Dear Saddleback Family,
Some of you have asked me if the Bible gives us any clues as to who might win the Super Bowl between the Arizona Cardinals and the Pittsburg Steelers. Here's my answer from my personal study today:
1. Does the Bible allude to either the Phoenix Cardinals or Pittsburg Steelers?
YES! "I am like a wild bird in the desert." Psalm 102:6 (TEV)
"If a person is a stealer, he must stop stealing and start working. He must use his hands for doing something good!" Ephes. 4:28 (ICB)
2. Who will have the advantage playing in Tampa? Not the Cardinals.
"Anyone away from home is like a bird away from its nest." Proverbs 27:8 (TEV)
3. What verse favors victory on the field for the Cardinals?
"I will throw you on the ground and toss you in an open field. I will make the birds perch on you and feed on you!" Ezekiel 32:4 (GW)
4. What verses favor the Steelers?
"Just look at the strength of his back, the powerful muscles of his belly...his huge legs are like beech trees. His skeleton is made of steel, every bone in his body hard as steel. " Job 40:16-18 (Mes)
"With your well-muscled arm and your grip of steel— nobody trifles with you!"Psalm 89:13 (Mes)
"Wherever they turn, I will spread my net over them, and bring down the birds."Hosea 7:12 (NJB)
5. Who is favored to win?
"The Lord told me to say: Just as you cannot break steel, you can't defeat the enemy that will attack from the north. I will give them everything you own." Jeremiah 15:12-13 (CEV)
The scarlet & white uniforms of the Cardinals may be overwhelmed by the team from Three Rivers stadium:
Shields flash red in the sunlight! The attack begins! See their scarlet uniforms! Watch as their glittering chariots move into position... but they stumble in their haste, rushing to the walls to set up their defenses. But too late! The River Gates are open! The enemy has entered!" Nahum 2:3-6 (NLT)
I'm kidding. Don't write me!
Rick Warren
Saddleback Church
Purpose Driven Network
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Property rights eroding state of marriage
By MINDELLE JACOBS, Sat, January 24, 2009, The Edmonton Sun
One of these years, there may be no difference, legally, between couples who marry and those who simply shack up.
Is there no social good left in marriage? Does society not bear a responsibility to promote it as a stabilizing, healthy influence in a world of fleeting pleasures?
Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I still believe in the institution of marriage. It signifies -- or ought to -- commitment and responsibility, as well as starry-eyed love. Yes, I shacked up with my husband for a couple of years before we tied the knot. But marriage feels different, more permanent.
Perhaps I'm just viewing the institution through the lens of history, with its swirl of age-old cultural/religious trappings. Nevertheless, I stand on my lonely perch to defend marriage, a formal bond amidst the rising tide of cohabitation.
In 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada also took a stab at defending marriage, in a Nova Scotia matter involving a common-law relationship breakup. The woman in the case was shocked to discover she wasn't entitled to half the family assets.
The Supreme Court declared there was no right to a 50-50 asset split. "If they have chosen not to marry, is it the state's task to impose a marriage-like regime on them retroactively?" the court asked.
But the provinces were left to devise family law as they saw fit and changes in recent years have gradually erased the legal distinctions between married and common-law. For a long time, all couples have been treated equally with respect to issues like child support, alimony and survivor benefits. (In Quebec, common-law partners who split up aren't entitled to alimony, but more on that later.)
The right to division of property was different, however, depending on whether you were married.
That is falling by the wayside. Manitoba has the most equitable legislation in this regard. There, if you've lived common-law for three years, you have all the property rights of married couples after separation.
In Alberta and Ontario, there is no specific legislation related to property division in common-law cases. Judges decide such matters on a case-by-case basis.
Alternately, common-law couples can draw up cohabitation contracts agreeing to marriage-like property-split obligations in the event of a breakup. Other provinces offer similar procedures.
A lot of people think that they are, in effect, married after three years of cohabitation. But that's a myth, says Toronto family lawyer Jack Hope.
They're "in for ... unhappy surprises at the end of 10- and 20-year relationships," he warns. "They have to resort to complex concepts from trust law in order to try and gain a piece of the other person's property.
"It becomes a huge, very uncertain lawsuit without any legislative support. But if you're married, then there's a very clear set of rules."
But back to Quebec, where a 34-year-old woman is fighting in court for $50 million plus $56,000 a month in support from her former common-law partner, a billionaire. (She already receives $35,000 a month in child support for their three kids.)
Arguably, there's a case to be made for spousal support for poor Quebec women, not just this Brazilian-born beauty, whom the billionaire met on a South American beach when she was 17.
But her lawyer wants all common-law unions of three years without kids -- and one year with children -- treated as marriages.
It begs the question: Is marriage losing its meaning?
One of these years, there may be no difference, legally, between couples who marry and those who simply shack up.
Is there no social good left in marriage? Does society not bear a responsibility to promote it as a stabilizing, healthy influence in a world of fleeting pleasures?
Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I still believe in the institution of marriage. It signifies -- or ought to -- commitment and responsibility, as well as starry-eyed love. Yes, I shacked up with my husband for a couple of years before we tied the knot. But marriage feels different, more permanent.
Perhaps I'm just viewing the institution through the lens of history, with its swirl of age-old cultural/religious trappings. Nevertheless, I stand on my lonely perch to defend marriage, a formal bond amidst the rising tide of cohabitation.
In 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada also took a stab at defending marriage, in a Nova Scotia matter involving a common-law relationship breakup. The woman in the case was shocked to discover she wasn't entitled to half the family assets.
The Supreme Court declared there was no right to a 50-50 asset split. "If they have chosen not to marry, is it the state's task to impose a marriage-like regime on them retroactively?" the court asked.
But the provinces were left to devise family law as they saw fit and changes in recent years have gradually erased the legal distinctions between married and common-law. For a long time, all couples have been treated equally with respect to issues like child support, alimony and survivor benefits. (In Quebec, common-law partners who split up aren't entitled to alimony, but more on that later.)
The right to division of property was different, however, depending on whether you were married.
That is falling by the wayside. Manitoba has the most equitable legislation in this regard. There, if you've lived common-law for three years, you have all the property rights of married couples after separation.
In Alberta and Ontario, there is no specific legislation related to property division in common-law cases. Judges decide such matters on a case-by-case basis.
Alternately, common-law couples can draw up cohabitation contracts agreeing to marriage-like property-split obligations in the event of a breakup. Other provinces offer similar procedures.
A lot of people think that they are, in effect, married after three years of cohabitation. But that's a myth, says Toronto family lawyer Jack Hope.
They're "in for ... unhappy surprises at the end of 10- and 20-year relationships," he warns. "They have to resort to complex concepts from trust law in order to try and gain a piece of the other person's property.
"It becomes a huge, very uncertain lawsuit without any legislative support. But if you're married, then there's a very clear set of rules."
But back to Quebec, where a 34-year-old woman is fighting in court for $50 million plus $56,000 a month in support from her former common-law partner, a billionaire. (She already receives $35,000 a month in child support for their three kids.)
Arguably, there's a case to be made for spousal support for poor Quebec women, not just this Brazilian-born beauty, whom the billionaire met on a South American beach when she was 17.
But her lawyer wants all common-law unions of three years without kids -- and one year with children -- treated as marriages.
It begs the question: Is marriage losing its meaning?
Friday, January 09, 2009
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
We weren't whining about nothing!
Our endless December snowfall set a record
Darrell Bellaart, The Daily NewsPublished: Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Nanaimo's snowfall has now officially topped the one-metre mark. It's something that has only happened twice before in December in all the years since Environment Canada has been keeping records.
"This year we had 116 centimetres of snow at Nanaimo Airport," said David Jones, a climatologist with Environment Canada's Vancouver office. The weather office measured 111 centimetres of snow in Nanaimo in 1964 and 107 cm in 1968. Even in December 1996, the most awe-inspiring winter in recent memory, snowfall reached 95.2 cm in the city. The all-time record for one month was in February 1975, when 122 cm fell.
Nanaimo's snowfall has only exceeded 80 cm 12 times in December since the agency first started keeping records in 1947.
Darrell Bellaart, The Daily NewsPublished: Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Nanaimo's snowfall has now officially topped the one-metre mark. It's something that has only happened twice before in December in all the years since Environment Canada has been keeping records.
"This year we had 116 centimetres of snow at Nanaimo Airport," said David Jones, a climatologist with Environment Canada's Vancouver office. The weather office measured 111 centimetres of snow in Nanaimo in 1964 and 107 cm in 1968. Even in December 1996, the most awe-inspiring winter in recent memory, snowfall reached 95.2 cm in the city. The all-time record for one month was in February 1975, when 122 cm fell.
Nanaimo's snowfall has only exceeded 80 cm 12 times in December since the agency first started keeping records in 1947.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
