The right image shows one of the icons of West Indies cricket, former West Indies cricket captain Clive Lloyd with his wife when things were good. Based on media reports he is in the midst of a messy divorce which involves Bertha Joseph seen in the image on the left. Why have we focused on this story which is all too prevalent in modern society?
Our thanks to the BU family member who popped this story.
The BU household feels very strongly about the importance of the family unit. Even more important is the institution of marriage which has been trivialized and bastardized in the modern society. Clive Lloyd has been held up by the establishment in the West Indies as an icon. This has inevitably translated him to a role model for many children across the cricket loving Caribbean. The ongoing public spectacle may have reverberating consequences for how our small islands continue to develop on the socio-psychological front. The article in the Mail details several incidents of infidelity by Clive Lloyd, one of those times said to have involved a female who was the girl friend of a team player. While we do not intend to judge the man, we have no problem speaking to the issue of the betrayal by Lloyd of his marriage vows. People like Lloyd must understand the influence which their icon status plays in shaping impressionable behaviours from the societies whence they have come.
Clive Lloyd like many men before him have demonstrated the willingness to succumb to the lure of the ‘outside-woman’. Some may say that he was not happy in his union with Bertha but there is a right way to deal with the challenge of a failed marriage.
We hope that his former wife is able to get the fair settlement she deserves after 37 years of suffering.
GP it seems your intent has shifted to winning the argument at all cost. Did i say anything to give you the impression that i believe i am all knowing and or all seeing?
Points of Clarity: I am not a christian as define by anyone, I go to a church (tradition) I am not a Bible Scholar, I find invoking such man made titles laughable. You could have been an Economist, a Lawyer, or a sheep herder, and it will not make any difference on my ideas, and understanding of facts etc. Bible Scholar or not You and I where not present at the attempted “stoning” or in Jesus time that we could say that we know for sure what he really meant. Your years of study! I will not allow to over rule my opinions of that event, for at the end of all your pouring over the word you are still like me, armed with an interpretation. I still maintain that if Death “stoning” was not the punishment for her sin as judged by the men that Jesus would not have had a problem with thier judgement.
Oh BTW. Judge original word Krivnw: Transliterated Krino: Phonetic Spelling Kree-no
Strongs number 2919
This is the one that is used in Matt. 7:1
I got over 20 deferrent uses for the word, and when i put them into the statement “Judge not less ye be also Judged, I am happy with it, and will continue to opinionate as i have done on this PUBLIC, Clive Lloyd story.
…..But i am not a bible scholar and would not use such labels to win argument if i was.
No Adrian
My intent is not winning the argument at all cost. I successfully raised the level of discussion to a higher plain.
You want to judge— so judge on.
You admit that you are a traditional church goer and not a Bible Scholar. That is you have never studied the Bible sequentially, systematically. This is of course obvious from your poor attempts at hermeneutics. (Go look that up on Google too!)
You write ….. You and I where not present at the attempted “stoning” or in Jesus time that we could say that we know for sure what he really meant.
Similarly you were not present during the 37 years of Lloyd’s marriage.
You write again ….. Your years of study! I will not allow to over rule my opinions of that event, for at the end of all your pouring over the word you are still like me, armed with an interpretation.
Why do you think there exists the verse in 2 Tim 2:15 that reads STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to ashamed RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH?
Your opinion is that the years of study by anyone on any subject is not worth anything, even if you have not taken the time to do the same. After all in your omniscience your opinion and cerebration is superior to all. I guess you will tell me too that after 34 years in Medicine your opinion on medical matters is like yours- just an interpretation.
You express your heightened ignorance of my quotation from John when you write “I still maintain that if Death “stoning” was not the punishment for her sin as judged by the men that Jesus would not have had a problem with thier judgement.”
Jesus did not have a problem with thier judgement—he overturned it; because He had the right to do so!
The facts are that the woman’s accusers were correct in suggesting that the woman be condemned since she was indeed guilty. It was also true that the male involved should be simultaneously condemned. That was the law of Moses. They knew it and Jesus knew it. Jesus did not say that they had adjudicated incorrectly. They seemed to have him in a corner, certainly.
If you had dissected John’s gospel, you would have noticed the sentence in chapter 1. The LAW came by MOSES, but GRACE & TRUTH came by JESUS CHRIST. If you had dissected John’s gospel, you would have noticed that John makes certain statements in his first chapter, which he then interprets and illustrates and expands on as he goes through the book. Moses Law indicated that the woman should be judged, but GRACE & TRUTH superceeds Moses Law. The incident in chapter 8 is an example of The LAW came by MOSES, but GRACE & TRUTH came by JESUS CHRIST. It is one of the re-occurring themes in John.
If you want to opine or judge on the Clive Lloyd story, carry on! Judge on. Who can stop you, but stop showing your ignorance in rightly dividing the Word of Truth, or folk will be forced to judge you by the verse in Romans 1:22 which says “ Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools.”
And by the way you need lessons on how to use Strong’s concordance and Strong numbers.
• You write ….. You and I where not present at the attempted “stoning” or in Jesus time that we could say that we know for sure what he really meant.
Similarly you were not present during the 37 years of Lloyd’s marriage.
===================
Indeed true but unlike the former where the participants are not present, their words and intentions are interpreted and re-interpreted even by you, the Latter event is recent and told by an eyewitness and participant, and too strengthen this account the other participant has chosen not to refute anything.
============================================================================================================================================
• Why do you think there exists the verse in 2 Tim 2:15 that reads STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to ashamed RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH?
==================
This is but Timothy’s accounts a mere mortal like me who is subject to all the failings that embodies us, have you raise him up to be more than that?
======================================================================
• Your opinion is that the years of study by anyone on any subject is not worth anything, even if you have not taken the time to do the same. After all in your omniscience your opinion and cerebration is superior to all. I guess you will tell me too that after 34 years in Medicine your opinion on medical matters is like yours- just an interpretation.
=================
Not quite, it simply is that I will not accept everything that a supposedly learned individual says, that’s all. There you go again with this nonsense about omniscience again. I am not presenting my opinion as being superior to yours or any, I am merely defending it. As for your medical opinions base on 34 years experience, you would have guess incorrectly, however the concept of becoming knowledgeable about your ailments, and seeking second opinions on diagnosis are preached daily in my neck of the woods so yes I will have an opinion on medical matters that involves me. My Doctor welcomes this approach, I am heavily invested my own care. 😀
============================================================================================================================================
• You express your heightened ignorance of my quotation from John when you write “I still maintain that if Death “stoning” was not the punishment for her sin as judged by the men that Jesus would not have had a problem with thier judgement.”
Jesus did not have a problem with thier judgement—he overturned it; because He had the right to do so!
===================
Oooh I so love my ignorance, oh wait um is just you saying so. 😀 I don’t have to believe it and I choose not too. Wait what is a better way to demonstrate that you don’t have problem with something than to leave it alone? I prefer to interpret this as Jesus questioning their willingness to kill this woman for breaking the law “sinning” when they may have broken the law themselves. I prefer to interpret Jesus as agreeing with their Judgement but not the punishment “go and break the law no more” “go and sin no more” he did not overturn the judgement.
When Jesus made the statement “go and sin no more” was he using grace and truth or the Law? If he was using Grace and Truth what is the difference between the two as far as judgement is concern? Is it safe to say that both Grace/truth and the Law judged the woman’s action to be wrong, but differs on the punishment?
================================
If you want to opine or judge on the Clive Lloyd story, carry on! Judge on. Who can stop you, but stop showing your ignorance in rightly dividing the Word of Truth, or folk will be forced to judge you by the verse in Romans 1:22 which says “ Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools.”
===============
You are the one who attempted to turn this into an argument about who is better able to define the word. I am not the one who bragged about being scholar of the bible, I am not the one that talked about concordance etc. I did not need any of that to make my case. I am satisfied that the word JUDGED as used in the blibical statement you attempted to use to call my opinionating on a very PUBLIC relationship, into question, remains in the intended context even when translated.
In response to my argument that we were not present during the 37 years of Lloyd’s marriage or at the attempted stoning of the woman caught in adultery,, You write …..
Indeed true but unlike the former where the participants are not present, their words and intentions are interpreted and re-interpreted even by you, the Latter event is recent and told by an eyewitness and participant, and too strengthen this account the other participant has chosen not to refute anything.
The newspaper woman’s interpretation of the facts, and Mrs Lloyd’s seeking for symphathy are similarly are interpreted and re-interpreted.
You see I not interested in the LLoyds at tall! I sought to carry the discussion to a higher plain by quoting Jesus’ saying LET HIM THAT IS WITHOUT SIN LET HIM CAST THE FIRST STONE.
You misinterpreted the text that I was saying do not judge, which it does not. I also quoted John 7:24 which was relevant to my quotation and the issue at hand. This verse says JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT AND NOT BY THE APPEARANCE. This indicates that is unwise not to judge without all the facts. The truth taught by this verse stands on its merits. It is true at all times.
All men love to judge and condemn others. It is a global pastime. Jesus teachings is don’t judge without all the facts. Thus I have interpreted that first correctly, whether you agree or not.
I also sought to indicate that in the quotation from John 8 the word is SIN meaning the sin nature, or the predisposition or tendency to sin. Again I interpreted the verse correctly according to the Greek and according to the rules of hermeneutics, and give collateral texts to support my arguement. I interpreted it in its word context, its Geographical and historical context and within the ambit of the issues discussed through the book, and the tendency of John to mention a topic, and return to it in a later chapter, but adding more substance to the initial mention. In my last post I pointed out that John 8 reiterates John’s understanding of the issue of LAW vs GRACE.
With reference to my question on 2 Tim 2:15 that reads STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to ashamed RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH?
First, it seems that you are ignorant of, or you ignore that this is a quotation from one of Paul’s pastoral epistles. Timothy wrote none of the books of the canon.Your waffle thus =================
This is but Timothy’s accounts a mere mortal like me who is subject to all the failings that embodies us, have you raise him up to be more than that? =======indicates that you are not cognizant of the plenary verbal inspiration of the word of God for which the proof texts are 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 peter 1 :20 &21. You do not seem to understand that the Word of God is divinely inspired or God breathed (theos pneuptos).
Hence our difficulty.
Pauls injunction is to Study the word or we wont be able to rightly divide it (cut with a shap knife it) or interpret it properly.
The need to rightly divide it is given in 1 Peter 3:15 where the exortation is
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
You assumed I was saying not to judge. So you quoted from Mathew and got tangled up by the context in which the speaker, Jesus himself said don’t judge because you cant take the saw dust out of a man’s eye when you have a plank in yours.
As men (mankind) we do it all the time anyway.
When I wrote
Your opinion is that the years of study by anyone on any subject is not worth anything, even if you have not taken the time to do the same. After all in your omniscience your opinion and cerebration is superior to all. I guess you will tell me too that after 34 years in Medicine your opinion on medical matters is like yours- just an interpretation.
================= Your response was
Not quite, it simply is that I will not accept everything that a supposedly learned individual says, that’s all. There you go again with this nonsense about omniscience again. I am not presenting my opinion as being superior to yours or any, I am merely defending it. As for your medical opinions base on 34 years experience, you would have guess incorrectly, however the concept of becoming knowledgeable about your ailments, and seeking second opinions on diagnosis are preached daily in my neck of the woods so yes I will have an opinion on medical matters that involves me. My Doctor welcomes this approach, I am heavily invested my own care.
First the point I was making is that after 34 years in Medicine my opinion on medical matters OUGHT TO BE MORE INFORMED AND BETTER THAN YOURS!
I understand that you do not respect learned opinion. That is coming across strongly. But even an omniscient one like you aint know everything! That’s a deliberate oxymoron.
In your (our) neck of the woods getting several opinions is indeed very needful. I watched a program recently where it took a woman 50 years to be diagnosed. When I heard the symptoms the first time in the first moments of the program I said the correct diagnosis. Last week I watched again in horror as it was revealed how a man with Reiters was diagnosed after 10 years of suffering! So buddy you better get nuff opinions in your (our) neck of the woods.
The point I am making now is that when you get the several opinions you might still have the wrong opinion. Certainly, you ought to have an opinion on medical matters that involves you and yes you ought to be heavily invested in your own care, but all the medical opinions you get have to be explained to you, and somewhere along the line you have to trust or believe that they are telling the truth and know what they are saying. Ah lie?
Ten years ago, I was visiting relatives in NJ and my uncle called to say his wife had a b c d. I said she has a renal stone. She needs to have these Xrays etc. She got them BUT THE GUYS DIDN’T SEE THE STONE WHICH WAS VERY VERY VERY OBVIOUS, when I got to see the same films over the weekend. There are opinions and other opinions Sir!
Adrian You ask
When Jesus made the statement “go and sin no more” was he using grace and truth or the Law? HE WAS USING GRACE AND TRUTH. He is the Grace & Truth that John spoke of in John 1:19.
You ask
If he was using Grace and Truth what is the difference between the two as far as judgement is concern?
UNDER LAW one is guilty and must be punished! That is why these guys thought they had Jesus in a pickle!
UNDER GRACE Jesus took the punishment for you and me! You need not be punished if you accept his work on your behalf. This is essentially what NEW TESTAMENT or COVENANT means. The concept by salvation by faith through Grace is the major teaching of the Bible. It is illustrated in the Old Testament, and revealed in the New.
Man can not keep the law. The law did not give the capacity to keep it. James teaches if we are guilty in one point of the law- we are guilty of all.
Is it safe to say that both Grace/truth and the Law judged the woman’s action to be wrong, but differs on the punishment? YES ADRIAN. There is hope for you to understand yet. A mere glimmer. But still hope.
Best Wishes
Is it safe to say that both Grace/truth and the Law judged the woman’s action to be wrong, but differs on the punishment? YES ADRIAN. There is hope for you to understand yet. A mere glimmer. But still hope.
=================================
Well all this means is that I am back where i started, because i first contended that my opininating on the now public Clive Lloyd marital woes, is “Judgement” without punishment and therefore did not meet the contextual criteria of the statement “Ye without sin, cast the first stone, which you invoke in response. I wasn’t punishing him, i was Judging, and in the context of the woman and the willing stone throwers I am in line with “Grace/truth and Moses Law. 😀
BTW from whom did Moses get his laws? 😀
BTW from whom did Moses get his laws?
Adrian even you know the answer to that one. LOL
I can’t believe the amount of space that has been given to this revelation. Who CARES!!! Does anyone really think that his wife of 37 years did not know what he’s been up to. She’s been very patient and played her cards right to the very end and if it wasn’t for picture exposure, she would have continued to play the dutiful wife, all the while watching their accumulated wealth increase and hopefully, outliving him to collect the big PAY DAY!!! Let’s give it a rest O.K….it’s really not important compared to the “real” issues we’re faced with in our everyday lives.
Catwoman // May 24, 2008 at 12:14 am
I can’t believe the amount of space that has been given to this revelation. Who CARES!!! Does anyone really think that his wife of 37 years did not know what he’s been up to. She’s been very patient and played her cards right to the very end and if it wasn’t for picture exposure, she would have continued to play the dutiful wife, all the while watching their accumulated wealth increase and hopefully, outliving him to collect the big PAY DAY!!! Let’s give it a rest O.K….it’s really not important compared to the “real” issues we’re faced with in our everyday lives.
=================================
Catwoman no I will not give it a rest, I see it as important, as a real issue, and remain confident that I can discuss multiple issues at the same time.
How can some of us chose to waive comment on the fact Clive Lloyd and his wife of 37 years have decided to have an uncontested divorce because of his infidelity? The story was published in a UK newspaper which has wide circulation, we could easily have picked-up the story and distributed the news as reported. Instead as we always do we have tried to find a lesson to it all so that we may learn and improve as a result. Of course what Mr. Lloyd and his wife do is their business. Whether we like it or not when we read our history books and our children are told about the all conquering West Indies team of the 70s and 80s and the role which ‘father figure’ Lloyd played, this makes it an issue for public discourse.
Barbadians must start to understand that the world is changing at a rapid pace. The type of society which we want must be fought for and chained-linked. If we chose the live and let live approach then we may just find out that Barbados will become a statistic. We believe that events occurring all around us are connected in some form and fashion. To compartmentalize is to renege on our responsibility as civilized human beings. Barbados is a small country but historically this small matter has not made it afraid to lead the way on the world stage
David // May 24, 2008 at 4:57 am
How can some of us chose to waive comment on the fact Clive Lloyd and his wife of 37 years have decided to have an uncontested divorce because of his infidelity?
*******************************
David, I’m amused by the significance which you seem to attach to this occurence. You seem to have a higher regard for Lloyd and his marriage than anybody else! Is divorce such an unusual occurence! Is ‘celebrity divorce’ so unusual! Does anybody other than your good self, care tuppence?
Then, contrast this with your willingness to display a pornographic, homosexual picture and I’m quite confused!
Over to you, sweet boy!!!! 🙂
Catwoman wrote
I can’t believe the amount of space that has been given to this revelation. Who CARES!!! Does anyone really think that his wife of 37 years did not know what he’s been up to. She’s been very patient and played her cards right to the very end and if it wasn’t for picture exposure, she would have continued to play the dutiful wife, all the while watching their accumulated wealth increase and hopefully, outliving him to collect the big PAY DAY!!! Let’s give it a rest O.K….it’s really not important compared to the “real” issues we’re faced with in our everyday lives.
=========================
I agree with much of what you say. I too believe that Mrs Lloyd knows what was going on, and elected to stay in the marriage. However, the importance of marriage and the evils of infidelity ought to be discussed. Hopefully we can get into such a discussion on this thread later.
You need to understand though that the amount of responses or discussion on any thread is related to the interest of the public or the responders in the subject. I have three threads on one forum with 29, 000, 13,000 and 6000 hits respectively in which I have been tearing a particular bogus medical school to bits.
You will notice for example the response of the omniscient Adrian Hinds who prides himself on being or ubiquitous on this forum. Since he sees it as a real issue and is confident that he can opine on all issues simultaneously, we will hopefully later continue our debate on Biblical grounds.
I agree with you Bimbro that divorec is unfortunately not unusual and that Lloyd’s divorce ought not to be of that great significance, and that few actually care about the fate of either he or his wife in this matter.
David, whereas you might have sought to find a lesson to be learned in this affair, your title, in my opinion led comment toward gossip. This was compounded by the use of a very biased article by a newspaper woman. I didn’t know that our history books delve into cricket, nor am I sure that our children care about the all conquering West Indies team of the 70s and 80s or the myth about the role which ‘father figure’ Lloyd played.
Although the world is changing at a rapid pace the Biblical edicts about the sanctity of marriage and infidelity have not changed, however. One such edict- which seems to be the point you really want to make- is given at Hebrews 13:4 thus:
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
This verse implies (when divided with other scriptures appropriately) that unrepentant whoremongers and adulterers will be judged by God at the great white throne judgement described in Revelation 20.This is of course the real judgement that matters. All throughout the Bible this sin is highlighted and abhorred! More on this later.
A Definition of Christian marriage
Marriage is that intentional union whereby a man and a woman publicly commit themselves to each other in a life long agreement to form a home. This union is consummated or demonstrated privately in the physical union.
The biblical proof for the various phrases in this definition are given below.
1. intentional union- Genesis 2:24;24;57-58; Song of Solomon 4:7-8; Matthew 1:18-20
2. man and woman- Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-5
3.publicly- Genesis 29:22; Ruth 4:9-11; Song of Solomon 5:1; John 2:1-2; 3:29
4.lifelong commitment- Matthew 19:6; Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39
5.agreement- Malachi 2;13-16; 1 Corinthians 7:3-4
6.form a home- Genesis 2:24; Psalm 127:3
7.privately in physical union- Genesis 2:24
GP we suspect that you maybe removed from the Caribbean at the moment which may have dulled your appreciation for how many people in the Caribbean feel about cricket? If you doubt what we have suggested the close to 1 billion spent to upgrade cricket and relevant infrastructure.
If you don’t buy that argument we draw your attention to the introduction of a M.Sc Cricket Studies : Programme Coordinator – Mr. Akhentoolove Corbin. It is no secret that with the elevation of Sir Hilary Beckles to Principal of the UWI, Cave Hill he has been very aggressive in is strategy to marry UWI and cricket. As a historian he seems fairly sure that the link must be made to not only raise West Indies cricket back to the pinnacle but life the pride of the West Indian nation as well.
We have said alot to respond to your point that decisions and influential forces are creating strategies at our highest learning centre
We are not sure to make of your point about the fact we used an article by a newspaper woman, a trace of chauvinism perhaps? We hope not Sir!
Forget title my good man after all is said and done what is the message!
David, could n’t you think of anything to say, or chose to ignore me? Adrian commented recently on this facet of Barbadian, manners. A reply from you is always appreciated!!!! 🙂
David
I am only away five years. Actually I am a life member of the BCA, and read Carribean cricket.com & Cricinfo .com daily. I watched every ball of the Sanford 20/20 this year online, and went so far as to write Ian Bishop a very sharp rebuke for referring to a six as a home run. Even suggesting that he be fired for such an infraction.
I have no problems with female professionals. I just thought that perhaps her article was biased.
As for the money wasted on the so called upgrade of relevant cricket infrastructure, I think it is an abomination to tear down the memories of so many to build the new Kensington Oval.
Whereas cricket issues might be offered as a course or two for serious cricket lovers like me, what Hilary is doing at Cave Hill is nonsense!
David
Im sure you will agree that every one will not agree with you on either topics or titles, but I think we are happy with you for first providing a medium where we can readily share our views, and I do appreciate your effort to keep things interesting.
GP we can share that we quite enjoy the dissenting comments from the BU commenters 🙂
But David, my views ent dissenting! I only want for us to observe good manners, dah is all!!!! 🙂
Adrian where you gone to today man?
Just imagine the whole BU fraternity meeting at your church in the morning and David appoint me to preach the sermon based on this Clive Lloyd fracas.
Since this is what God says about marriage it is quite right to discuss this matter. So you can critique my notes below and tell me what I left out. OK ?
It’s a bit long But it is important. I think that these are the standards that David is alluding to that ought to be the lesson learned from the Lloyd or any divorce.
This is my text “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure” (Hebrews 13:4).
Georgie Porgie, I think even Adrian’s tired of your foolishness!
By the way, why’d u choose that name? R you a head-case?
Editors of this site must ask themselves if this site is happy going down the tabliod route. (I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they have not as yet).
This story is simply juicy gossip.
anonymous coward, ‘The Times’, is a tabloid!
And why r u such a coward!
anonymous coward which tabloid can you visit and read the text of a sermon scribed by a qualified person of the faith?
🙂
U tell e, David!
Laadddddddddddddddddddd!!!! 🙂
Bimbro
I respect Adrian for his honesty in sharing his opinions in the forum and attempting to keep the forum alive- and with out being disrespectful. Although we disagree on some things, we did not drag the level of the discussion into the dirt.
I think that even though David is not strict in barring nonsense from this forum, this does not mean that we should not aim to maintain this forum at the level of a serious journal. Some very informed folk posts here on diverse areas of expertise. If we cannot emulate them, we can at least make a worthy contribution.
I will return with more nonsense later on the subject of the responsibility of the man and the woman in marriage.
I take my privilege to post on this natinal forum as a serious responsibility.
Ok George, look forward to reading your next post and trying to take you more, seriously.
However, here’s a well-meaning tip for you – take it in the spirit in which it’s meant, if you’re man enough!
Don’t make your posts so long and more people might actually read them!
I’m not sure I’ve read more than 1 of your posts and that would be the reason!
Regards!
Bimbro
I don’t care if you read my post or take me seriously. When I speak in public, and teach, my audience take me very serious. They also do in a medical forum in which I also post regularly.
If you have not read my post because they are too long, then you are the loser not me. I think I have often said something of substance and accurate stuff. Those who seek substance and wish to be edified will read my posts. Those who don’t might not.
Adrian and I locked horns last week, but I think we raised the level of the debate, and I KNOW that I did some good Bible teaching in the course of our debate. Those who wanted to learn might have learned something new also, but I am yet to learn anything from your short posts. I come here to learn or to teach. I view this forum as a serious place. Yes we cant always be serious, but we can try, sometimes.
If you read the last post on marriage, you might learn something too. I certainly wished that someone had taught me that stuff at age 23 when I got married. I wish someone had taught me the stuff I intend to post at that time too.
Georgie, please have mercy pun me! I bin involv in enuf controversy aready dis bright, good mornin!
Ok, George, I promise to read all of your posts on this subject, in full, from the very beginning!
I may well, learn something!
But, I’m sorry for u, if I don’t!!!!
Have a nice, day! 🙂
Ah Bimbro,
The Times? Is it there as well? I see the Daily Mail link, which is seen as a glorified tabloid anyway!
But I digress, where it’s found is irrelevant, if the apostle Paul had a daily column in that newspaper it would be irrelevant. You determine journalistic integrity of an article by association?
At the end of the day, it’s a tell all gossip story about a divorce and infidelity. Classic tabloid!
I lie?
Ah Bimbro,
The Times? Is it there as well? I see the Daily Mail link, which is seen as a glorified tabloid anyway!
But I digress, where it’s found is irrelevant, if the apostle Paul had a daily column in that newspaper it would be irrelevant. You determine journalistic integrity of an article by association?
At the end of the day, it’s a tell all gossip story about a divorce and infidelity. Classic tabloid!
I lie?
How disappointing to learn that Brent’s former Mayor, Cllr Bertha Joseph has been labelled a mistress. It was unfortunate that she made a mockery of the sacrament of marriage by her own divorce and whilst I do not wish to judge her circumstances she should have known better to have carried on with such an affair, apparently oblivious to the circumstances. As a fellow Christian and a Parishioner of the same Church I was even more disappointed that Ms. Joseph saw fit to introduce Sir Clive to our church during her civic service, at a time when he was technically an adulterer. Sadly Cllr Joseph has fallen well below the high standards we can expect from high office – twice Brent’s 1st Citizen. She has let herself and the church down and incredibly continues to accept Holy communion (the blessed Eucharist) which many years ago was forbidden if you were divorced, let alone having an affair. She is clearly not the devout Catholic that everyone thinks she is. Her officials will cry “it is a private matter”. I disagree. When you are elected into public office you have no private life and private life does not mean sleeping behind your wife’s back. However the Church should not play God in denying any sinner, in this case the divorced or a mistress of Holy Communion. Jesus himself has taught us that there is no sin that cannot be forgiven when he said “let the man who has not sinned cast the first stone”. He himself forgave all kinds of sinners including tax collectors, prostitutes, adulterers and even murderers. So we must not be too judgemental, as the saying goes, “she knows not what she does”. We must pray for Cllr Joseph and the Lloyd family for the pain and heartache this sorrow affair has caused so many.
Actually Jesus taught that there is an unforgiveable sin. It is called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Again Jesus did not say “let the man who has not sinned cast the first stone”. He said let him that is without SIN, i.e the sin nature.
Ah Bimbro,
But I digress, where it’s found is irrelevant, if the apostle Paul had a daily column in that newspaper it would be irrelevant. You determine journalistic integrity of an article by association?
At the end of the day, it’s a tell all gossip story about a divorce and infidelity. Classic tabloid!
I lie?
How many runs did Waveny Lloyd score in her career. What’s her batting average.
At the end of the day, it’s a tell all gossip story about a divorce and infidelity. Classic tabloid!
I lie?
**************************
AC, I in suh analytical as u boa!!!!
Laaaaaaaaadddddddddddddddd!!!!
***********************
Maraval // May 26, 2008 at 8:12 pm
How many runs did Waveny Lloyd score in her career. What’s her batting average.
****************************
Maraval, will u please stop talking, foolishness!! This is supposed to be a ‘serious’, discussion!!!! 🙂
Click on these links for more on the mistress Bertha Joseph
http://www.blogger.com/profile/14096400172923397481
http://berthajoseph.blogspot.com/
Clive Lloyd has not shamed anybody. He has not shamed himself , his wife not his children, nor his mistress. Human beings are selfish, so marriages break down. Marriage partners are frequently unkind to each other. Nothing new here. Divorces happen. Nothing new there either. We should all wish the former Mrs. Lloyd well, and make the best use still of Clive for the betterment of Windies cricket. We were never looking to Lloyd for matrimonial advice anyhow. When we want marriage advice we ask or parents, priests, pastors and psychiatrists. And even so we still manage to mess up. It will hurt, but if Mrs. Lloyd does not wallow in it she will recover and she will find happiness again with someone else or on her own. She has learned rather late in life that marriage must always be on MUTUALLY agreeable terms. But she has learned. Better late than never.
Another momentous, achievement by your ‘wonderful’, Jamaican friends! Anybody, anywhere, can always rely upon one or other of these cretins to carry out their filth for them, irrespective of the irretrievable, damage which it does to the wider, west indian community’s reputation!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article1220339.ece
This whole affair is very unfortunate and my questions are. Was it necessary for these peoples marital problems to be published? What effects would the publicizing of their marital problems have on the children of their marriage? Should counceling become necessary for the children as a result of the publication are the publishers willing to assist in rising any necessary funds to cover the cost of counceling? Or better still have the publishers made it their business to find out how the children are affected as a result of their publishing the ugly side of the LLoyd’s marital life. And are the publishers making any effort to ensure that the children are not adversley affected now and in the future?
We know that the press likes to be sensational and to break news. In this instance, how does the news to the world assist the troubled and concerned parties to resolve their problems. This is not a case like a natural disaster where by publishing releif can be sent in to assit the suffering.
I sincerely hope that this episode will be a warning to all in public life to do what is best and fastest. From what little I have read, I am lead to form the opinion that this marriage has been ailing for some time. So lets hope that this is a lesson to others that when a marriage no longer runs smoothly the parties involved would take the courage and fix it one way or another, if it comes to getting out of the marriage and getting on with their life and avoid the press taking personal information to the public and hurting inocent children in the process then do that.