort and could contribute to the family’s too.

The attendees were more interested in their possessions than who they were as individuals. Darcy’s behavior—while proud—is a tongue-in-cheek response to the motives he observed. It’s no different than putting a single celebrity or wealthy person in a room of strangers where everyone knows their circumstances. You’d see similar behavior unfold.

And he admits his disinterest in dancing with women he’s not acquainted with. He’d be subject to machinations and that’s less likely if he knew them well. As for the comment, it’s his way of acknowledging his initial impression of Elizabeth. Austen takes pains to establish Jane’s beauty and soft character and emphasizes Lizzie’s wit and spiritedness. She was never described as lovely or similar sentiments.

Given the absence of physical attraction and her attire—she was clothed in muslin and Bingley’s sisters were donning fashionable silk gowns—his initial impression was set. She didn’t stand out (on her own) enough to compel his approach. He required prodding to do so.

Keep in mind the theme the book articulates. While Lizzie’s father was a gentleman. Darcy would be marrying beneath his station. The union is derided by his peers for this reason. Lizzie is required to marry up and Darcy is expected to maintain his position.

I don’t think you can interpret the remark without understanding the circumstances that created his stance. Looking at it from that perspective, it suggests someone who cannot offset the bias and expectations the bearer maintains. They’d need a compelling reason to compromise. It reminds me of the adage about first impressions and it’s very apropos.

If she wanted to communicate interest, she’d reference Jane and Bingley. There was never a question of their mutual attraction for the reader. In a real life scenario, Darcy is more likely to approach Jane instead. She fits the image and disposition young women were expected to hold. She’s society’s ideal.

Her lone dispersion is the absence of emotional expression and their limited resources. No one ever slighted her character and she was always well received. Lizzie’s quirkiness and tongue were in deference to the norms for her sex.

Now view the same in relation to yourself. Do you toe the line or march to your own drummer? Do you follow tradition or seek out new frontiers? Given her background, it is probable they’ve groomed her for a certain type. Do you fit the bill? Only you know the answer.

There’s something else to keep in mind. Lizzie is sitting when he encounters her. The assembly is full but the men were in short supply. It was expected that a gentleman would dance if he saw a lady unaccompanied and he was free. His dance card was open.

But Darcy chose to abstain. Not because of busyness or the absence of opportunity. And he knew his decision wouldn’t hinder his prospects at all. He’d make a fine match because he was a great catch.

My gut tells me that’s the crux of the line she quoted. While seemingly overt to most, there’s a lot hidden beneath the surface that’s in play. It isn’t merely an omission of attraction. But the differences between them each I mentioned.

“Barely tolerable“ wasn’t only in relation to Darcy’s response. That’s how she was received by those in his circle. Only Georgina (his sister) and Bingley welcomed her wholeheartedly. They saw beyond the prejudices (of her condition) that the others couldn’t set aside.

It’s a peculiar way of getting her point across. A tad melodramatic and profoundly shrewd. By forcing you to figure out its meaning she’s spared the discomfort of your response and protestations.

It is also a polite way of communicating her options and the unsuitability of the union without saying it aloud and subjecting herself to attempts to sway her thoughts. By using Darcy as her moniker, she’s articulating the disparity of your positions and expectations without being overt.

I don’t think her parents forced this. By using the early depiction of Darcy she’s communicating her agreement and unwillingness to set aside what’s expected of her for matters of the heart.

It isn’t often I encounter someone whose shrewdness takes me aback. I don’t know your situation. But I can tell you honestly she won’t be swayed by a man whose coffers don’t meet her standard or whose reputation would lessen her own.

She’s good. And if this came from her it suggests someone whose mental agility and acuity exceeds your own. You’d have a hard time keeping up. I’m not being cruel with that statement.

I’m simply acknowledging she’s operating on a level most women her age do not possess. While I don’t agree with ambiguity. It’s brilliant nonetheless. For those reasons and more you should leave her alone. If she’s honestly functioning at that level of wisdom you’d have a hard time keeping pace.

I’m honestly impressed.

 

[Lanolin]

um. thats was way too long for a pride and prejudice sypnosis.

Im thinking one of you has pride and the other has prejudice thought I cant figure out which is which right now my brain has gone fuzzy.

if she just said shes out of your league maybe you might understand, but,, who really wants to marry a snob?

 

[mlssufan01]

In my opinion, your failure to grasp the text has contributed to your confusion. While you know the words it appears you’re unclear regarding the reasons for their utterance.

Darcy and Bingley attended a country ball. Their arrival in town was discussed by everyone and many are making designs. Including Mrs. Bennett. Their primary interest in the pair was in relation to their wealth and standing. That’s the smoking gun.

When they arrive at the ball, many attendees were openly discussing them and the money they received yearly. $5,000 and $10,000 respectively. That was a large sum at that time. Darcy was an aristocrat and Bingley hailed from the merchant class. Both would be an incredible catch for a young lady. Their wealth would secure her comfort and could contribute to the family’s too.

The attendees were more interested in their possessions than who they were as individuals. Darcy’s behavior—while proud—is a tongue-in-cheek response to the motives he observed. It’s no different than putting a single celebrity or wealthy person in a room of strangers where everyone knows their circumstances. You’d see similar behavior unfold.

And he admits his disinterest in dancing with women he’s not acquainted with. He’d be subject to machinations and that’s less likely if he knew them well. As for the comment, it’s his way of acknowledging his initial impression of Elizabeth. Austen takes pains to establish Jane’s beauty and soft character and emphasizes Lizzie’s wit and spiritedness. She was never described as lovely or similar sentiments.

Given the absence of physical attraction and her attire—she was clothed in muslin and Bingley’s sisters were donning fashionable silk gowns—his initial impression was set. She didn’t stand out (on her own) enough to compel his approach. He required prodding to do so.

Keep in mind the theme the book articulates. While Lizzie’s father was a gentleman. Darcy would be marrying beneath his station. The union is derided by his peers for this reason. Lizzie is required to marry up and Darcy is expected to maintain his position.

I don’t think you can interpret the remark without understanding the circumstances that created his stance. Looking at it from that perspective, it suggests someone who cannot offset the bias and expectations the bearer maintains. They’d need a compelling reason to compromise. It reminds me of the adage about first impressions and it’s very apropos.

If she wanted to communicate interest, she’d reference Jane and Bingley. There was never a question of their mutual attraction for the reader. In a real life scenario, Darcy is more likely to approach Jane instead. She fits the image and disposition young women were expected to hold. She’s society’s ideal.

Her lone dispersion is the absence of emotional expression and their limited resources. No one ever slighted her character and she was always well received. Lizzie’s quirkiness and tongue were in deference to the norms for her sex.

Now view the same in relation to yourself. Do you toe the line or march to your own drummer? Do you follow tradition or seek out new frontiers? Given her background, it is probable they’ve groomed her for a certain type. Do you fit the bill? Only you know the answer.

There’s something else to keep in mind. Lizzie is sitting when he encounters her. The assembly is full but the men were in short supply. It was expected that a gentleman would dance if he saw a lady unaccompanied and he was free. His dance card was open.

But Darcy chose to abstain. Not because of busyness or the absence of opportunity. And he knew his decision wouldn’t hinder his prospects at all. He’d make a fine match because he was a great catch.

My gut tells me that’s the crux of the line she quoted. While seemingly overt to most, there’s a lot hidden beneath the surface that’s in play. It isn’t merely an omission of attraction. But the differences between them each I mentioned.

“Barely tolerable“ wasn’t only in relation to Darcy’s response. That’s how she was received by those in his circle. Only Georgina (his sister) and Bingley welcomed her wholeheartedly. They saw beyond the prejudices (of her condition) that the others couldn’t set aside.

It’s a peculiar way of getting her point across. A tad melodramatic and profoundly shrewd. By forcing you to figure out its meaning she’s spared the discomfort of your response and protestations.

It is also a polite way of communicating her options and the unsuitability of the union without saying it aloud and subjecting herself to attempts to sway her thoughts. By using Darcy as her moniker, she’s articulating the disparity of your positions and expectations without being overt.

I don’t think her parents forced this. By using the early depiction of Darcy she’s communicating her agreement and unwillingness to set aside what’s expected of her for matters of the heart.

It isn’t often I encounter someone whose shrewdness takes me aback. I don’t know your situation. But I can tell you honestly she won’t be swayed by a man whose coffers don’t meet her standard or whose reputation would lessen her own.

She’s good. And if this came from her it suggests someone whose mental agility and acuity exceeds your own. You’d have a hard time keeping up. I’m not being cruel with that statement.

I’m simply acknowledging she’s operating on a level most women her age do not possess. While I don’t agree with ambiguity. It’s brilliant nonetheless. For those reasons and more you should leave her alone. If she’s honestly functioning at that level of wisdom you’d have a hard time keeping pace.

I’m honestly impressed.

I would wholeheartedly disagree. What I would suggest is that her and I came from different worlds; her from the church; me from the secular world (until later in life). I would agree her spiritual knowledge and acumen would likely be superior; I would not agree on maturity. Spiritual and emotional maturity would suggest the ability to communicate directly; and the ability to communicate to those less educated than yourself. Not to mention the ability to handle and resolve conflict; an art I would say is lost on today's self-indulgent society. I would also tell you, that if one feels they are mature, the mature practice as a Christian would be to bring the less mature into maturity. There is nothing mature about cutting someone off without having a discussion and then sending someone else to give you a vague explanation.

I would parry to say your definition of shrewd leans on the judgment or discernment type of definition; in which case, I can already tell you, if that is in which context you meant, has been horribly wrong; as they have shown no correct judgment in regards to the matter. In fact, this was precisely a turning point in P&P, when the Bennett's realize they misjudged Darcy.

Our communication styles may differ and lack understanding, but I don't for one second believe intelligence is criteria for biblical love of the platonic nature.

 

[mlssufan01]

In my opinion, your failure to grasp the text has contributed to your confusion. While you know the words it appears you’re unclear regarding the reasons for their utterance.

Darcy and Bingley attended a country ball. Their arrival in town was discussed by everyone and many are making designs. Including Mrs. Bennett. Their primary interest in the pair was in relation to their wealth and standing. That’s the smoking gun.

When they arrive at the ball, many attendees were openly discussing them and the money they received yearly. $5,000 and $10,000 respectively. That was a large sum at that time. Darcy was an aristocrat and Bingley hailed from the merchant class. Both would be an incredible catch for a young lady. Their wealth would secure her comfort and could contribute to the family’s too.

The attendees were more interested in their possessions than who they were as individuals. Darcy’s behavior—while proud—is a tongue-in-cheek response to the motives he observed. It’s no different than putting a single celebrity or wealthy person in a room of strangers where everyone knows their circumstances. You’d see similar behavior unfold.

And he admits his disinterest in dancing with women he’s not acquainted with. He’d be subject to machinations and that’s less likely if he knew them well. As for the comment, it’s his way of acknowledging his initial impression of Elizabeth. Austen takes pains to establish Jane’s beauty and soft character and emphasizes Lizzie’s wit and spiritedness. She was never described as lovely or similar sentiments.

Given the absence of physical attraction and her attire—she was clothed in muslin and Bingley’s sisters were donning fashionable silk gowns—his initial impression was set. She didn’t stand out (on her own) enough to compel his approach. He required prodding to do so.

Keep in mind the theme the book articulates. While Lizzie’s father was a gentleman. Darcy would be marrying beneath his station. The union is derided by his peers for this reason. Lizzie is required to marry up and Darcy is expected to maintain his position.

I don’t think you can interpret the remark without understanding the circumstances that created his stance. Looking at it from that perspective, it suggests someone who cannot offset the bias and expectations the bearer maintains. They’d need a compelling reason to compromise. It reminds me of the adage about first impressions and it’s very apropos.

If she wanted to communicate interest, she’d reference Jane and Bingley. There was never a question of their mutual attraction for the reader. In a real life scenario, Darcy is more likely to approach Jane instead. She fits the image and disposition young women were expected to hold. She’s society’s ideal.

Her lone dispersion is the absence of emotional expression and their limited resources. No one ever slighted her character and she was always well received. Lizzie’s quirkiness and tongue were in deference to the norms for her sex.

Now view the same in relation to yourself. Do you toe the line or march to your own drummer? Do you follow tradition or seek out new frontiers? Given her background, it is probable they’ve groomed her for a certain type. Do you fit the bill? Only you know the answer.

There’s something else to keep in mind. Lizzie is sitting when he encounters her. The assembly is full but the men were in short supply. It was expected that a gentleman would dance if he saw a lady unaccompanied and he was free. His dance card was open.

But Darcy chose to abstain. Not because of busyness or the absence of opportunity. And he knew his decision wouldn’t hinder his prospects at all. He’d make a fine match because he was a great catch.

My gut tells me that’s the crux of the line she quoted. While seemingly overt to most, there’s a lot hidden beneath the surface that’s in play. It isn’t merely an omission of attraction. But the differences between them each I mentioned.

“Barely tolerable“ wasn’t only in relation to Darcy’s response. That’s how she was received by those in his circle. Only Georgina (his sister) and Bingley welcomed her wholeheartedly. They saw beyond the prejudices (of her condition) that the others couldn’t set aside.

It’s a peculiar way of getting her point across. A tad melodramatic and profoundly shrewd. By forcing you to figure out its meaning she’s spared the discomfort of your response and protestations.

It is also a polite way of communicating her options and the unsuitability of the union without saying it aloud and subjecting herself to attempts to sway her thoughts. By using Darcy as her moniker, she’s articulating the disparity of your positions and expectations without being overt.

I don’t think her parents forced this. By using the early depiction of Darcy she’s communicating her agreement and unwillingness to set aside what’s expected of her for matters of the heart.

It isn’t often I encounter someone whose shrewdness takes me aback. I don’t know your situation. But I can tell you honestly she won’t be swayed by a man whose coffers don’t meet her standard or whose reputation would lessen her own.

She’s good. And if this came from her it suggests someone whose mental agility and acuity exceeds your own. You’d have a hard time keeping up. I’m not being cruel with that statement.

I’m simply acknowledging she’s operating on a level most women her age do not possess. While I don’t agree with ambiguity. It’s brilliant nonetheless. For those reasons and more you should leave her alone. If she’s honestly functioning at that level of wisdom you’d have a hard time keeping pace.

I’m honestly impressed.

I would also like to point out, that her family still likes my facebook posts, despite having blocked me on insta. so there's that added element of confusion. I finally just wound up unfriending what little ties we had left, reluctantly, at the advice of many. I did wind up watching their online service on facebook---I didn't know they can see you watching..they even said hello...I said nothing back, I felt like a deer caught in headlights.

 

[SoulWeaver]

I agree with @Locoponydirtman . This is immature, also snarky, also cowardly, avoiding confrontation, by "sending messages" through others like that (and her bro isn't better either for passing such on) instead of simply talking to you. Likely the message was for having some kind of "last word" satisfaction, since she refuses to talk to you, making her petty as well. If someone slandered you to her, she was fast to believe it and decided to give you no chance to explain yourself, in spite of your long friendship. Or maybe she wants to be chased. Whatever, this looks like a toxic brew and you need to step away and stay away, before more drama ensues.
You did nothing wrong.
Let them believe what they wish.

 

[tanakh]

I had a pretty huge falling out with this girl--she was the pastor's daughter. the thing is, I'm not really sure what to think. We had been friends for 5 years or so and never had any issues that I was aware of. Then one day randomly she ignored me and her brother approached me and said I was barely tolerable. I should mention there were more events after this but I'm having a very hard time piecing together everything that happened, but will discuss what I do know.
So, for those who don't know, the phrase "barely tolerable" I knew to be a direct reference to one of her favorite books, Pride & Prejudice--in particular the scene where Elizabeth Bennett overhears him say it to Bingley, and then when Darcy mentions dancing as an act of affection, Bennett replies, "only if one's partner is barely tolerable."

All I know is the girl ignored me and her brother said the words...she never gave me a reason and blocked me on Facebook. At first glance I assumed this meant she was annoyed by me...but without her telling me it was very hard to know for sure. Some time later I wondered if the father had a part in all this, perhaps not approving of us being close with each other (close only in the sense of friends), and decided end it.
Sometimes I wonder if she had a crush on me and I never realized it...there are plenty of occurrences that could have suggested this...but again...I will never know.
Sometimes I wonder if her dad said no more and she said barely tolerable to get me to know the reference to Pride & Prejudice? This whole ordeal has confused me so much, and the only person who really knows the truth is her, and she has not spoken to me at all since the incident.

Some sense and sensibility is needed somewhere here!