Hi ***..
I made a mistake in the last letter.
>Probably more in passages at Joel, Jehovah is used like a 'proper noun', not pronoun.
A bit more on this matter.
Please read Acts 2:17 to 21 more carefully. In verse 17 the word God appears. In Greek it is theos so it's OK. However in the verse 20 and 21 the use of Jehovah ought to be replaced in lord since Greek term for these two is kyrios, usually translated as lord and means either Jehovah or Jesus.
I think verse 20 is talking about the second coming of Jesus
I think verse 21, 'of' was genitive in Greek as kyriou, so the name of lord can read simply lord's name, that is in this case Jehovah.
The use of term 'lord' is simply ambiguous, but we can't automatically replace here in Jehovah at any time.
I'm happy to talk about it soon.
Anyway it's religion. In the end we can believe what we are eager to believe. :-)
Mer
Friday, November 09, 2007
ullangoo wrote today at 5:14 AM
mercedo saidI wonder how accurate your knowledge is! Not sure but I believe Elohim means simply One God, on the other hands YHWH is used as proper noun, literally means God makes. They say Elohim was Israel origin and YHWH Juda. Hm. Elohim is a plural form, actually - El is the singular, and we don't find that except as ending in personal names, e.g. Mika-el. It may simply mean "god", or it may be the name of a tribal god other than Jahveh. We/they don't know.The original form is Jahveh, and that is with certainty a proper name - like Apollon or Thor. They changed the vowels in it because it became too holy to pronounce or write in its original form. Thus they got Jehovah which resembles the present causative participle of the verb "to be"; it means "the one who makes things be". That etymology is found I forget where, I think in Exodus, and it is a completely false one.The above has been taught me by University professors who had studied Hebrew for 20 years. I assume it's accurate.
mercedo saidI wonder how accurate your knowledge is! Not sure but I believe Elohim means simply One God, on the other hands YHWH is used as proper noun, literally means God makes. They say Elohim was Israel origin and YHWH Juda. Hm. Elohim is a plural form, actually - El is the singular, and we don't find that except as ending in personal names, e.g. Mika-el. It may simply mean "god", or it may be the name of a tribal god other than Jahveh. We/they don't know.The original form is Jahveh, and that is with certainty a proper name - like Apollon or Thor. They changed the vowels in it because it became too holy to pronounce or write in its original form. Thus they got Jehovah which resembles the present causative participle of the verb "to be"; it means "the one who makes things be". That etymology is found I forget where, I think in Exodus, and it is a completely false one.The above has been taught me by University professors who had studied Hebrew for 20 years. I assume it's accurate.
mercedo wrote today at 5:02 AM
ullangoo saidthey may originally have been separate gods, or El/Elohim is the word that means "god", not a name. I wonder how accurate your knowledge is! Not sure but I believe Elohim means simply One God, on the other hands YHWH is used as proper noun, literally means God makes. They say Elohim was Israel origin and YHWH Juda.
ullangoo saidthey may originally have been separate gods, or El/Elohim is the word that means "god", not a name. I wonder how accurate your knowledge is! Not sure but I believe Elohim means simply One God, on the other hands YHWH is used as proper noun, literally means God makes. They say Elohim was Israel origin and YHWH Juda.
mercedo wrote today at 4:52 AM
In many versions of Old Testament, capital letter LORD is used in place of YHWH. As you say, no tetragrammaton appears in Greek scriptures, therefore lord instead of LORD is used in New Testament, generally.
In many versions of Old Testament, capital letter LORD is used in place of YHWH. As you say, no tetragrammaton appears in Greek scriptures, therefore lord instead of LORD is used in New Testament, generally.
mercedo wrote today at 4:19 AM
New American Standard Bible (©1995)"And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD Will be delivered; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem There will be those who escape, As the LORD has said, Even among the survivors whom the LORD calls.Or other version, see http://bible.cc/joel/2-32.htmCapital letter LORD means YHVH.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)"And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD Will be delivered; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem There will be those who escape, As the LORD has said, Even among the survivors whom the LORD calls.Or other version, see http://bible.cc/joel/2-32.htmCapital letter LORD means YHVH.
mercedo wrote today at 3:27 AM
ullangoo saidPlease don't misquote me. I am very sorry as to this. The quotation was susceptible to misunderstanding. You said 'Pilate probably thought Jesus was crazy, but what he said was neither blasphemy nor treason according to Roman law. and I quote what Pilate might have thought, not you. I think you defended Jesus very appropriately.
ullangoo saidPlease don't misquote me. I am very sorry as to this. The quotation was susceptible to misunderstanding. You said 'Pilate probably thought Jesus was crazy, but what he said was neither blasphemy nor treason according to Roman law. and I quote what Pilate might have thought, not you. I think you defended Jesus very appropriately.
ullangoo wrote today at 2:03 AM
The text does not say "Jehovah" at all; it says: "And it shall happen [literally 'be'] that everyone who calls the LORD'S name shall be saved." The Greek word for 'lord' is kyrios; your "of" is expressed by a genetive in Greek (kyriou). No text varieties are given in my edition for this verse. Your translation is - er, interpreting. 'Kyrios' often refers to Jesus. It's Peter talking here, not Jesus. When he refers to God, he says "theos", not Jehovah.
The text does not say "Jehovah" at all; it says: "And it shall happen [literally 'be'] that everyone who calls the LORD'S name shall be saved." The Greek word for 'lord' is kyrios; your "of" is expressed by a genetive in Greek (kyriou). No text varieties are given in my edition for this verse. Your translation is - er, interpreting. 'Kyrios' often refers to Jesus. It's Peter talking here, not Jesus. When he refers to God, he says "theos", not Jehovah.
I have read somewhere it was Antiochus IV Epiphanes (215–164 BC) who was mainly called ' a son of God' , of course not all Caesars were called so though.
Jesus was crazy
I had just too many extra time in my 3rd grade in university, so I became a counsellor for about half a year. Then I had an strong impression that clients who have been suffered from schizophrenia showed a strong similarity with what Jesus said. One of the features I noticed in the schizophrenics is they are too logical to live in this illogical world, especially they were logic in language.
I'm not certain whether Jesus was suffered from schizophrenia, though, it's Ok even if he was so. In the end all people are more or less crazy. It's Ok as long as he doesn't do harm to others.
what he said was neither blasphemy nor treason according to Roman law.
I think he was crucified violating some statute in Roma Empire, otherwise we have to think he was executed in kangaroo court. Is it only me who thinks Romans were too proud of their judicial system to kill innocent people?
Jesus was crazy
I had just too many extra time in my 3rd grade in university, so I became a counsellor for about half a year. Then I had an strong impression that clients who have been suffered from schizophrenia showed a strong similarity with what Jesus said. One of the features I noticed in the schizophrenics is they are too logical to live in this illogical world, especially they were logic in language.
I'm not certain whether Jesus was suffered from schizophrenia, though, it's Ok even if he was so. In the end all people are more or less crazy. It's Ok as long as he doesn't do harm to others.
what he said was neither blasphemy nor treason according to Roman law.
I think he was crucified violating some statute in Roma Empire, otherwise we have to think he was executed in kangaroo court. Is it only me who thinks Romans were too proud of their judicial system to kill innocent people?
God and the name of him
Nov 9, '07 12:53 AMfor everyone
Hello ***,
I was confused myself... Read especially Acts 2:21 more carefully. Both Acts and Joel 2:32 says ' the name of Jehovah'. I have to check the grammar of 'of' in original language, but it seems not 'the name' is 'Jehovah' and it's more likely that means 'Jehovah's name'
If his name is Jehovah, these passages ought to be written as 'Jehovah, the name of God'.
It seems Jehovah simply means God in these passages. I can read these passages as 'the name of God is unknown but call him in our mind'.
Probably more in passages at Joel, Jehovah is used like a pronoun. Basically Jehovah is the name of God in Hebrew scriptures. I can't believe Jesus used the term Jehovah in early Christianity. Jesus might not have used the term Jehovah because we can imagine that he wanted to establish a different religion from Judaism in his teachings.
Please examine more on this. Because we've been discussed it many times.
Mer
Nov 9, '07 12:53 AMfor everyone
Hello ***,
I was confused myself... Read especially Acts 2:21 more carefully. Both Acts and Joel 2:32 says ' the name of Jehovah'. I have to check the grammar of 'of' in original language, but it seems not 'the name' is 'Jehovah' and it's more likely that means 'Jehovah's name'
If his name is Jehovah, these passages ought to be written as 'Jehovah, the name of God'.
It seems Jehovah simply means God in these passages. I can read these passages as 'the name of God is unknown but call him in our mind'.
Probably more in passages at Joel, Jehovah is used like a pronoun. Basically Jehovah is the name of God in Hebrew scriptures. I can't believe Jesus used the term Jehovah in early Christianity. Jesus might not have used the term Jehovah because we can imagine that he wanted to establish a different religion from Judaism in his teachings.
Please examine more on this. Because we've been discussed it many times.
Mer
Hello ***,
I was confused myself.
Read especially Acts 2:21 more carefully. Both Acts and Joel 2:32 says ' the name of Jehovah'
I have to check the grammar of 'of' in original language, but it seems not 'the name' is 'Jehovah' and more likely 'Jehovah's name'
If his name is Jehovah, these paasages ought to be written as 'Jehovah, the name of God'
It seems Jehovah simply means God in these passages.
I can read these passages as 'the name of God is unknown'.
Probably more in passages at Joel, Jehovah is used like a pronoun.
Basically Jehovah is the name of God in Hebrew scriptures.
I can't believe Jesus used the term Jehovah in early Christianity.
Jesus might not have used the term Jehovah because we can imagine that he wanted to establish a different religion from Judaism in his teachings.
Please examine more on this. Because we've been discussed it many times.
Mer
I was confused myself.
Read especially Acts 2:21 more carefully. Both Acts and Joel 2:32 says ' the name of Jehovah'
I have to check the grammar of 'of' in original language, but it seems not 'the name' is 'Jehovah' and more likely 'Jehovah's name'
If his name is Jehovah, these paasages ought to be written as 'Jehovah, the name of God'
It seems Jehovah simply means God in these passages.
I can read these passages as 'the name of God is unknown'.
Probably more in passages at Joel, Jehovah is used like a pronoun.
Basically Jehovah is the name of God in Hebrew scriptures.
I can't believe Jesus used the term Jehovah in early Christianity.
Jesus might not have used the term Jehovah because we can imagine that he wanted to establish a different religion from Judaism in his teachings.
Please examine more on this. Because we've been discussed it many times.
Mer
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Hello ***,
Yes, it's one of the best seasons in Japan. We loved to see pink cosmos and now we see yellow leaves on the mountains.
I used to travel a lot. I visited Vancouver once in 1991. I have visited almost all states in America, many countries in Europe, Australia, etc.
Of course I speak only one language, that is the language from the bottom of my heart.
Mer
Yes, it's one of the best seasons in Japan. We loved to see pink cosmos and now we see yellow leaves on the mountains.
I used to travel a lot. I visited Vancouver once in 1991. I have visited almost all states in America, many countries in Europe, Australia, etc.
Of course I speak only one language, that is the language from the bottom of my heart.
Mer
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Cause of his death
Pilate asked Jesus only whether he was a son of God. Jesus didn't deny and said as he said so. Virtually he admitted that he was a son of God. At that time a title son of God was only used for Caesar or more specifically for Epiphanes. Pilate must have known Jesus was guilty for high treason judging from the way he replied.
Re:A different automization (Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.11.07 3:29 (#21257085) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.11.04 3:52)
At war those who killed more are eligible to receive medals for their deed. In short, mass killers are heroes. They are not in the least deserved to be dead in death penalty since their deeds were done at war. But if mass murder was held at peace, they all are derved to death penalty. Kinds of thought objection to death penalty seems to ignore the fact that when those deeds were taken place.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.11.07 3:29 (#21257085) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.11.04 3:52)
At war those who killed more are eligible to receive medals for their deed. In short, mass killers are heroes. They are not in the least deserved to be dead in death penalty since their deeds were done at war. But if mass murder was held at peace, they all are derved to death penalty. Kinds of thought objection to death penalty seems to ignore the fact that when those deeds were taken place.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
>we are both born in 1961!!
I often recall what has become of same age people, especially women.
Usually they got married 7 or 8 years earlier than guys. I have somehow heard of them in a wind letter, which means in rumour or indirectly, but largely just I don't know.
I've been making every possible effort to let them know my whereabouts not dirctly from me, every day and night!
See you on your next good job soon!
Mer
I often recall what has become of same age people, especially women.
Usually they got married 7 or 8 years earlier than guys. I have somehow heard of them in a wind letter, which means in rumour or indirectly, but largely just I don't know.
I've been making every possible effort to let them know my whereabouts not dirctly from me, every day and night!
See you on your next good job soon!
Mer
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Monday, November 05, 2007
~mercedo 2 seconds ago
This photo represents the real meaning of marriage. Very good!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
This photo represents the real meaning of marriage. Very good!--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
ullangoo wrote today at 3:22 AM
You appear pretty intelligent to me - and not particularly arrogant. I can't say if you lack confidence. The guy I met had very bad manners and behaved downright indecent towards women. I never saw another Japanese like him.
ullangoo wrote today at 3:24 AM
Thank you very much [blushing].
You appear pretty intelligent to me - and not particularly arrogant. I can't say if you lack confidence. The guy I met had very bad manners and behaved downright indecent towards women. I never saw another Japanese like him.
ullangoo wrote today at 3:24 AM
Thank you very much [blushing].
mercedo wrote today at 3:12 AM
ullangoo saidI've once met a quite horrible Japanese guy, You'd better generalise that almost all Japanese guys are horribly unacceptable. They have no confidence, then arrogant to hide their lack of confidence. And worst of all they are not intelligent. One of the worst species on the sphere.
ullangoo saidI've once met a quite horrible Japanese guy, You'd better generalise that almost all Japanese guys are horribly unacceptable. They have no confidence, then arrogant to hide their lack of confidence. And worst of all they are not intelligent. One of the worst species on the sphere.
mercedo wrote today at 2:50 AM
In a current system only Minister of Justice can decide who actually is going to be executed. I must say this is inevitably based on arbitrary political decision rather than the pure judicial decision. If they say the independence of judge exists, the execution ought to be done without permission of the minister.
In a current system only Minister of Justice can decide who actually is going to be executed. I must say this is inevitably based on arbitrary political decision rather than the pure judicial decision. If they say the independence of judge exists, the execution ought to be done without permission of the minister.
mercedo wrote today at 2:43 AM
jawtheshark saidCivilised societies do not kill their criminals... Death penalty can be abolished only where every nationals have never even thought about committing serious crimes. We have to wait a bit more till a nation matured enough not to involve such cases.
jawtheshark saidCivilised societies do not kill their criminals... Death penalty can be abolished only where every nationals have never even thought about committing serious crimes. We have to wait a bit more till a nation matured enough not to involve such cases.
mercedo wrote today at 2:27 AM
Picture?Ghost only exists in our mind. No picture can be seen on the haunted mansion.
Picture?Ghost only exists in our mind. No picture can be seen on the haunted mansion.
HomeBlogPhotosLinks
Marriage -its ideal & reality
Nov 4, '07 3:55 AMfor everyone
Many years ago I thought I'd better marry not so pretty woman because I don't have to worry about her being another's love after we married.
Many years later I realised I can't divorce her. If I did so, she would have no another husband. Certainly she has not loved by many guys, but also from now on she will not be loved by others but me. I would divorce a woman if she were very pretty. I wouldn't have married a pretty woman and I would divorce a pretty woman. It was really a right decision to get married to not so pretty woman in many aspects.
Tags: marriage
Prev: Ghost mansion
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
ladyinredxx wrote on Nov 4
not all pretty women are unfaithful
ullangoo wrote on Nov 4
ladyinredxx saidnot all pretty women are unfaithful Right! And some less pretty are. Same with men.
ladyinredxx wrote on Nov 4
thats very true, i dont consider myself ugly, though far from beautiful, i was a good faithful wife, and a good mother, but my ex couldnt stay faithful xx
mercedo wrote today at 1:24 AM
ladyinredxx saidi was a good faithful wife, and a good mother, but my ex couldnt stay faithful xx I know just too many people around me, both men and women, who divorced. There are many cases in divorce, though, it is certain that one feels more gains while the other feels more loss. Alimony ought to occupy its vacancy, but I heard just few cases alimony was rightfully paid. I can't divorce her for many reasons other than her looks. I pretended to be a fool by attributing to such a stupid idea that I raised in my journal.
ullangoo wrote today at 1:37 AM
mercedo saidI can't divorce her for many reasons other than her looks. I pretended to be a fool by attributing to such a stupid idea that I raised in my journal. OK. Leads to a good discussion. :-)
mercedo wrote today at 12:02 AM
ladyinredxx saidnot all pretty women are unfaithful True, but it is also true that a pretty woman tends to get more opportunities to be seduced by men. Therefore a pretty woman can have more chances to have new relations than not so pretty woman. This is a matter of probability.However yeah, you are right. There are two types among pretty women. One is faithful and the others are not. Apparently I want to go out with a pretty woman who takes for granted that love and lover relations ought to be faithful. Once I had deeply involved with an unfaithful pretty woman. It was a very hideous experience.
ullangoo wrote on Nov 4
You know what? Some men go for intelligence or goodness or loyalty or ---, anything but looks. Women too. I've seen the ugliest people getting married more than once, not to mention having many lovers.
ullangoo wrote on Nov 4
If it's you on your headshot, you should be a bit more confident. :-)
ginaslove wrote on Nov 4
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder . Divorce isn't good just because of ugly or pretty . It is a hurtful thing that is done too much .For all the wrong reasons .
mercedo wrote today at 1:31 AM
ginaslove said It is a hurtful thing that is done too much .For all the wrong reasons . I have to be overwhelmingly selfish to be able to divorce her, up to now I'm not.
dlopez wrote on Nov 4
I don't think that looks would tell if one would be faithful or not. and if i were your wife, and I've read your statements? ... I would divorce you as soon as I can. Sorry, can't help but feel sorry for the one you married. She surely does not deserve to be discussed in such a manner. It's not what we see outside that makes a person beautiful, it's what's inside... You should check how you look inside once in a while.
ullangoo wrote on Nov 4
dlopez saidand if i were your wife, and I've read your statements? ... I would divorce you as soon as I can. ME TOO!!
mercedo wrote today at 1:41 AM
dlopez saidand if i were your wife, and I've read your statements? ... I would divorce you as soon as I can. There are some rightful cases divorce ought to be admitted. But I think in many cases divorce is for a woman just an unhappy event. Divorce is in my honest opinion admitted mainly out of men's selfishness.
ullangoo wrote today at 12:17 AM
I've once met a quite horrible Japanese guy, but I didn't conclude that all Japanese were horrible. They certainly aren't.I understand that the unfaithful woman made you feel very bad, but really: you shouldn't make such generalizations.
Marriage -its ideal & reality
Nov 4, '07 3:55 AMfor everyone
Many years ago I thought I'd better marry not so pretty woman because I don't have to worry about her being another's love after we married.
Many years later I realised I can't divorce her. If I did so, she would have no another husband. Certainly she has not loved by many guys, but also from now on she will not be loved by others but me. I would divorce a woman if she were very pretty. I wouldn't have married a pretty woman and I would divorce a pretty woman. It was really a right decision to get married to not so pretty woman in many aspects.
Tags: marriage
Prev: Ghost mansion
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
ladyinredxx wrote on Nov 4
not all pretty women are unfaithful
ullangoo wrote on Nov 4
ladyinredxx saidnot all pretty women are unfaithful Right! And some less pretty are. Same with men.
ladyinredxx wrote on Nov 4
thats very true, i dont consider myself ugly, though far from beautiful, i was a good faithful wife, and a good mother, but my ex couldnt stay faithful xx
mercedo wrote today at 1:24 AM
ladyinredxx saidi was a good faithful wife, and a good mother, but my ex couldnt stay faithful xx I know just too many people around me, both men and women, who divorced. There are many cases in divorce, though, it is certain that one feels more gains while the other feels more loss. Alimony ought to occupy its vacancy, but I heard just few cases alimony was rightfully paid. I can't divorce her for many reasons other than her looks. I pretended to be a fool by attributing to such a stupid idea that I raised in my journal.
ullangoo wrote today at 1:37 AM
mercedo saidI can't divorce her for many reasons other than her looks. I pretended to be a fool by attributing to such a stupid idea that I raised in my journal. OK. Leads to a good discussion. :-)
mercedo wrote today at 12:02 AM
ladyinredxx saidnot all pretty women are unfaithful True, but it is also true that a pretty woman tends to get more opportunities to be seduced by men. Therefore a pretty woman can have more chances to have new relations than not so pretty woman. This is a matter of probability.However yeah, you are right. There are two types among pretty women. One is faithful and the others are not. Apparently I want to go out with a pretty woman who takes for granted that love and lover relations ought to be faithful. Once I had deeply involved with an unfaithful pretty woman. It was a very hideous experience.
ullangoo wrote on Nov 4
You know what? Some men go for intelligence or goodness or loyalty or ---, anything but looks. Women too. I've seen the ugliest people getting married more than once, not to mention having many lovers.
ullangoo wrote on Nov 4
If it's you on your headshot, you should be a bit more confident. :-)
ginaslove wrote on Nov 4
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder . Divorce isn't good just because of ugly or pretty . It is a hurtful thing that is done too much .For all the wrong reasons .
mercedo wrote today at 1:31 AM
ginaslove said It is a hurtful thing that is done too much .For all the wrong reasons . I have to be overwhelmingly selfish to be able to divorce her, up to now I'm not.
dlopez wrote on Nov 4
I don't think that looks would tell if one would be faithful or not. and if i were your wife, and I've read your statements? ... I would divorce you as soon as I can. Sorry, can't help but feel sorry for the one you married. She surely does not deserve to be discussed in such a manner. It's not what we see outside that makes a person beautiful, it's what's inside... You should check how you look inside once in a while.
ullangoo wrote on Nov 4
dlopez saidand if i were your wife, and I've read your statements? ... I would divorce you as soon as I can. ME TOO!!
mercedo wrote today at 1:41 AM
dlopez saidand if i were your wife, and I've read your statements? ... I would divorce you as soon as I can. There are some rightful cases divorce ought to be admitted. But I think in many cases divorce is for a woman just an unhappy event. Divorce is in my honest opinion admitted mainly out of men's selfishness.
ullangoo wrote today at 12:17 AM
I've once met a quite horrible Japanese guy, but I didn't conclude that all Japanese were horrible. They certainly aren't.I understand that the unfaithful woman made you feel very bad, but really: you shouldn't make such generalizations.
mercedo wrote today at 1:41 AM
dlopez saidand if i were your wife, and I've read your statements? ... I would divorce you as soon as I can. There are some rightful cases divorce ought to be admitted. But I think in many cases divorce is for a woman just an unhappy event. Divorce is in my honest opinion admitted mainly out of men's selfishness.
dlopez saidand if i were your wife, and I've read your statements? ... I would divorce you as soon as I can. There are some rightful cases divorce ought to be admitted. But I think in many cases divorce is for a woman just an unhappy event. Divorce is in my honest opinion admitted mainly out of men's selfishness.
mercedo wrote today at 1:24 AM
ladyinredxx saidi was a good faithful wife, and a good mother, but my ex couldnt stay faithful xx I know just too many people around me, both men and women, who divorced. There are many cases in divorce, though, it is certain that one feels more gains while the other feels more loss. Alimony ought to occupy its vacancy, but I heard just few cases alimony was rightfully paid. I can't divorce her for many reasons other than her looks. I pretended to be a fool by attributing to such a stupid idea that I raised in my journal.
ladyinredxx saidi was a good faithful wife, and a good mother, but my ex couldnt stay faithful xx I know just too many people around me, both men and women, who divorced. There are many cases in divorce, though, it is certain that one feels more gains while the other feels more loss. Alimony ought to occupy its vacancy, but I heard just few cases alimony was rightfully paid. I can't divorce her for many reasons other than her looks. I pretended to be a fool by attributing to such a stupid idea that I raised in my journal.
mercedo wrote today at 12:02 AM
ladyinredxx saidnot all pretty women are unfaithful True, but it is also true that a pretty woman tends to get more opportunities to be seduced by men. Therefore a pretty woman can have more chances to have new relations than not so pretty woman. This is a matter of probability.However yeah, you are right. There are two types among pretty women. One is faithful and the others are not. Apparently I want to go out with a pretty woman who takes for granted that love and lover relations ought to be faithful. Once I had deeply involved with an unfaithful pretty woman. It was a very hideous experience.
ladyinredxx saidnot all pretty women are unfaithful True, but it is also true that a pretty woman tends to get more opportunities to be seduced by men. Therefore a pretty woman can have more chances to have new relations than not so pretty woman. This is a matter of probability.However yeah, you are right. There are two types among pretty women. One is faithful and the others are not. Apparently I want to go out with a pretty woman who takes for granted that love and lover relations ought to be faithful. Once I had deeply involved with an unfaithful pretty woman. It was a very hideous experience.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Marriage -its ideal & reality
Nov 4, '07 3:55 AMfor everyone
Many years ago I thought I'd better marry not so pretty woman because I don't have to worry about her being another's love after we married.
Many years later I realised I can't divorce her. If I did so, she would have no another husband. Certainly she has not loved by many guys, but also from now on she will not be loved by others but me. I would divorce a woman if she were very pretty. I wouldn't have married a pretty woman and I would divorce a pretty woman. It was really a right decision to get married to not so pretty woman in many aspects.
Tags: marriage
Prev: Ghost mansion
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
ladyinredxx wrote today at 4:04 AM
not all pretty women are unfaithful
ullangoo wrote today at 4:28 AM
ladyinredxx saidnot all pretty women are unfaithful Right! And some less pretty are. Same with men.
ladyinredxx wrote today at 4:52 AM
thats very true, i dont consider myself ugly, though far from beautiful, i was a good faithful wife, and a good mother, but my ex couldnt stay faithful xx
ullangoo wrote today at 4:27 AM
You know what? Some men go for intelligence or goodness or loyalty or ---, anything but looks. Women too. I've seen the ugliest people getting married more than once, not to mention having many lovers.
ullangoo wrote today at 5:01 AM
If it's you on your headshot, you should be a bit more confident. :-)
ginaslove wrote today at 1:11 PM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder . Divorce isn't good just because of ugly or pretty . It is a hurtful thing that is done too much .For all the wrong reasons .
dlopez wrote today at 8:32 PM
I don't think that looks would tell if one would be faithful or not. and if i were your wife, and I've read your statements? ... I would divorce you as soon as I can. Sorry, can't help but feel sorry for the one you married. She surely does not deserve to be discussed in such a manner. It's not what we see outside that makes a person beautiful, it's what's inside... You should check how you look inside once in a while.
ullangoo wrote today at 10:36 PM
dlopez saidand if i were your wife, and I've read your statements? ... I would divorce you as soon as I can. ME TOO!!
Nov 4, '07 3:55 AMfor everyone
Many years ago I thought I'd better marry not so pretty woman because I don't have to worry about her being another's love after we married.
Many years later I realised I can't divorce her. If I did so, she would have no another husband. Certainly she has not loved by many guys, but also from now on she will not be loved by others but me. I would divorce a woman if she were very pretty. I wouldn't have married a pretty woman and I would divorce a pretty woman. It was really a right decision to get married to not so pretty woman in many aspects.
Tags: marriage
Prev: Ghost mansion
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
ladyinredxx wrote today at 4:04 AM
not all pretty women are unfaithful
ullangoo wrote today at 4:28 AM
ladyinredxx saidnot all pretty women are unfaithful Right! And some less pretty are. Same with men.
ladyinredxx wrote today at 4:52 AM
thats very true, i dont consider myself ugly, though far from beautiful, i was a good faithful wife, and a good mother, but my ex couldnt stay faithful xx
ullangoo wrote today at 4:27 AM
You know what? Some men go for intelligence or goodness or loyalty or ---, anything but looks. Women too. I've seen the ugliest people getting married more than once, not to mention having many lovers.
ullangoo wrote today at 5:01 AM
If it's you on your headshot, you should be a bit more confident. :-)
ginaslove wrote today at 1:11 PM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder . Divorce isn't good just because of ugly or pretty . It is a hurtful thing that is done too much .For all the wrong reasons .
dlopez wrote today at 8:32 PM
I don't think that looks would tell if one would be faithful or not. and if i were your wife, and I've read your statements? ... I would divorce you as soon as I can. Sorry, can't help but feel sorry for the one you married. She surely does not deserve to be discussed in such a manner. It's not what we see outside that makes a person beautiful, it's what's inside... You should check how you look inside once in a while.
ullangoo wrote today at 10:36 PM
dlopez saidand if i were your wife, and I've read your statements? ... I would divorce you as soon as I can. ME TOO!!
Many years ago I thought I'd better marry not so pretty woman because I don't have to worry about her being another's love after we married.
Many years later I realised I can't divorce her. If I did so, she would have no another husband. Certainly she has not loved by many guys, but also from now on she will not be loved by others but me. I would divorce a woman if she were very pretty. I wouldn't have married a pretty woman and I would divorce a pretty woman. It was really a right decision to get married to not so pretty woman in many aspects.
Many years later I realised I can't divorce her. If I did so, she would have no another husband. Certainly she has not loved by many guys, but also from now on she will not be loved by others but me. I would divorce a woman if she were very pretty. I wouldn't have married a pretty woman and I would divorce a pretty woman. It was really a right decision to get married to not so pretty woman in many aspects.
mercedo wrote today at 3:29 AM
ullangoo saidthey were volunteers.
Sure many were willing to sacrifice themselves, but almost all were forced to drink and lose their sanity. They were repeatedly taught to sacrifice themselves from their childhood. They might have done so voluntarily or willingly out of their very biased idea nourished from wrong education. They had one life stand relation with a state-hired prostitute.
ullangoo saidthey were volunteers.
Sure many were willing to sacrifice themselves, but almost all were forced to drink and lose their sanity. They were repeatedly taught to sacrifice themselves from their childhood. They might have done so voluntarily or willingly out of their very biased idea nourished from wrong education. They had one life stand relation with a state-hired prostitute.
Ghost mansion
I went to the university festival near my house. I entered the ghost house by myself. It was a spot so popular that many young couples were waiting for the room. It was very well devised and completely dark. It was a very good place to confirm the love between couples. They must have spent too much money for making a house. The place was one of the main attractions in their school festival.Devisers know how to nourish love more than how to accumulate their knowledge.Some university today became certainly a ghost mansion of knowledge.
Divine wind
Many university students were enlisted just before the end of the Pacific war in 1945. Almost all were dead in a desperate attack. One commander of them sent them saying that he surely come after their death. Just too many youngsters around age 21 were dead before the end of war, but the commander survived.He kept his promise at age 95 long after he made a promise
Automatisation of death penalty
2007.11.04 1:22
Many inmates are waiting behind the death row, but their penalty has not been carried out yet. It's necessary to have the permission of the Minister of Justice to carry out the execution in each cases.Also the Minister of Justice Kunio Hatoyama declared that there oughtn't to be any waiting for the permission of the Minister of Justice to carry out the execution.He said death penalty automatically be carried out.I think this is insightful.
Friend's friend?
2007.11.04 0:48
Japan's Minister of Justice! Kunio Hatoyama confessed that his friend's friend is a member of al-Qaeda.What he wanted to point out was 'probably' that terrorists hide themselves beside us as he clarified today in his constituency, so be careful. But believe me...it's too difficult to interpret so. Just too many people interpreted that he -Minister of Justice Kunio Hatoyama himself is a friend of terrorist group.Theoretically speaking, neither enemy's enemy nor friend's friend means anything. He was not wrong. Just he should have needed to make allowances for the gap between his intelligent level and that of the general public.He should have rightly confessed that his enemy's friend is a member of al-Qaeda since many people tend to get an impression that friend's friend must be a friend.
2007.11.04 1:22
Many inmates are waiting behind the death row, but their penalty has not been carried out yet. It's necessary to have the permission of the Minister of Justice to carry out the execution in each cases.Also the Minister of Justice Kunio Hatoyama declared that there oughtn't to be any waiting for the permission of the Minister of Justice to carry out the execution.He said death penalty automatically be carried out.I think this is insightful.
Friend's friend?
2007.11.04 0:48
Japan's Minister of Justice! Kunio Hatoyama confessed that his friend's friend is a member of al-Qaeda.What he wanted to point out was 'probably' that terrorists hide themselves beside us as he clarified today in his constituency, so be careful. But believe me...it's too difficult to interpret so. Just too many people interpreted that he -Minister of Justice Kunio Hatoyama himself is a friend of terrorist group.Theoretically speaking, neither enemy's enemy nor friend's friend means anything. He was not wrong. Just he should have needed to make allowances for the gap between his intelligent level and that of the general public.He should have rightly confessed that his enemy's friend is a member of al-Qaeda since many people tend to get an impression that friend's friend must be a friend.
Re:The enemy among us (Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.11.04 1:57 (#21224523) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.11.04 1:22)
The usage of the word 'freak' is interesting. Originally the word freak has two meanings. One is for crazy fan like 'I am a freak of New York Yankees'. Another one is rather traditional like used in the phrase like a freak of nature. Sure those who regard me as their foe are monsters. We ought't to make 'monsters' in any sense.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.11.04 1:57 (#21224523) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.11.04 1:22)
The usage of the word 'freak' is interesting. Originally the word freak has two meanings. One is for crazy fan like 'I am a freak of New York Yankees'. Another one is rather traditional like used in the phrase like a freak of nature. Sure those who regard me as their foe are monsters. We ought't to make 'monsters' in any sense.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)