Christian Advice For A Happy Marriage

[healthfreedom]

My advice for a happy Christian marriage is to always place trust in each other at the top of priorities, and keep Jesus in the center of the relationship.

[kimberlymgiles]

Allow God to be the center of your marriage. This is the key to a healthy marriage.

[falcon9]

Allow God to be the center of your marriage. This is the key to a healthy marriage.

That faith-based assumption has no substantive evidence to support the contention of being the key to a healthy marriage; why would such a self-delusion be the key to anything but, more self-delusions?

[jcribb16]

Allow God to be the center of your marriage. This is the key to a healthy marriage.

That faith-based assumption has no substantive evidence to support the contention of being the key to a healthy marriage; why would such a self-delusion be the key to anything but, more self-delusions?

Actually, since you don't live by that choice, why should it matter to you if it's their choice?  You aren't going to change their mind.

[falcon9]

Allow God to be the center of your marriage. This is the key to a healthy marriage.

That faith-based assumption has no substantive evidence to support the contention of being the key to a healthy marriage; why would such a self-delusion be the key to anything but, more self-delusions?

Actually, since you don't live by that choice, why should it matter to you if it's their choice?  You aren't going to change their mind.

Actually, I was opposing the suggestion on the basis of it promoting a self-delusional one, based upon blind religious faith.  The intention wasn't to change a faith-blinded mind but, to oppose such self-delusions.  What's it to you; since you've already indicated an aversion to logical
reasoning which seems to by caused by religous blind faith.

[jcribb16]

Allow God to be the center of your marriage. This is the key to a healthy marriage.

That faith-based assumption has no substantive evidence to support the contention of being the key to a healthy marriage; why would such a self-delusion be the key to anything but, more self-delusions?

Actually, since you don't live by that choice, why should it matter to you if it's their choice?  You aren't going to change their mind.

Actually, I was opposing the suggestion on the basis of it promoting a self-delusional one, based upon blind religious faith.  The intention wasn't to change a faith-blinded mind but, to oppose such self-delusions.  What's it to you; since you've already indicated an aversion to logical
reasoning which seems to by caused by religous blind faith.

Ooh, touche' now, are we?  Yes, we understand that you oppose such "self-delusions" of a "faith-blinded mind."  However, you still lack truth, clarity, and understanding, in the first place, of a Christian's walk with God.  Until then, oppose all you want, but you are self-deluding yourself if you think a Christian is feeling self-deluded in their walk with God.  That's where you think I'm being illogical with reasoning, when actually, you are being illogical in your ignorance of not understanding a true walk with God.

[falcon9]

Ooh, touche' now, are we? 

No, that's either a fencing term or, an acknowledgement of a well-articulated reposte`.  Based on the context of your propagandistic spiel, the word the "english teacher" was probably groping for was "touchy".

Yes, we understand that you oppose such "self-delusions" of a "faith-blinded mind." ... oppose all you want ...

Thanks.

[jcribb16]

Ooh, touche' now, are we? 

No, that's either a fencing term or, an acknowledgement of a well-articulated reposte`.  Based on the context of your propagandistic spiel, the word the "english teacher" was probably groping for was "touchy".

Yes, we understand that you oppose such "self-delusions" of a "faith-blinded mind." ... oppose all you want ...[/b][/color]

Thanks.

Actually, it was exactly what I intended.  I hit a *nerve with you, according to your response, lol.  Don't tell the "English teacher" what word she's looking for.

tou·ché  (t-sh)
interj.
Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument.

1. an acknowledgment that a scoring hit has been made in a fencing competition
*2. an acknowledgment of the striking home of a remark or the capping of a witticism 

Thefreedictionary.com



And again, I have asked you to quote me in entirety - not the way you enjoy clipping to twist it to your advantage.

[falcon9]

Ooh, touche' now, are we?

No, that's either a fencing term or, an acknowledgement of a well-articulated reposte`.  Based on the context of your propagandistic spiel, the word the "english teacher" was probably groping for was "touchy".

Actually, it was exactly what I intended.  I hit a *nerve with you, according to your response, lol.  Don't tell the "English teacher" what word she's looking for."

Apparently, you're not coherent then since "Ooh, touche' now, are we?" is grammarically incorrect if you meant to convey that my remarks were a successful criticism or an effective point in argument, (even if an unintentional compliment).  According to the definition you posted:

"tou·ché  (t-sh)
interj.
Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument.

1. an acknowledgment that a scoring hit has been made in a fencing competition
*2. an acknowledgment of the striking home of a remark or the capping of a witticism  
Thefreedictionary.com"

And again, I have asked you to quote me in entirety ...

Once again, I choose to disregard your fundie demands and proceed indicating how damaging blind religious faith and the resulting self-deceptions can be.  Thank you for continuing to provide volumes of arcchived evidence supporting that contention.  Your misuse of the term "tou·ché" makes your claim of teaching english somewhat dubious, however.  That's largely irrelevant to your religious self-delusions ... or is it?

[jcribb16]

Ooh, touche' now, are we?

No, that's either a fencing term or, an acknowledgement of a well-articulated reposte`.  Based on the context of your propagandistic spiel, the word the "english teacher" was probably groping for was "touchy".

Actually, it was exactly what I intended.  I hit a *nerve with you, according to your response, lol.  Don't tell the "English teacher" what word she's looking for."

Apparently, you're not coherent then since "Ooh, touche' now, are we?" is grammarically incorrect if you meant to convey that my remarks were a successful criticism or an effective point in argument, (even if an unintentional compliment).  According to the definition you posted:

"tou·ché  (t-sh)
interj.
Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument.

1. an acknowledgment that a scoring hit has been made in a fencing competition
*2. an acknowledgment of the striking home of a remark or the capping of a witticism  
Thefreedictionary.com"

And again, I have asked you to quote me in entirety ...

Once again, I choose to disregard your fundie demands and proceed indicating how damaging blind religious faith and the resulting self-deceptions can be.  Thank you for continuing to provide volumes of arcchived evidence supporting that contention.  Your misuse of the term "tou·ché" makes your claim of teaching english somewhat dubious, however.  That's largely irrelevant to your religious self-delusions ... or is it?

No, you just cannot, for the life of you, acknowledge that you got caught when I hit a nerve. 

Disregard all you want - makes no matter to me and how I live my personal life with Christ.  Your little "threats" of archived things are un-necessary, since you know the archived things of yours are there, as well. 

I am disregarding your cut downs to my teaching abilities.  I did not want to do this, but since you have tried to make me look like a stupid teacher, I feel it's open game now.  If you have a degree behind your name and you have taught in a classroom, be it elementary, middle, high, or college, then I would take your words into consideration.  Until then (and you have admitted you haven't), you are simply badgering and being ugly, and I have nothing more to say about it, at this point.

[falcon9]

No, you just cannot ...

Your specious rantings are irrelevant.

[tuscarorarain]

Allow God to be the center of your marriage. This is the key to a healthy marriage.

That faith-based assumption has no substantive evidence to support the contention of being the key to a healthy marriage; why would such a self-delusion be the key to anything but, more self-delusions?

Actually, since you don't live by that choice, why should it matter to you if it's their choice?  You aren't going to change their mind.

Actually, I was opposing the suggestion on the basis of it promoting a self-delusional one, based upon blind religious faith.  The intention wasn't to change a faith-blinded mind but, to oppose such self-delusions.  What's it to you; since you've already indicated an aversion to logical
reasoning which seems to by caused by religous blind faith.

Ooh, touche' now, are we?  Yes, we understand that you oppose such "self-delusions" of a "faith-blinded mind."  However, you still lack truth, clarity, and understanding, in the first place, of a Christian's walk with God.  Until then, oppose all you want, but you are self-deluding yourself if you think a Christian is feeling self-deluded in their walk with God.  That's where you think I'm being illogical with reasoning, when actually, you are being illogical in your ignorance of not understanding a true walk with God.

The funny thing is he copied and pasted many of his antiGod rants. If you notice he says the exact same phrases over and over. Thats why I pushed the ignore button on him. He knows it and continues to post. I can see his name, but nothing else. Lol.

[falcon9]

The funny thing is he copied and pasted many of his antiGod rants.

No, I quoted, (with attributions intact), others who have opposed such religious superstitions.  These are not "anti-g-d rants", except to faith-blinded zealots.

Thats why I pushed the ignore button on him. He knows it and continues to post. I can see his name, but nothing else. 

Apparently, you pushed the 'ostrich button' by mistake because the ignore button's use doesn't include continuing to post specious gossip about those whom you're supposedly ignoring.  It's characterized as an 'ostrich button' for those who remain ignorant of what the term "ignore" actually means.

[jcribb16]

Allow God to be the center of your marriage. This is the key to a healthy marriage.

That faith-based assumption has no substantive evidence to support the contention of being the key to a healthy marriage; why would such a self-delusion be the key to anything but, more self-delusions?

Actually, since you don't live by that choice, why should it matter to you if it's their choice?  You aren't going to change their mind.

Actually, I was opposing the suggestion on the basis of it promoting a self-delusional one, based upon blind religious faith.  The intention wasn't to change a faith-blinded mind but, to oppose such self-delusions.  What's it to you; since you've already indicated an aversion to logical
reasoning which seems to by caused by religous blind faith.

Ooh, touche' now, are we?  Yes, we understand that you oppose such "self-delusions" of a "faith-blinded mind."  However, you still lack truth, clarity, and understanding, in the first place, of a Christian's walk with God.  Until then, oppose all you want, but you are self-deluding yourself if you think a Christian is feeling self-deluded in their walk with God.  That's where you think I'm being illogical with reasoning, when actually, you are being illogical in your ignorance of not understanding a true walk with God.

The funny thing is he copied and pasted many of his antiGod rants. If you notice he says the exact same phrases over and over. Thats why I pushed the ignore button on him. He knows it and continues to post. I can see his name, but nothing else. Lol.

I'm gathering he thinks you are still reading his posts to you, since he posted a response to this same one I'm responding to, of yours. 

[falcon9]

I'm gathering he thinks you are still reading his posts to you, since he posted a response to this same one I'm responding to, of yours.  

Then you'd be "gathering" incorrectly since I clearly stated that the ignore button's use doesn't include continuing to post specious gossip about those whom you're supposedly ignoring.  It doesn't actually "block" others from reading posts which one member is not-ignoring. It's characterized as an 'ostrich button' for those who remain ignorant of what the term "ignore" actually means.