| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kathy" |
| Date: |
01 Jul 2004 09:37:51 AM |
| Object: |
New definition for second marriage |
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage", because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Kathy aa #1802
.
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 10:14:44 AM |
|
|
"Kathy" <k.knight@rogers.com> astounded us with: news:3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985
@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage", because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Kathy aa #1802
Maybe "marriage" should be "given the flick" as an outmoded concept. I mean,
c'mon, who really gives a *****, other than the anally retentive, or gold-
diggers?
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 12:26:33 PM |
|
|
"Kathy" <k.knight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage", because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay
marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Kathy aa #1802
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with someone
else?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raptor514" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 12:51:36 PM |
|
|
"kathryn" <kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cc1hg9$adv$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Kathy" <k.knight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage",
because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and
vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay
marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Kathy aa #1802
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her
first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with
someone
else?
That would be the general idea with fundie thinking. . .
Raptor514
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 01:11:36 PM |
|
|
"Raptor514" <Raptor514@SPAMSUCKS.com> wrote in message
news:IaYEc.24115$DT5.10294@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
"kathryn" <kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cc1hg9$adv$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Kathy" <k.knight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage",
because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that
a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage.
I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and
vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second
marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay
marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Kathy aa #1802
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her
first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with
someone
else?
That would be the general idea with fundie thinking. . .
Raptor514
Ah yet another reason I'm glad I don't believe in the existance of a god.
Kathryn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
16 Jul 2004 12:07:39 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 17:51:36 +0000, Raptor514 wrote:
"kathryn" <kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cc1hg9$adv$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Kathy" <k.knight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage",
because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and
vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay
marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Kathy aa #1802
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her
first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with
someone
else?
That would be the general idea with fundie thinking. . .
I'm sorry, but 'fundie' and 'thinking' don't go together.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 05:20:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:26:33 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with someone
else?
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us part". It's
really very simple.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
06 Jul 2004 03:05:54 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0e39e0tekgvve9nllri0fjnouhlcsmg7np@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:26:33 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her
first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with
someone
else?
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us
part". It's
really very simple.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
Be sure to tell that to your sister or friend when she's lying in hospital.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 01:24:10 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 17:20:06 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:26:33 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with someone
else?
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us part". It's
really very simple.
So let's see, you're against Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan but for
Scott Peterson.
What else do you believe?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -859 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 08:19:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 23:24:10 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
wrote:
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us part". It's
really very simple.
So let's see, you're against Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan but for
Scott Peterson.
What else do you believe?
That you are a certified nutcase who should live in a room with padded walls.
However, I also think you're not old enough to be handled with such treatment.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 08:28:41 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<0e39e0tekgvve9nllri0fjnouhlcsmg7np@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:26:33 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with someone
else?
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us part". It's
really very simple.
Just like your little, fundamentalist mind.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 08:11:38 AM |
|
|
On 1 Jul 2004 18:28:41 -0700, (jwk) wrote:
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us part". It's
really very simple.
Just like your little, fundamentalist mind.
jwk
Well, it is the definition of marriage. Not a civil contract to determine who owns what.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Solomon Kozanski" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 08:49:38 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:omnae0d4si93q4dsg7qgrrjvouqr82ete1@4ax.com...
On 1 Jul 2004 18:28:41 -0700, (jwk) wrote:
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us
part". It's
really very simple.
Just like your little, fundamentalist mind.
jwk
Well, it is the definition of marriage. Not a civil contract to determine
who owns what.
and realistically, marriage is complete and total *****. just admit it.
--
Keep Jesus OUT of Government and IN Hell where he belongs!
Brought to you courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 03:07:19 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:49:38 -0400, "Solomon Kozanski"
<noneofyourdamnbusiness@localnet.com> wrote:
Well, it is the definition of marriage. Not a civil contract to determine
who owns what.
and realistically, marriage is complete and total *****. just admit it.
Although marriage is a union between a man and a woman, it's still good to have some legal
problems sorted out by getting a civil marriage license. But the marriage is a union
between a man and a woman in the sight of God. Without it, there is no marriage, only a
civil contract.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 11:56:57 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<0e39e0tekgvve9nllri0fjnouhlcsmg7np@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:26:33 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with someone
else?
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us part". It's
really very simple.
OK. If my daughter's first husband tries to beat her, she'll kill him.
For the women who are not physically or mentally equiped for that, I
would consider that contract null and void. The promise is a promise
to stick *with the spouse against all that the world throws at them:
bandits, plagues, drought, teenagers, and other disasters.
A partner who is dangerous or betrays the other is the one who breaks
the contract.
Kermit
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Solomon Kozanski" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 08:52:11 AM |
|
|
"Kermit" <unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b38d8c5.0407012056.4ea0b9a@posting.google.com...
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<0e39e0tekgvve9nllri0fjnouhlcsmg7np@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:26:33 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her
first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with
someone
else?
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us
part". It's
really very simple.
OK. If my daughter's first husband tries to beat her, she'll kill him.
For the women who are not physically or mentally equiped for that, I
would consider that contract null and void. The promise is a promise
to stick *with the spouse against all that the world throws at them:
bandits, plagues, drought, teenagers, and other disasters.
A partner who is dangerous or betrays the other is the one who breaks
the contract.
Kermit
any two people who truly love each other do not have to dance around a fire
in front of the witchdoctor just so they can stick together through the
worst that the world throws at them. its total nonsense!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 08:16:21 AM |
|
|
On 1 Jul 2004 21:56:57 -0700, (Kermit) wrote:
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us part". It's
really very simple.
OK. If my daughter's first husband tries to beat her, she'll kill him.
Sounds like a nonmarriage made in hell.
For the women who are not physically or mentally equiped for that, I
would consider that contract null and void.
Sorry, not part of the oath.
The promise is a promise
to stick *with the spouse against all that the world throws at them:
bandits, plagues, drought, teenagers, and other disasters.
And each other.
A partner who is dangerous or betrays the other is the one who breaks
the contract.
Nope. The promise to God and each other is that of "what God has joined".
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
17 Jul 2004 01:17:41 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<ionae0l6boulhr86g3mshd3gn65hnf6rn4@4ax.com>...
On 1 Jul 2004 21:56:57 -0700, (Kermit) wrote:
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us part". It's
really very simple.
OK. If my daughter's first husband tries to beat her, she'll kill him.
Sounds like a nonmarriage made in hell.
I expect her first marriage to last. Why, do you think it *normal for
a husband to beat his wife? You think you take the *moral high ground
by claiming that a wife stand by her man - even if he beats her?
A man who hits his spouse has broken the contract - not the woman who
takes steps to survive. These survival steps usually mean running off
to a blood relative or a shelter. Insisting that a woman put up with a
fatal amount of abuse is evil.
For the women who are not physically or mentally equiped for that, I
would consider that contract null and void.
Sorry, not part of the oath.
Neither is physical abuse.
I have *never - in my 27 years with her - raised my hand against my
lady love in anger.
Your god is evil. Good thing he's imaginary.
The promise is a promise
to stick *with the spouse against all that the world throws at them:
bandits, plagues, drought, teenagers, and other disasters.
And each other.
If a man hits his wife - especially on a regular basis - he is not
"sticking with her". My daughter is training for whatever man is a
threat to her. We assume it will be a random rapist or mugger. None of
us expect a husband/boyfriend to act like that, but many abusers are
"stealth" abusers.
Your claim that she is held by a promise to allow herself to be beaten
is evil. We have a moral obligation not to let the savages run amok.
A partner who is dangerous or betrays the other is the one who breaks
the contract.
Nope. The promise to God and each other is that of "what God has joined".
Then your god is an *****. As are you. But I think many Christians would
agree with me. Nobody has an obligation to be abused.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AnotherObserver®" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 08:01:02 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:26:33 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <kathrynahunterlosethis@btinternet.com>
wrote:
"Kathy" <k.knight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage", because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with someone
else?
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us part". It's
really very simple.
"But I say to you, do not swear at all..."
--
Davidwd
~~~~~~~~~
Posting group: alt.atheism
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 08:10:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 21:01:02 -0400, AnotherObserver® wrote:
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with someone
else?
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us part". It's
really very simple.
"But I say to you, do not swear at all..."
It's not good to live together without the union being blessed by God.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Solomon Kozanski" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 08:48:28 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5knae0dlsjcg4que6pcf2t4g05n1l32lqm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 21:01:02 -0400, AnotherObserver® wrote:
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her
first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with
someone
else?
The words you swore are "for better or worst..........until death do us
part". It's
really very simple.
"But I say to you, do not swear at all..."
It's not good to live together without the union being blessed by God.
god can ***** himself
--
Keep Jesus OUT of Government and IN Hell where he belongs!
Brought to you courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 03:04:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:48:28 -0400, "Solomon Kozanski"
<noneofyourdamnbusiness@localnet.com> wrote:
It's not good to live together without the union being blessed by God.
god can ***** himself
Why do you hate God so? All he wants is to share his love with you. What makes you so
resentful of that?
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
06 Jul 2004 03:06:43 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ksfbe09t41fi2556b7b31gvoephgt2pvfs@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:48:28 -0400, "Solomon Kozanski"
<noneofyourdamnbusiness@localnet.com> wrote:
It's not good to live together without the union being blessed by God.
god can ***** himself
Why do you hate God so? All he wants is to share his love with you. What
makes you so
resentful of that?
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
****
Hey you believe god is the one who wants to deny people happiness - how is
that love?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 10:14:24 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
Why do you hate God so? All he wants is to share his love with you. What makes you so
resentful of that?
Hmmm. Let him express his love by sending some lottery
winnings my way. I'll be waiting.
--
M2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol T" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
07 Jul 2004 05:26:14 AM |
|
|
Michael Moore <m.moore@NOSPAMutoronto.ca> wrote in message news:<dwpFc.91275$Ax1.1291881@news20.bellglobal.com>...
Hmmm. Let him express his love by sending some lottery
winnings my way. I'll be waiting.<<<<<<<<<<<<
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
I had a neighbour who 'used' to say that if God loved her so much why
didn't she win the lottery when she prayed for it, then she could pay
off all her debts. She said that she'd make sure the church got 10% or
even more.
I told her that God already knows what she would do and that maybe she
wouldn't keep her promise, she insisted that she would even adding
that she would even go to church regularly. So I said to her what
would you give if you won a million then and she said £100,000, I said
what if you won £100,000, she said that there would be no problem
giving £10,000, I said how much would you give out of £10,000 then,
she was a little hesitant then and finally said that she would find
it harder to give £1,000 as you can do things with £10,000 and it's
not so easy with £9,000. So I said, what about £1,000, would you give
£100, she was hesitant for longer and when I said what about £100,
would you give £10, she said a definite yes.
I took her son to church that day, he asked for some money for the
collection, she tipped out the contents of her purse onto the table
which was full of £1 coins and then gave him _10p_!
A few weeks later in church when the collection plate came round her
son put a £1 in and had a big grin on his face. I later said to him
that his mum was being kind giving him so much that week. He said very
proudly that it was a £1 out of his £10 birthday money.
If God chose to dish out the lottery according to His wisdom, who is
he likely to sent it too; those who ask for it in a sincere prayer for
their need to save the souls of others, or for those who perceive they
need to save themselves?
Who gives most for the pure love of others, the child who gives
freely, or the parent who cannot even see the great wealth and
learning she is buying for her child and the world with just 10p of
all her material wealth?
We can learn a lot from a child who does not know sin and accepts the
kingdom of heaven in its purest form. As a mother who has such a child
in her home comes to learn.
Carol T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
08 Jul 2004 10:08:18 AM |
|
|
(Carol T) wrote in message news:<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com>...snip
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
Why would an all-powerful god need anything?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol T" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
11 Jul 2004 02:04:13 PM |
|
|
(Robibnikoff) wrote in message news:<9a0e6d0.0407080708.9bf39fc@posting.google.com>...
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote in message news:<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com>...snip
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
Why would an all-powerful god need anything?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
What you gain on this earth you will leave on this earth as a shadow
of yourself in the children of tomorrow. If it is dark you will leave
darkness, if it is light, then you will leave light. What is kept in
the darkness will become the darkness you are remembered by. What is
given in the light will be seen by future generations and will bring
light to them.
All that you do is before God, which ever route you choose to take. If
you give for His work amongst the people He loves, through receiving
His Holy Spirit, your gifts will be multiplied.
" For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and
lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his
angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not
taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. "
KJ Mat 16:26-28
Your earthly wealth and possessions will not buy your salvation the
moment they lose their value to you. We come naked into this world and
this is how we will leave it.
Jesus suffered and died so that you can be forgiven of your sin, so
that you can live, born again into a new understanding of His love for
you. That if the next moment were to be your very last it would be
flooded in His light of forgiveness and understanding.
This is all God wants for you, that you are saved into a new life with
Him.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by
the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." KJ 1Pe 1:23
It's better that your wealth saves souls for heaven than contributing
to keeping many in their darkness.
Carol T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
12 Jul 2004 06:51:41 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 12:04:13 -0700 in episode
<9bff2a56.0407111104.175adbae@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T):
robibnikoff@yahoo.com (Robibnikoff) wrote in message
news:<9a0e6d0.0407080708.9bf39fc@posting.google.com>...
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote in message
news:<9bff2a56.0407070226.7a3e1db@posting.google.com>...snip
God gives to those whom He knows will give back to Him.
Why would an all-powerful god need anything?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
What you gain on this earth you will leave on this earth as a shadow of
yourself in the children of tomorrow. If it is dark you will leave
darkness, if it is light, then you will leave light. What is kept in the
darkness will become the darkness you are remembered by. What is given in
the light will be seen by future generations and will bring light to them.
All that you do is before God, which ever route you choose to take. If you
give for His work amongst the people He loves, through receiving His Holy
Spirit, your gifts will be multiplied.
<SNIP>
You didn't answer the question. Why does the "creator of the universe"
need anything?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol T" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
14 Jul 2004 08:33:27 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.12.11.51.40.907583@org.webmaster>...
You didn't answer the question. Why does the "creator of the
universe"
need anything?<<<<<<<<<<<
The creator of the universe needs only the riches Jesus has from you
at the cross and on the death He has suffered for you.
Look into your purse and your life. Do you have enough to give to your
Lord and creator?
In this is your understanding.
How does a child who gives nothing to his creator give more to Him
than an adult who has little yet gives much?
"Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the
earth: Both young men, and maidens; old men, and children: Let them
praise the name of the LORD: for his name alone is excellent; his
glory [is] above the earth and heaven." KJ Psalm 148: 11-13
Carol T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
14 Jul 2004 08:41:27 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 06:33:27 -0700 in episode
<9bff2a56.0407140533.32dec94f@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
cteasd5941@hotmail.com (Carol T):
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.07.12.11.51.40.907583@org.webmaster>...
You didn't answer the question. Why does the "creator of the
universe"
need anything?<<<<<<<<<<<
The creator of the universe needs only the riches Jesus has from you at
the cross and on the death He has suffered for you.
Yet according to a lot of you people, he needs cash.
Look into your purse and your life. Do you have enough to give to your
Lord and creator?
I know of no such being.
In this is your understanding.
How does a child who gives nothing to his creator give more to Him than an
adult who has little yet gives much?
Nobody's actually giving any "creator" anything. They're handing money to
other human beings who *say some "creator" wants it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
14 Jul 2004 08:53:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:33:27 -0500, Carol T wrote
(in article <9bff2a56.0407140533.32dec94f@posting.google.com>):
Subject: Re: New definition for second marriage
From: (Carol T)
Date: Today 8:33
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.07.12.11.51.40.907583@org.webmaster>...
You didn't answer the question. Why does the "creator of the
universe"
need anything?<<<<<<<<<<<
The creator of the universe needs only the riches Jesus has from you at the
cross and on the death He has suffered for you.
Look into your purse and your life. Do you have enough to give to your Lord
and creator?
snip
I see, so your "lord and creator" is a panhandler, or rather you are doing
the panhandling for it.
Cute, stupid but cute, real cute.
"Jesus loves you, but Cthulu thinks you're part of a nutritious breakfast."
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
"Jesus loves you, but Cthulu thinks you're part of a nutritious breakfast."-
Dr. Smartass
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
