pushka
-
Posts
2792 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by pushka
-
-
I've seen that movie and yes, it is a little depressing...I didn't quite know what to make of it, was it just a cheap thriller? I was a little disappointed with it really.
SF...When I was married I often dreamt my husband was seeing other women...unfortunately he was!!!
I often have very vivid and memorable dreams...some are very good, others are definitely nightmarish and I wonder whether it is the cocktail of drugs that I take for my health problems that inspire them...wish I could remember to write them all down, and have them interpreted, I could write a book!!!
-
I think it is possible that you saw something, nothing to prove you didn't anyway...although when we are in a situation where we expect to see something, our minds can often fool us into thinking that we had seen something. Either that or that bloke just enjoyed a quiet jog at night, might have been shy...lol, and was it dark? Don't we just seem to fade into the trees when the darkness surrounds us...he might have thought you two were spirits!!!
As for walking around cemetries, I love them...I enjoy walking around the tombstones, reading the epitaphs and seeing at what age people died from different centuries...but then I have a morbid interest in Social History, mortality rates and such :)
-
LOL Cal...well said...I agree with every word!
-
LOL Cal...Yes I am a bit of a nite owl...a bit of an insomniac...slightly manic-depressive too!! insufferably silly sometimes, and just witter on and on!!
I live in Lancashire...Nelson is the name of the town I live in...quite a small town, one of the 'mill towns' which suffered from the downfall of the cotton industry and the coal mining industry...I believe there are equivalent towns/states in the USA which have suffered from the loss of mining industry jobs and such, and are not 'wealthy' states.
-
Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2005, 07:18 PMI was not saying that I considered myself more fortunate to be with someone with a job than someone without a job, and that I would probably have not married someone without a job...
You keep telling me I said things that I DID NOT say. I never said that the woman's care of the house was LESS IMPORTANT, I said it was of lesser economic value than what most men do. That doesn't make it less important. Why can you not limit your comments to what I said, not what you read into it.
My comment about womens house work was in response to a comment about how women work in the house and so men should have to compensate them for that when they get divorced. My point was simply the logic that 1) compensation should be based on value for value (economic, not moral). 2) that what women do doesn't have the value, monetarily, of what men generally do. I don't devalue it, I only give it the value that any economist would. Perhaps I could accuse you of devalueing what men do? But, you have not said you do, so I won't accuse you of it.
You also said you would probably not have married someone without a job? Again you make my point, because MEN regularly marry women who don't have much in the way of job skills. Why? Back to my original comment--men don't value job skills in women as much as women value them in men. Men are used to taking the responsibility for the major financial burden--they would just rather do it for a California 10, than an Idaho 4. (As he braces himself for the estrogenal battering to come)
Cal, I apologise for putting words into your mouth...yes, I was stating what I believed you meant by the words you said...when you said it was of 'lesser economic value' than 'what most men do' I felt a little insulted, because I feel that the care of the family is worth much more than any highly paid job, and so alimony shouldn't be set purely on a like for like measure according to how much the family would have had to pay for a nanny, cook, cleaner etc. to do the work that the wife did whilst her husband was out working. I hope that clarifies my position a little better...
Please note the words ' I WAS NOT SAYING'...I was not saying that I considered myself more fortunate to be with someone with a job than someone without a job, and that I would probably have not married someone without a job...
I was saying that I would marry someone whether or not he was employed...then I mentioned that this would be because I would marry for love, and love makes people do things which may be considered foolish by others.
I agree that most men probably don't consider the value of their future wife's career, expecting that she would be the one to care for the children at home if they could afford for her to stay at home...I find that a sexist attitude, however. Unfortunately, as I said before, where I live it is often the case that both partners have to work to raise the family...
I don't wish to put words in your mouth again, but did you insinuate somewhere, in one of your earlier posts regarding alimony, that it was the woman's choice alone to have the children, so she should be the one to stay at home and look after them? How do you know it was the woman's choice alone? Sorry, I probably am putting words into your mouth again...you were probably just referring to the fact that the woman could refuse to have a child even if her husband wanted one and she didn't...but if she agreed to have a child because he wanted one, or if they both chose to have the child, then it should still be the woman's responsibility to care for the child and suffer the loss of her career/financial independence? Because she chose to have the child????
I'm sorry if I sound like I'm just being argumentative for the sake of it...I'm tired, its 2.40am here and time I went to bed!! LOL
-
Originally posted by Cal+Feb 3 2005, 05:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 3 2005, 05:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -pushka@Feb 3 2005, 05:15 PMOriginally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 05:01 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Feb 1 2005, 07:51 PM
I know what you mean, Cal...I must say I look at a man's face first, before hearing him speak or whatever...but in spite of how attractive or not he may appear outwardly to me, I would not stay with him if I found his personality stank! I would hope that that would apply to all, male or female
And, you probaby want to know what he doesn't for a live as a very close second. Right?
Well no, actually...
I live in the Northern part of the UK which is a very poor area...career prospects are not very high generally, although we do have some highly paid people too...they are not the majority here...we struggle for labouring jobs, and shopwork, nursing etc. mainly...lots of families in this area have both partners working, we cannot afford to be stay-at-home mums...
As I have said previously, I do not doubt that there are people out there judging people on looks/career prospects alone when considering them as 'marriage fodder'...but it has certainly not been MY experience around here...we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men!
I would like to agree with some of the other female posters on here regarding stay-at-home mums, who may have not chosen that path, but been encouraged to do so by their husband...if this is the case then I think the payment of some sort of alimony, initially would be acceptable.
Pushka--again, who told them to marry before they had any marketable skills, so as to be vulnerable to the consequences of divorce? Bad choice on their part, wouldn't you say?
Second, you said.....
we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men!I rest may case. You would feel "lucky" to have a husband with a job would you? That would be a lucky break? I wonder if there are any girls there in UK looking for husband with a job? I'm willing to bet that a girl there finding a guy with a job feels luckier than a guy who finds a girl with a job. Which one do you think feels luckier?
Okay, as far as the alimony question goes...yes I agree that anybody, male or female, would be well advised to get themselves educated and in a financially stable position before entering into marriage. What happens afterwards is not always so simple an equation...When I was married and had my 1st child, I worked part time afterwards, this was beneficial to both me and my husband and our child, as it meant that I got to spend time at home during the day, looking after our daughter, whilst my husband worked, then I went to work in the evenings when he looked after her. It also meant that whenever she was ill I was automatically on-call, she was ill lots during her first year, spent lots of time in hospital...there was no question of who would take any time off work to stay in the hospital with her...it had to be me, because I was the female and I was only working part-time, even tho my rate of pay was higher than my husband's and I did enough overtime to make me a full time worker...I just spread my hours out over the full 7 days instead of 5. Maybe I've lost the point of the argument over alimony now...it isn't something that I felt I needed when I was divorced, even though I did have to rely on state benefits following the divorce (I was already not working due to ill health though). I still feel uncomfortable with some of your assumptions regarding women who stay at home after children are born, and the way that you dismiss her responsibilities towards the family...cooking, cleaning, care of children etc. as less important than the high-flying job that her husband does, thus making her less eligible for alimony if the marriage ends.
On the other point you made...about my being 'lucky to have a husband with a job at all..' I knew that you would read that differently to how it was intended to sound. Would anybody not consider themselves lucky to have a partner who was employed rather than unemployed? be that a male partner or female? Or even luckier to both be employed? I was not saying that I considered myself more fortunate to be with someone with a job than someone without a job, and that I would probably have not married someone without a job...I think love enters into the equation somewhere along the line too doesn't it? and if you love somebody then you don't always consider whether they are employed or unemployed...people lose jobs too you know, do you think that I would have walked out on my husband if that happened to him? No I wouldn't...It might be unwise to marry someone for love alone, and disregard the financial state of things...but that's life...some people do this, not every woman only searches for a husband who has a job.
-
Yes...I think it's terribly sad that the church thought it must employ such methods to 'cure' people of their homosexuality...
-
Thanks for your replies...I'm sorry if my question seemed to be a 'nonsense' question...it's just something that was bugging me...a feeling I got that some people were maintaining their membership in the Church for other reasons (perhaps to keep the family happy/guilt or whatever...take your pick) when not actually believing all of its teachings...
I know that it wouldn't make sense to stay a member of the church if you didn't believe in the JS story and current revelation etc. that is why I decided not to return to the church 20 years after leaving it...I wasn't baptised I just attended in my mid-late teens as a potential member.
Maybe the reason I really had to bring up this question was because a few years ago I was tempted to start attending the LDS church again...to be a part of it as an adult rather than as a child, because of the closeness of the congregation, social activities, attitudes towards families which all appealed to me...however I decided that if I was going to return, I would have to return with a real belief in the church again...and in order to do so I started reading about it more, and started questioning things...as I've said above, I found that things didn't make so much sense to me as they had when I was younger, I didn't believe unquestioningly anymore, and so didn't return...but I could've so easily done so, and pretended to believe everything, go along with everything, if the people there were kind to me and I enjoyed the social aspects of the church again....
Does that make any sense to anyone? That somebody might choose to do that? I'm not challenging anyone, I'm just clearing things off my chest I suppose...
-
Originally posted by Cal+Feb 3 2005, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 3 2005, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Feb 1 2005, 07:51 PM
I know what you mean, Cal...I must say I look at a man's face first, before hearing him speak or whatever...but in spite of how attractive or not he may appear outwardly to me, I would not stay with him if I found his personality stank! I would hope that that would apply to all, male or female
And, you probaby want to know what he doesn't for a live as a very close second. Right?
Well no, actually...
I live in the Northern part of the UK which is a very poor area...career prospects are not very high generally, although we do have some highly paid people too...they are not the majority here...we struggle for labouring jobs, and shopwork, nursing etc. mainly...lots of families in this area have both partners working, we cannot afford to be stay-at-home mums...
As I have said previously, I do not doubt that there are people out there judging people on looks/career prospects alone when considering them as 'marriage fodder'...but it has certainly not been MY experience around here...we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men!
I would like to agree with some of the other female posters on here regarding stay-at-home mums, who may have not chosen that path, but been encouraged to do so by their husband...if this is the case then I think the payment of some sort of alimony, initially would be acceptable.
-
Just discovered this link on another website...a shocking article regarding what used to happen to homosexuals at BYU...
-
Happy Birthday everybody!!!
-
Well, with all the differences of opinion upon the genuinity (is that a word?) of the BofM, and the whereabouts of Hill Cumorah, and the U-turns in church doctrines upon receipt of revelations, I just wondered whether there might be some members who are doubting their whole belief in the Church and its origins, and just choose to stay with it as the W.O.W seems a healthy lifestyle to follow, and obviously the church does do a lot of good, 'christian' things...
Can anyone give any more than a one word reply to this? :)
-
This will appear to be a totally silly question to ask of you all...LDS members I mean, however it might clarify why I was so interested in the strength of Cal's testimony...I suppose I was asking about his belief in the fact of the Church being the Only True Church, the True Restored church.
My question is this...Is it necessary to believe all that Joseph Smith said happened to him...ie. visitations from God, angels etc. Finding the BofM and translating it, and further revelation?
Is it necessary to believe that the current prophets are receiving/have received current revelation....some of which has altered church doctrine? In order to follow the Church's general teachings which you find useful, good, and healthy...and ignore those which you disagree with...Is that possible? Would anybody say they could do that, or would they fear excommunication because obviously (to me anyway), in order to still believe that the LDS church is the True church, it would be necessary to believe all those things, and if I didn't I couldn't be a member of the church, but I could still accommodate some of the good things from the church into my lifestyle, and not belong to any particular religious denomination....
Thoughts please??? :)
-
Congratulations Strawberry, I'm really happy that the surgery was a success, and wish Nick a speedy recovery too! :)
-
He will be in my thoughts...along with his family.
-
I know what you mean, Cal...I must say I look at a man's face first, before hearing him speak or whatever...but in spite of how attractive or not he may appear outwardly to me, I would not stay with him if I found his personality stank! I would hope that that would apply to all, male or female
-
Originally posted by Amillia+Jan 31 2005, 08:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Jan 31 2005, 08:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--mark44@Jan 31 2005, 06:47 PM
come to think of it, i couldn't care a less what anyone, least of all god, thinks. this life is already like the torment i have read about in the scripture, a living and daily lake of fire and brimstone, and anything, even the lowliest level of the lowest kingdom, will be better than enduring these flames.
You sound like you are suffering. Care to share? How old are you? Married? Children? How many? Single? lonely? What is it that is making your flames?
Amillia...Can't you remember Mark44's other topic 'I'm In A Hole I Can't Get Out Of..' on which you have posted many responses??? That explains his current 'situation' very well...
-
Originally posted by john doe+Jan 31 2005, 11:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (john doe @ Jan 31 2005, 11:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Franken@Jan 31 2005, 08:11 PM
Strange...
To you, maybe. But you shouldn't be laughing about some new thing just because you have never heard of it before. There's this thing called the World Wide Web, you should try it out, give it a spin, even discuss new ideas with others on it, it can expand your horizons if you just put in a little effort. And use Google to find out about things you never heard of before. A little self-education never hurt anyone. You would be surprised what's out there to learn if you just ask the right questions in the right places.
So go on, ask your mom if you can explore the WWW just a little bit. I think as long as she knows you're not going to spend all your time on porn or hacker sites, she may just let you do it.
LOL...well said, John Doe!
-
Please send on my best wishes to your daughter and her family...I hope that if she goes ahead with the test it will be successful, and a happy result. Should her baby be found to be Down's Syndrome then you are there to support her and educationally Down's Syndrome children are taught much better than they were when I was a child, so he/she has every chance to grow into a 'fully functioning' adult...
-
Thank you Strawberry...I must admit when I look back on those incidents I feel a sort of dread of what might have been if my friend hadn't have insisted on visiting, and a sense of how lucky I was to have survived...
Best wishes to your son, Nick xx
-
Strawberry, I was shocked on seeing the scan of your son's skull...the damage was enormous and I am very happy for you all that he has recovered so well.
I had to have an emergency brain op. back in 2002. Not on the scale of Nick's by any stretch of the imagination, however I felt very lucky to be alive following it. I had previously fallen and caught the left side of my head on my living room wall as I went down. I take warfarin to keep my blood thin, due to heart trouble, and the fall/knock to my head started a bleed between my skull and my brain.
For the next week I suffered more and more headaches, started to lose consciousness, and slept loads. I was too scared to go to the hospital and just took more and more pain killers and sleeping tablets so that I couldn't feel anything. Eventually at the end of the last week, my friend rang me and insisted on visiting me in spite of me saying, 'no, I don't feel like company, I've got headache'. He came to visit and noticed that I was 'out of it' all day. At this point the alarm was raised and I was taken to casualty. The blood clot was not discovered until the next day when I was given a CT scan. I was then moved to our area's neuro hospital and just watched over for a few days...asked the questions, what day is it? what year is it? (I replied 1992) who is the prime minister? I was given large doses of Codeine to keep the pain at bay and told to lie very still.
After 3 days, I believe, my condition suddenly worsened and at 7.30am my mother was called and asked to give permission for an emergency op to remove the blood clot which was now behind my eye socket. She gave her permission and the surgery went ahead.
Fortunately, I was conscious...albeit still dazed, within a short time of the op. and just remained in hospital for a further 3 weeks. I didn't need any rehab, and a follow up visit to the neurologist said that I was in the clear. The most frightening thing for my mother was that the staff had had to take me off my warfarin before the operation and were afraid to put me back on it in case it caused another bleed to occur. I was not told about this.
So, yes Strawberry, I empathise deeply with you regarding the trauma that you and your son, and the rest of your family went through...he certainly has been very, very lucky, and I wish you all the best for the future and for his surgery on 2nd February.
-
I'm really pleased that this topic has been raised again...it is one that I think about often...this and the turn around on polygamy being allowed within the church and then banned because the USA govt. of the time deemed it an illegal practise. Therefore the church had to appear more presentable to the masses in order to avoid further persecution. I feel that these 'revelations' that the prophets received wherein they changed the churches stance on these 2 issues both occurred at a time when it was deemed necessary to conform to the more acceptable views of the USA in general, and so was not revelation at all...
Snow, I can accept your reasons for justifying the changes that were made, and the reasons for not criticising the church for the opinions of its prophets prior to those changes being made, however, I wonder if there will be a time where other issues that the LDS church has with say homosexuality become so far removed from what is the accepted view of the USA govt. that another prophet will receive 'revelation' regarding the church's opinion on this matter...or others...that is where the danger lies in not acknowledging the mistakes of the past and repenting of them if a non member approaches you with questions about it.
-
Thank you Cal :)
-
Cal, thank you for bringing up this topic for discussion, and thank you for highlighting the points made by the study of identical twins separated at birth.
I agree with you that genetics plays a major role in people being gay. I agree with your points regarding the harmfulness of acting upon being an alcoholic, adulterer etc.
As I am not a religious person, as such, I cannot see any sin in the act of homosexuality either...perhaps someone could provide a quote from Jesus where he stated that to act upon your homosexuality is a sin?
Prayer....
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Huma17...am I the only one who is reading this properly? Didn't you say it was A JOKE???? therefore I read it as such, and didn't think you were going thru any traumas (unless you've mentioned them elsewhere)...I thought it was quite a witty joke, so
Please correct me if I have misinterpreted the post...and if so, I hope you feel better soon too :)