Preaching Women

[2ndAmendment]

...
Jesus wore a crown of thorns in defiance of the laws of His day, so do go to the Court and give us a reason to be proud.

Jesus wore the crown of thorns because it was part of His humiliation and suffering He had to go through for our sins. It was not in defiance of the laws. Jesus taught us to follow the laws as long as they do not violate God's law.

Matthew 22:17-22

17"Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?"

18But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?

19"Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius.

20And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?"

21They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

22And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away.

The Bible teaches:

Romans 13:1-8

Be Subject to Government
1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;

4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

7Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

8Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

 

[hvp05]

See my accuser "hvp" does not say anything about the subject.

The subject is your "personal experience", as you were discussing yourself just a while ago. You are just upset that everyone realizes that your experiences and subsequent feelings are self-centered, shallow, and totally unjustified.

not even a comment on the weather.

Do you now want to blame the weather for you being an absent father?

I am expected to defend against such trash

Actually, I expect you to dodge and evade the argument and twist things around to supposedly fit your agenda - as you have said you like to do. And you are doing it again. So, in a roundabout way, you are meeting my expectations.

Attacking the messenger instead of the message? Weak....

 

[2ndAmendment]

Sorry again.

I never thought you might get the impression that I was sorry for your past experiences. No.

I meant that I was sorry that you now have such horrible beliefs about families and parents that you would get a job to seek out those to whom you may attack and degrade in the self righteous claims.

I feel sorry that you are so mixed up, and that you would join into such an evil occupation.

The big-daddy gov withs its parenting police is irritating to me, but the gov workers that play God with other people's children are dispicable.

It pains me whenever I hear of another misguided person joining in the Devil's work.

You are the most mixed up person on these forums, and the most tragic thing is you are so mixed up you don't even know you are mixed up.

 

[This_person]

Do you feel all divorce is wrong? That if a woman is being beaten she has no right to leave? Or what about the spouse that gets cheated on? Or the emotional damages that this kind of marriage can cause?

He has said in the past that he believes ALL divorce to be wrong when children are involved. He has said that there should be no right to be divorced until the child reaches (I think it was) 21 years old. That being said, they don't have to live together - they can be separated and married. Of course, he also believes that when the parents are separated, whoever the child is NOT living with has no moral obligation to that child.

In answer to above: Speaking legally the separated parent is legally required to pay child support and I agree that is the law, but that law is oppressive and evil and I believe that parents and honest citizens need to resist it.

Second answer to above: Since the children do already have all of their real needs met in full then the separated parent is not morally obligated to give extras to anybody. For parents to give extras and to give luxuries to their children is a personal choice and it is wrong to order extras by the child support.

Then, when shown that 1 Timothy 5:8 reads "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever", he denied his son was his immediate family:

Like when my son or friends or other family comes to my house then I feed them or give them a place to sleep and more, but when they go home they are still friends and family but they feed themselves at their own home. That is immediate family and then extended family and outside family.

But immediate family means those under our own roof.

and then, when pressed if he understood what he was saying:

You really beat things to death.
For me: I post what I really mean, and I really mean what I post.
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.

Its not a matter of the next affair, as you put it. It is a matter of pretecting and providing for the ones you love. Perhaps love is a foreign concept to you. Truly sad if it is.

He has never said this outright, but his actions are such that he believes all divorces are so that women can have another man in their lives with the first husband pays their way. He constantly refers to child support as payment for infidelity (subsidized adultery).

Maybe you see it as thievery because you refuse to stand up, be a MAN, and take responsibility for your own actions, I don't know. But don't you judge those of us that do handle our business. With ot without the courts assistence.

His taking responsibility for his actions, including being a father, stands for itself.

 

[MMDad]

I can see that. And yes I do know you. In fact, I'll probably be calling you soon to see if you got updated paperwork from me.

I really hope this means what I think it does. Are you going after him?

 

[~mellabella~]

I really hope this means what I think it does. Are you going after him?

LMAO!!!!!!


Wow, I think that was misunderstood. I work at his car insurance agency!

ETA: not his specific agent, just work at same agency. I don't want to misrepresent myself.

 

[godsbutterfly]

I really hope this means what I think it does. Are you going after him?

OH MY GOOD GOD NO! SPEAKING AS HER MOTHER NO! NO! NEVER! NO! Oh, I thought you meant was he her father! Whew!

 

[MMDad]

LMAO!!!!!!


Wow, I think that was misunderstood. I'm his insurance agent!

Car insurance? He was bragging about how he has historic plates because it costs less. When he was reminded that those plates have usage restrictions he laughed it off and bragged about using the car anyway. Does that affect his insurance?

 

[~mellabella~]

Car insurance? He was bragging about how he has historic plates because it costs less. When he was reminded that those plates have usage restrictions he laughed it off and bragged about using the car anyway. Does that affect his insurance?

Yes, car insurance. But no comment. lol.

You guys really shouldn't tell me this stuff!

 

[MMDad]

Yes, car insurance. But no comment. lol.

You guys really shouldn't tell me this stuff!

Or maybe he shouldn't come on here selling his hate, and then tell us all this stuff. Hey, if he didn't want the public to know it he wouldn't have posted it, right?

 

[This_person]

Yes, car insurance. But no comment. lol.

You guys really shouldn't tell me this stuff!

What's your office fax number? I'll find the post and send it to you. Last thing I need is him out there all delusional and hitting me, and not being properly insured because he wasn't following the law (and, we all know how respectful he is to the law).

 

[hvp05]

He has never said this outright, but his actions are such that he believes all divorces are so that women can have another man in their lives with the first husband pays their way. He constantly refers to child support as payment for infidelity (subsidized adultery).

His misogynist, controlling ways are not well-hidden, reviewing all he has said about his wife as well as his views on marriage in general. His wife must have been in hell, and I hope she enjoyed some good times before she died so young.

I thought you meant was he her father!

Er, MM meant was she "going after" him for his abuse of the child support system. Or perhaps his abuse of the disability income system.

You guys really shouldn't tell me this stuff!

Like MM also said, if he didn't want it out there, he would not have said it. If it comes back to bite him, good.

 

[JPC sr]

Ferrous Canus, and Stupidus Giganticus.

Yes, car insurance. But no comment. lol.

You guys really shouldn't tell me this stuff!

The posters claiming that I misrepresented anything about my insurance or my "Historical" registration is nothing but lies.

I suggest that you treat it as such.

 

[~mellabella~]

The posters claiming that I misrepresented anything about my insurance or my "Historical" registration is nothing but lies.

I suggest that you treat it as such.

Nothing on the forums are legally binding. No worries.

 

[JPC sr]

Ferrous Canus, and Stupidus Giganticus.

Nothing on the forums are legally binding. No worries.

That is implying that I might have something to "worry" about "legally" and that it being said on this "forum" protects me.

No, I am completely legal and all the others that said otherwise were only lies,

and I am not worried about any legality against me.

My concern was that lies would be mis-used.

This is going too far.

 

[~mellabella~]

That is implying that I might have something to "worry" about "legally" and that it being said on this "forum" protects me.

No, I am completely legal and all the others that said otherwise were only lies,

and I am not worried about any legality against me.

My concern was that lies would be mis-used.

This is going too far.

I have integrity and morals, Jimmy. Nothing will become of this. You're fine hon.

 

[JPC sr]

Ferrous Canus, and Stupidus Giganticus.

I have integrity and morals, Jimmy. Nothing will become of this. You're fine hon.

You are making it sound like you are doing me some kind of favor and I need none.

And what does your "integrety and morals" have to do with "Nothing will become of this."?

I know I am fine in all of my business and you are implying otherwise.

I do not like what you are saying and implying at all.

 

[godsbutterfly]

The posters claiming that I misrepresented anything about my insurance or my "Historical" registration is nothing but lies.

I suggest that you treat it as such.

My company is based on integrity and it would be the MVA who would have to report something wrong with ANYBODY's license/registration and not just yours. Your account will not be affected in any manner.

 

[~mellabella~]

You are making it sound like you are doing me some kind of favor and I need none.

And what does your "integrety and morals" have to do with "Nothing will become of this."?

I know I am fine in all of my business and you are implying otherwise.

I do not like what you are saying and implying at all.

I implied that we are taking you at face value. We don't play the he said/she said game with peoples insurance policies. That's messing with someone's personal life and that IS taking it too far.

 

[MMDad]

The posters claiming that I misrepresented anything about my insurance or my "Historical" registration is nothing but lies.

I suggest that you treat it as such.

Are you saying you lied to us when you told us that you misuse your historical registration? Darn, and you were so proud of it, too. I guess we shouldn't take you at face value, should we.