Re: The bride who wears the pants -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:07:40 09/22/12 Sat
Author: George
Subject: Re: The bride who wears the pants
In reply to: john 's message, "Re: The bride who wears the pants" on 07:25:10 09/22/12 Sat

>i am glad you can still enjoy the "oldies" george. i
>have never paid much attention to all that holywood
>stuff from before i was born... it seems silly.
>
>you can claim you have moved on all that you want when
>it comes to the cofchrist george. your posts here say
>otherwise. someone as bright as you should have been
>able to make that connection.
>
>john

Whatever. How old was your original post that I responded to?

>>>
>>>i don't know whether to yawn or laugh...
>>>
>>>john
>>>
>>
>>You're supposed to laugh, John.
>>
>>Although Lois and I still pretty much share the same
>>beliefs, she still thinks that what goes on in the
>>Community of Christ matters. Therefore, she cares
>>about your soul, John. She just doesn't do as you do,
>>and post her prayerful concerns for your spiritual
>>well-being here on the street corner so that everybody
>>can see them. If one does not know an individual well
>>enough to have their address to send them a note or
>>email telling them that one is praying for them, it's
>>better that one simply do the praying, and not make a
>>public announcement. It just doesn't look all that
>>good.
>>
>>But Phill Silvers and Doris Day got some laughs out of
>>this 50 years ago, in "Oh Lucky Me."
>>
>>Doris: Men! men! Horrible men!
>>History's pages are littered with them....
>>People like Bluebeard with hatchets and knives:
>>Look what they did to the lives of their wives.
>>
>>Phil: Hi, ho. song and a dance;
>>It's always the skirt who is wearing the pants:
>>Lucrecia Borgia -- the stuff that she poured!
>>Men took one whiff and went stiff as a board.
>>
>>I still have a copy of it after all these years,
>>because I was always a fan of Robert Cummings, who
>>played opposite Doris. And Phil's impersonation of a
>>"rich Texan" was funny because it probably was the
>>exact image of what a Canadian would think of. Nancy
>>Walker was in it too. And there was a number about
>>"Sandy MacTavish." I used to work for someone by that
>>name, and that made it even more comical.
>>
>>But that is how I see the Community of Christ, John --
>>"used to," "was," "played," "deceased." Unusual
>>because in "living color," and nostalgic, to be sure,
>>but over and done with, and long since past having any
>>real relevance to the here and now. You see, I can't
>>be a fan of Robert Cummings any more because he passed
>>away.
>>
>>George
>>
>>Proof that revelation is subjective is that God
>>commissioned the Community of Christ to tell men to
>>cease and desist in certain things, but the prophet
>>garbled the message and heard "grease and persist."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I am hearing some rumours and rumblings that some
>>>>>c-not-of-c members have finally had a gut full.
>>>>>
>>>>>First of all, let's remember something. The first
>>>>>publicly made departure from the true gospel of
>>Jesus
>>>>>Christ came with the ordination of women. That was
>>>>>kind of a tough call, after all, women are of great
>>>>>worth.
>>>>>
>>>>>But, as time has showed us, the women were ordained
>>>to
>>>>>be sycophants to the new program. Why, one of them
>>>has
>>>>>gone so far as to stand by her bisexual husband.
>I'm
>>>>>sure she wouldn't dare say it was wrong of him to
>>>have
>>>>>such a cheating heart.
>>>>>
>>>>>In the scriptures Jesus Christ is portrayed as the
>>>>>bridegroom, and the church is portrayed as the
>>bride.
>>>>>In the case of the community-not-of-Christ the
>bride
>>>>>decided to wear the pants. The ordaining of women
>>>>>showed that the church decided that "she" would
>make
>>>>>the decisions, change the ordinances, and tell the
>>>>>bridegroom how to conduct Himself. Actually this is
>>>>>going on in not only the c-not-of-c, but also many
>>of
>>>>>the "Christian" churches, even Restoration
>factions.
>>>>>
>>>>>In a summary, the bride decided to emasculate her
>>>>>husband.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's see what happens. I believe the scrourge has
>>>>>begun.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lois
>>>>
>>>>Hey, guess what!?! We could carry this metaphor
>>>>further.
>>>>
>>>>The bride didn't want to have relations with her
>>>>bridegroom. She wanted to have relations with
>another
>>>>woman.
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm. Could that other woman be the National Council
>>>>of Churches?
>>>>
>>>>Lois

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]