Parenting Police.

[BadGirl (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

You really beat things to death.

For me: I post what I really mean, and I really mean what I post.

I really really do not believe in doing otherwise and to say what one does not mean is a fools game that I try never to play.

It is only a word.

If you call a relative in a different State your immediate family then so be it for you. I do not call that an immediate family member.

And since we are talking about scripture then my interpretation is valid as anyone else's and your badgering the one word does not persuade me.

So, let's say that your son lives here is Southern Maryland, and say, you living in San Francisco, CA, you'd not consider him an "immediate relative". But if your 3rd cousin once removed from your father's uncle's side of the family that lives next door to you, then HE'D be an "immediate relative"?

That's a skewed view on family dynamics, for sure.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Theres alot in the preceding 7 lines? ... ok the entire 5:2 through 5:16 is about Widows. The entire premise of 1 Timothy 5:xx is about how to look after, think of, care about, Widows and Elders.

Sorry, but if thats the way you want to read the verses, this will REALLY open up discussions about Radicalism in the faiths

Psyops meant well with his verse, and if you read it out of Context it sounds like an excellent refute of JPC.

Unfortunately it isnt a verse about family they are verses about taking care of Widows. Now if only JPC had croaked before he ABANDONED his kid .

You have a different interpretation than mine, I will say that. By the first line, I see the whole of the lines to be about family, though I admit they seem to strongly center on widows. But, when speaking of elder men, younger men, elder women, younger women, children or nephews (nieces too, I would presume), etc., I do think it's getting at more than just widows. It's just centering on widows while discussing more.

[tirdun]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Plus I like Don Quixote and I think he gave the windmill a noble fight.
Quixote would be proud.

Don Quixote died shortly after realizing that he had lived his life blind to the reality that everyone else saw. His greatest regret was that he did not have enough time at the end to right the wrongs his idiocy had caused.

Don Quixote, indeed.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by BadGirl

So, let's say that your son lives here is Southern Maryland, and say, you living in San Francisco, CA, you'd not consider him an "immediate relative". But if your 3rd cousin once removed from your father's uncle's side of the family that lives next door to you, then HE'D be an "immediate relative"?

That's a skewed view on family dynamics, for sure.

My son is still legally my next of kin until if I remarry. So my son can live anywhere and not be immediate family but he is still family and legally he is my next of kin right now. I am not dis-owning my family members that do not live with me, my mom lives in a Nursing Home and she is not immediate in any manor, shape or form but that does not exclude my mom from my family just because she is not immediately here. I do not feed her and I do not house her and I do not disown her either.

If I had a distant relative living next door over and we were in active communications then I would call that an immediate family.

But if I had a close related family member living next door with no communications between us then I would not call them my immediate family.

Immediate and not immediate has to do with communications. A relative in a different house is not in direct communications.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

If I had a distant relative living next door over and we were in active communications then I would call that an immediate family.

So, next door is close enough, not really the same roof... hmmm.... What about TWO houses down? How far away did your son have to live for you to no longer have any responsibility to provide for him? How far away did you have to run to ensure your warped sense of morality was satisfied?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

So, next door is close enough, not really the same roof... hmmm.... What about TWO houses down? How far away did your son have to live for you to no longer have any responsibility to provide for him? How far away did you have to run to ensure your warped sense of morality was satisfied?

I could take unjustified personal shots at you too,

but I never do that,

for me I believe it would be a dishonorable thing for me to do.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I could take unjustified personal shots at you too, but I never do that, for me I believe it would be a dishonorable thing for me to do.

Give it a shot, but you'll have to have ammunition, first. Are you going to answer?

[tom88]

He isn't man enough to take a shot. A real man takes care of his children, without proclaiming what he has done. He is an evil man.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

This whole discussion about immediate family has had me .

Originally Posted by This_person

How far away did you have to run to ensure your warped sense of morality was satisfied?

No, no, no; it's not about distance, it's about communications. JPC ensured he would not have to maintain communications with Jimmy Jr. when he deserted Jr. and mom. For good measure, he moved a couple thousand miles away.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Immediate and not immediate has to do with communications. A relative in a different house is not in direct communications.

Since you linked to a dictionary a couple times in one of your earlier posts, here is one for you: immediate. The sane people involved in this discussion (i.e., everyone but you) are following #7. Neither communications nor distance have anything to do with whether or not someone is considered "immediate" family.

What if someone has a job that takes them away from home for extended periods of time? Perhaps a business executive or active military. Are their children no longer their responsibility or concern once they leave? It seems your definition allows someone's "immediate" status to be turned on or off, whereas everyone else on the planet considers such status fixed.


I have also been laughing at the fact that you were so willing to accept a new "challenge" when you never completed the previous one. How do you think this would go over in Congress? Someone challenges or questions you and you decide to just walk away without a real answer - maybe saying, "I said what I meant and meant what I said" repeatedly. Do you think your Congressional counterparts would forgive you so easily?