Walter Veith DVDs in the mail box

[Bravus]

No secret here. I have two daughters, both of whom live with their (male, as it happens) partners. In my view that makes them married couples, and in the view of the law of the land, likewise. They both want romantic weddings and they've both just finished years of study, so they'll both marry formally at some time in the future. I said what is true, as clearly and simply as I could... even though it was an incidental detail of the post. I consider both of the fantastic young men my daughters have chosen as both close friends and sons-in-law.

[hch]

* * *

Walter Veith's productions are well done and interesting.

So if he is not on topic,

why is the church not producing material that is as interesting and well done that is on topic?

Amazing Facts (a supporting ministry like Veith) did put out one called endtime events that was interesting and well done.

Though I thought that parts were watered down.

And somebody just put an Amazing Facts DVD in my mailbox (at church) Revelation, the Bride, the Beast & Babylon. Watched it once. First impression: content out dated. But maybe it has its place too???

Blessings to the saints,

[Sojourner]

What surprises me a little about some of these people that get into conspiracy theories about the Freemasons is how they often seem to know nothing at all about the Fabian Society and its goals and symbols.

Essentially it appears that conservative politicians are often more likely to be involved in Freemasonry, whilst Leftists and Greens are often keen members of the Fabian Society.

Our former Prime Minister Julia Gillard was a keen member of the Fabian Society and gave a number of speeches there with other Labor and Green collegues. They openly discuss the benefits of Agenda 21 via the United Nations and their goal of worldwide Socialism and so forth. Yet contact Veith and others on the matter and you get a look like a deer caught in the headlights, then a rant from the 1980's on Catholicsm or Freemasons or so forth.

Whilst I largely dont follow conspiracy theories, my suggestion would be that Fabians, along with Moderate Muslim leaders are far better placed than the Masons or Catholic church to influence society through their political views.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

I consider both of the fantastic young men my daughters have chosen as both close friends and sons-in-law.

Very well said. Out of my 7 children, 4 took the same route; and all but one are now married (happily, I might add). I'm with Bravus - once they live together, they are husband and wife, whether or not they have the piece of paper. In our state, if you live together for longer than 7 years (I think that's the threshold), the state considers you married, whether or not you have the piece of paper.

[Naomi]

[Gregory Matthews]

Ther is a lot of misinformation as to common law marriages.

Colorado is one of seven (7), as I understand it, States who presently will recognize common law marriages, under some circumstances. Those requirements differ from State to State. They are not all exactly the same.

Quote:

If the couple disagrees as to whether they have a common law marriage, the Colorado family law court is required to conduct a hearing to determine the issue, at which the trial court will determine the facts based upon the credibility of the evidence. In re: Custody of Nugent, 955 P.2d 584 (Colo. App. 1997).

Note that judges scrutinize self-serving common law marriage claims carefully - they require pretty compelling evidence to find that a relationship is actually a common law marriage. As a court long ago said, "evidence to establish a common-law marriage should be clear, consistent, and convincing." Peery v. Peery, 150 P. 329 (Colo.App. 1915).

Colorado case law is very clear: Common law marriage is NOT established by a specified time of living together.

Actually, in Colorado, common law marriage can be established in a situation where the living together is much less than seven (7) years. And, in Colorado, living together for 20 years does not automaticly establish a common law marriage. In Colorado case law well supports what I am saying here.

In short, a common law marriage only exists when a judge rules that it exists and decides as to the date that it began to exist.

People who do relationship counseling find that the problems associated with the legal rights a common law marriage are often much more complex than those associated with a marriage The reason is that one can not assume on the basis of living together that a common law marriage actually exists.

The evidence for meeting every requirement of a common law marriage is all to often not clear, complete and convincing.

[JoeMo]

Thanks for the clarification, Gregory.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Colorado Factors for Determining Common Law Marriage

Though living together (cohabitation) is required, no specific duration is necessary. This means that a couple which is clearly girlfriend/boyfriend could live together for 20 years without creating a common law marriage in Colorado. However, a relationship where the couple hold themselves out as married and intend actually to be married could be considered a marriage in a relatively short time. Here is a non-exclusive list of factors Colorado divorce courts look at when determining whether a common law marriage exists:

Whether the couple hold themselves out as married to third parties, so have a reputation of being married,

Filing joint federal or state tax returns,

Listing the other party as a spouse on insurance forms or retirement plans,

Joint finances, such as bank accounts, or owning property, and

The woman taking the man's surname.

Are there greeting cards referring to each other as boyfriend/girlfriend, or husband/wife?

Did the couple go through any of the rituals of marriage, such as an informal ceremony, or wearing rings?

No one factor is paramount, but typically claiming the other party as a "spouse" simply to gain a private economic advantage (health insurance, joint gym membership, etc), while potentially fraudulent, is not usually sufficient to establish a common law marriage in Colorado. A Colorado common law marriage is not simply living together or a casual relationship - it means the couple tells everyone they are married.

Here is where the problem comes into play:

It is not unusual for one partner, or both, to a common law marriage, to say that they do not want the government I their business. That may mean that they do not want the responsibilities that come with marriage.

With he passage of time, a situation comes up where one partner may be held liable for something related to the other partner. That claim can be defeated by stating that no common law marriage existed.

E.G. One partner becomes liable for the debts/medical expenses of the other.

Well, if that partner can prevail in asserting that a common law marriage did not exist, that partner may escape responsibility for the debts/medical care of the other.

I am reminded of a case that I know very well. A female was the partner for years of a very wealthy male. He took care of her well. Then her health began to deteriorate. He ended the relationship. Today, she is destitute. In the State where this occurred, no common law marriage existed.

While the formalities will differ from State to State, a common law marriage can only be assumed to exist when a judge has declared that it exists.

[Bravus]

My other daughter's partner is English, and his Australian visa relies on the fact that they are considered to be in a de facto relationship after having lived together for one year.

[hch]

peraps we could go

[Octopus]

I don't know what any of you have against Walter Veith, I think he's a great preacher, lots of factual information about prophecy and end times.

The main point I derive from all of Veith's sermons is that the second coming is getting closer and closer, and that many events that are happening in the current world is pointing to that fact.

I still haven't seen anybody post about any specific points that Veith made that were unbiblical.

[Bravus]

Unbiblical is not the same thing as untrue. I detailed some of the issues with his presentations in the opening post. Some of his conspiracy theory stuff is not accurate, and some of his health/medical advice is not scientifically accurate. He is a good presenter, although much too verbose - hours and hours and hours of PowerPoint. He also does a lot of 'guilt by association' type stuff, making connections by free association rather than by logic.

The truth matters.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

"So the Jesuits are linked to these groups... and that's a bad thing why?" "So the Masons are not Christian? And...?"

I suppose to get the best comprehension in answering, one would have to go back to the reason stated by those organizations' for their existence. Even that wouldn't necessarily give the full story as evidenced by the description of the master of deceit.

"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it."

John 8:44 NKJV

"And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. "2 Corinthians 11:14 NKJV

God cares! Jesus saves!

[Stan]

-- Some of his conspiracy theory stuff is not accurate, and some of his health/medical advice is not scientifically accurate.

He is a good presenter, although much too verbose - hours and hours and hours of PowerPoint.

He also does a lot of 'guilt by association' type stuff, making connections by free association rather than by logic.

The truth matters.

Thank you...

[Octopus]

So what conspiracy theories did Veith talk about that was untrue?

Your original post is just about Jesuits being connected to various organizations and whatnot? Which is exactly true, the Jesuits are definitely infiltrating many governing bodies and organizations.

[Gregory Matthews]

It is certainly well known that the Jesuits have infiltrated Club Adventist. The evidence is clear and convincing. No honest person, with 20/20eyesight could ever argue against this. Just look at the code word: Adventiststan. How could anyone in their right mind not believe it?

Let me further demonstrate that the Jesuits are here in CA. In an earlier post, Stan posted a comment from 2T, page 439. He did not post the entire passage, and I also will be brief:

Quote:

One who is unerring in Judgment. . . .

You Err. . .

do harm to your own Soul. . .

There will be peace Union. . .

harmony, Instead. . .

love and Tenderness. . .

Take note: In the above passage which Stan cited from 4T, the 1st letter of each word just before the . . ., which I have capitalized, spells, JESUIT.

Surely this should be proof enough that the Jesuits are here in CA.

As has been said: The proof is in the pudding, especially when it is Jim Beam and is 80 proof.

Furthermore, take a look at Stan's name: Stan, JEnSen.

JES is just a shortened form of Jesuit!

[Stan]

We must hunt down these people.

[Stan]

I may do a list of all known Jesuits who have infiltrated Adventism.

[Gregory Matthews]

I suppose you could start with those who openly post here in CA under the name of a previous pope.

[Gail]

[Stan]

Anyone have a strange feeling about a certain Pope Gregory? hmmm

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, Gail, what I posted is as factual, accurate and correct as is those who post about those who have infiltrated, society, government and the SDA Church.

In my opinion, the cure for some of those would be a good dose of Colace.

[Stan]

that only makes sense.

[Gregory Matthews]

A good dose would clear them of whatever produced their evil thoughts.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, and do you know that the Jesuits who have infiltrated the SDA Church gained initial entry through the Pathfinders!

Amazing!

The Church clearly needs to take a look at this evil organization.

Remember the days when we used to have "Comrades" and "Master Comrades." It was the Jesuits who forced the name change to "Guide" and Master Gide."