Clive Lloyd Shames The Caribbean

ckive lloyd-and-wife

other woman of clive lloyd

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.

100 comments

  • Pingback: Clive Lloyd Shames The Caribbean

  • I guess his wife thought she was aiding the institution of caribbean marriage by raking this story all over the British press?

    I smell the stench of money here!

    Like

  • Well he is from Guyana, right, and according to you all everything is bad in Guyana, from Guyana, about Guyana, failed state, racist state, now philandering Guyanese man, so de man living up to he namesake, beautiful Guyana

    Like

  • Since when Guyana is the Caribbean. He shamed himself, if you ask me, not GUYANA in the least as we are not responsible for the actions of our citzens, whether they have entered Barbados illegally, or they are egaged in extra-martial affairs. or they are exibiting racist attitudes in the USA.

    Like

  • man clive lloyd shame heself and his family. nobody else

    Like

  • Man Bimbro read de article nuh!. A west Indian man doesn’t need any reason tuh cheat on his woman. It is a cultural believe, particularly amongst those of Clive’s age, that a “deputy is essential.” Now, it is equally a practice to this West Indian male male behaviour, for West Indian women to withhold sex after attaining marriage, or to just decide on their own and without any warning to their husbands that ” I done wid dah (sex)”, dah fuh de young people”. It is is also not uncommon amongst West Indian woman of Clive’s wife age to assume old age at 30. 😀 Now which of these practices precipitated the other is not known to me, but because of the maternal bond between a mother, her son and daughter, has always been stronger, and practice longer than any such bond between a Father, his son, and daughter, it is likely to have influence what we are seeing today.

    ….where young men are more likely to display family nurturing than the males relatives before them and where today’s women having inherited their Mothers deep suspicion of men leading them to, at the first sign of relationship issues to “break up”, file for divorce, file for child support, deny child visitation to the father etc.

    It is as if the Village Ram lifestyle although not as prevalent is still responsible for a lot of familial and relationship issues today.

    Whether it is the perception of the 13 older secondary schools as colleges/universities, or that the white man in Barbados is still keeping us down, and that we are powerless to do anything about, or this believe that todays generation of Bajan men should be judge by the actions of the older generation although they may be practical and current evidence to the contrary, it seems as though reality has less significance and is secondary to our beliefs and perception. As long as i continue to wear my red tinted glasses the world will always be? ……….

    From the contents of the article i cannot conclude that Lloyd’s wife withheld sex early on and that this is what drove him into the arms of another, willing to deliver. It seems clearly to me that Clive Lloyd did what, then, West Indian men were very much known for “Take foop wherever and from whom ever will offer” I am at this point willing to call this nothing more than a Village Ram who took his show on the road globally. 😀 Since these times seem to be the age of the “VICTIM” he could plead guilty and blame his Father and other male relatives for setting a bad example for him to follow all those years. Yuh never know his wife might believe such crap. 😀

    Clive Lloyd is no hero of mine and could never be. I will take to his cricket exploits when cricket is the center of my attention, beyond that i have no other uses for him, he couldn’t talk to me about anything else uless he lived it. This is the inherent problem with sociaties today. We take people who did well in one endevour and make them, in our minds responsible for other things that we do not know them to do well, and make make them icons and role models in general. That is our mistake.

    Like

  • Adrian HInds, you say Clive Lloyd is no hero to me (you )and could never be………and that is because you are Guyanaphobic….and not your theory that we made him a hero not knowing what type of person he is……well he is not the only philandering man around, most of them are…it is male nature to have realtionships with many ladies…and by the way his father was an upright man……resident of the Queenstown section of our capital city

    Like

  • We take people who did well in one endevour and make them, in our minds responsible for other things that we do not know them to do well, and make make them icons and role models in general. That is our mistake.

    ******************

    Well said, Adrian. Admit I did n’t read the ariticle in detail but sufficient to gather the drift. Like u, Lloyd has never been a hero of mine, not even for his cricketing exploits. Suffice to say the man fills me with boredom!

    As for the Jamaican, councillor he’s now courting – all I can say is OMG!

    One day I might begin to comprehend that union but it would n’t be for an extremely, long time!!

    As for the machinations of caribbean love post age 30, I have to tek your word fuh dat, boa!!!! 🙂

    Mind u, met an old Jamaican flame of mine, not so long ago, and she was still ‘ready to go’!!!! 🙂 I had to tell she ‘look, cool down gal’!!!! 🙂 Did n’t feel the same about her now as I did ‘back then’!!!!

    Anyway, agree with your assertion. I don’t know who makes these people ‘heroes’ of ours in the first place! I’ve only a few caribbean heros: Garfield and Viv rank highly, among them!

    Here’s another failed ‘caribbean hero’, Dwayne Chambers, not to mention the disgraced and disgraceful Ben Johnson! I won’t ask you where they’re fom – I know u already know that!

    Three cheers for the Barbadian heroes!!! 🙂

    Like

  • Carson C. Cadogan

    His wife should take him to the cleaners.

    Get as much as you can get, honey.

    Another useless Guyanese.

    Like

  • Adrian, while we’re on the subject of best practice, although not in marriage this time, can u offer some perception into the Barbadian psyche?

    Whenever, I phone Bim on business, I’m usually answered by a very, pleasant and well spoken receptionist who asks my name. When I tell her my surname she invariably requests my christian name too, and she’s not being in any way, familiar. Why is that? If u imagine the no. of business calls which businesses in Bim must receive every year, each one delayed by a perfectly, pointless question, that must amount to a very, large number of working hours lost in Bim every year through, ‘hot air’! You tell the person u really want to speak to your first name, anyway, if they want to know, so why waste precious time!!

    But, don’t listen to me. I’m only an ignorant Britisher!!!

    Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

  • Inquiring Housewife

    I agree that Mr. LLoyd has shamed no one but himself. I am truly sorry for his loyal wife of 37 years, she just leaned a hard lesson. When a man does something and gets away with it more than once then he feels in his limited mind that he has a visa to continue. We woman because we are afraid to raise our children without a man stay and are disrespected for what, the children and now grown and gone and she is now leaving. to start over? No i say when he does it onces forgive, twice maybe try counselling three times then cut his a** and move on.

    We women need to respect ourselves and men will respect us. It all comes down to self love. Not sure why he left or if she withheld sex, maybe she was an acrobac in the bed room but he still felt the need to go out. She needs now to love herself and keep making tracks

    Like

  • Anonymous // May 21, 2008 at 11:05 am

    Adrian HInds, you say Clive Lloyd is no hero to me (you )and could never be………and that is because you are Guyanaphobic….and not your theory that we made him a hero not knowing what type of person he is……well he is not the only philandering man around, most of them are…it is male nature to have realtionships with many ladies…and by the way his father was an upright man……resident of the Queenstown section of our capital city
    =================================

    It might better serve your intent to ask me about mine, rather than conclude as if you know when you clearly don’t.
    So I am not only indifferent to “Indo-Guyanese” I am now cast as being fearful of Guyana as a result of my views on a Afro-Guyanese’s philandering ways. I made my anti-hero comments in opposition to BU’s view of a sports personality as a Icon that we can also take ques from in other areas of life namely marriage and relationships. I would done no less and indeed hold the same views on Rihanna, Politicians, and all sports and entertainment Icons in North America and elsewhere. The very plain fact that i framed my comments as West Indian, is totally ignored by you. I am not even going to suggest that this is indicative of anything, particularly the chasms that may exist between your perceptions of and the reality that Guyana is today. No i will not. 😀

    Like

  • Bimbro // May 21, 2008 at 11:47 am

    Adrian, while we’re on the subject of best practice, although not in marriage this time, can u offer some perception into the Barbadian psyche?

    =================================

    ha ha ha ha Bimbro, the things you experience do make me laugh. 😀 I cannot say that this particular exchange is the result of the Bajan psyche, however i am willing to accept that it may be the result of our willingness to be procedurial without been rational. This is not a Bajan thing, this occurs alot in India where workers are very smart and process driven but are not known for thinking out side the box. To think, do, lead and follow, at any given time, is very difficult for most humans. We tend to find a comfort zone and stick to it.

    Like

  • Oh God, Adrian. Is that the reason? Then Bajan workers must be very, comfortable, so I don’t expect to hear of any strikes!!!!

    Additionally, it might help to explain why not only does the receptionist ask you what it’s about you then have to explain again, to the person you’re really, calling when you finally, get put through!!!!

    Guess how much business I plan to do with Bim, then!! That’s right Adrian, not much at all!!!!

    But as I said, Bajans know it all aready, so doan mine me, I is only an iggrunt Britisher!!!

    Laaadddddddddddddddddddd!!!!

    Like

  • How any woman stays with a man that disrepects her like that I don’t know. But it’s their business, not ours.

    Like

  • Cynty // May 21, 2008 at 12:54 pm

    How any woman stays with a man that disrepects her like that I don’t know. But it’s their business, not ours.
    =================================
    This is very common among that generation of West Indians. It was very common in Barbados, and may still be, this is one of the reason that Henry Forde, i think it was, ..brought legislation to acknowledge a woman’s common law status. I don’t know when England would have enacted such legislation, but it may very well be another example of someone taking their understanding of life in their home country and just assuming the same to be the case in another. At any rate she clearly stated that her approach (suffering) was informed by her Mother. Procedural not rational? you bet!

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    The article in the Mail details several incidents of infidelity by Clive Lloyd etc. His wife is a saint no doubt.

    The article in the Mail details Mrs LLoyd’s side of the story, whether accurately so or not. The article, however, does not detail Mr Lloyd’s side of the story.

    How can we adjudicate without all the facts.

    We are getting on here as if women dont do the verey same thing to men.

    The Scripture details that “The heart is decietful and desperately wicked, who can know it?”

    This is the heart of the issue – the deceitfulness of sin. Why are we judging Lloyd?

    I say let him that is without sin cast the first stone.

    Both men horning women and women horning men. Its been going on for time immemorial. God will be the judge.

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    This thread started today and already has more responses than the more important one on the conditions of our hospital, or the one from the BLP blog on the ineptitude of the Minister of Health.

    We are more interested in gossip than real issues.

    Like

  • CANT you see that it is one and the same woman

    if there are two women one might be clone of the other

    as far as i can see -it is the same woman in both pictures

    Like

  • ok i now see why west indies cricket in trouble
    lloydie batting on too many wickets
    playing too many balls off the hip to slips or deep deep deep in fine leg

    Like

  • The Devils Advocate

    Both men horning women and women horning men. Its been going on for time immemorial. God will be the judge.
    ————————————————
    Why is it that this statement is always bandied around in these situations? Is it as simplistic as that?…….. a man has a right to horn women because ‘dem women does do it too’?. What does that have to do with THIS situation. We are discussing Sir Clive Lloyd. Is there some proof that his wife was horning him? That she withheld sex or ‘turn down de pot’ at thirty. We all know that for some men the wife could still be ‘percolating’ and the husband will still stray. The wife could be a super model and a goddess in the bedroom and he will horn her with a woman 300 lbs and toothless (some perverts like toothless). There is no figuring out peoples tastes. Why do we always assume that something had to be wrong at home. Some men (and some women) just greedy…..nuh matter how sweet de meat home is……..wild meat always seems to be more tasty. Some wild meat is into things that the wife is not interested in doing (wife swapping, threesomes, bestiality etc). I know of a man who horned his wife because he wanted to try ‘trunking’ and she was not willing, so he found someone that was. It is basically a taste for ‘extras’. Do you agree?

    Like

  • Until we hear Clive Lloyd’s side of the story we cannot make a judgment that he did something wrong. If he did cheat on his wife, then many Barbadian males cannot throw stones at him as this is an art in Barbados. Just one small reminder would be our former Prime Minister who was not ridiculed when he held that high office. He even had children outside his marriage

    Like

  • GP the article said that Clive LLoyd was reached for comment on his wife’s statement and none was given. I feel comfortable with my opinions, base on what we know, the cultural context to it, and the unwilligness of individual members of a group to apply rationality to certain behaviours attributed to the group.

    ….Stoning IS (um still is practice in muslim countries) … always intended to cause death as the punishment. “ajudication” as you termed my opinion, aportions guilt only, and does not lead to any punishment let alone death, and while i will never agree that one must be free and clear of any and all foibles in order to judge the actions of someone else, I have not cheated on my wife once let alone the multiples of times and the openess with Clive Lloyd is clearly guilty of.

    …..As if you did not know I Adrian Hinds will discuss whatever topic, whenever I feel too. I will not practice your group think, that seems to suggest, there be a hiearchy of importance to topics we can discuss, or that we cannot dicuss mutiple topics as the same, or that we may been dicussing this the QEH long before you have had access to a computer, and group of bajans online.

    http://www.barbadosforum.com/index.php?showtopic=1029

    Like

  • The Devils Advocate // May 21, 2008 at 3:45 pm

    Both men horning women and women horning men. Its been going on for time immemorial. God will be the judge.
    ————————————————
    Why is it that this statement is always bandied around in these situations? Is it as simplistic as that?…….. a man has a right to horn women because ‘dem women does do it too’?.

    =================================
    Devils Advocate, do you see any difference between this opinon and the one contian in the Nation Editorial that BU wrote about and that is titled “STOP BEATING UP ON THE HOSPITAL”?

    Both opinions agree that we shouldn’t voice our disapproval because either others are doing it or are others are worst. This approach to looking at problems seem to be a Bajan national passtime.

    Like

  • The Devils Advocate

    Both opinions agree that we shouldn’t voice our disapproval because either others are doing it or are others are worst. This approach to looking at problems seem to be a Bajan national passtime.
    ———————————————————-
    I completely agree. It is time for people to own up when they have done something wrong and face the music. We have put the label ‘culture’ on this village ram mentality but whose ‘culture’ is it? Are we going to accept wholesale negative aspects of historical practices and promote them under the heading of culture? I read the article and it seemed like the normal scenario for couples of that time where appearances were more important than the relationship itself. (also a culture) It is significant (and telling) that Sir Clive is not contesting the divorce. Most women of his wife’s age would have a similar story to tell because that is the way they were socialised…..not to question your husband no matter how damning the situation. None of us can know the truth…… or judge.

    Like

  • Fairplay // May 21, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Until WE hear Clive Lloyd’s side of the story we cannot make a judgment that he did something wrong.
    =================================

    WE ,fairplay? WE? Left me out uh your ROYAL WE. Clive Lloyd had his chance to air his side of the story, and chose not to refute his wife statements, or to add anything that would cast some of the blame for the failed marriage to her. He very clearly did not do someting RIGHT on several occasions. Where is it not wrong to show up at important functions, in public, with your girlfriend, and not your wife? Is that not something that can be concidered wrong? Sorry de press rolled and I have opinionated.

    Like

  • Whistling Duck

    Both Barbados WordPress and Barbados Freepress have degenerated into something like tabloid exposes. Please have discussions about what really matters to the country and not dish up all this filth.

    Like

  • The Devils Advocate

    Both Barbados WordPress and Barbados Freepress have degenerated into something like tabloid exposes. Please have discussions about what really matters to the country and not dish up all this filth.
    ————————————————————
    Commenting on the extra marital affair of a man who has been held up as a ‘role model’ in our society constitues ‘filth’????

    Like

  • Man Devils Advocate (apologies if you are a woman):D whistling Duck label and comments says it all fortunately for me I am not affected by smell via this medium.

    They start their post with the name “DUCK” and ends it with the word “FILTH” have you ever kept duck s your back yard or have ever been to a house that did? 😀 be carefull where you step. 😀 …..But W Duck if you can find time between your expositions of what constitutes filth to tell us and probably lead a discussion on those things that you deem to be of importance please do.

    Like

  • More useless filth from BU.

    Like

  • All I have to say is hat Jamican that he is dating did obeah on him so that he can be with her. Why wouldClive Lloyd do this to his lovely Guyanese wife sure beats me. I hope his lovely Guyanese wife gets all the money and leave him hig and dry with that Lady Lord Mayor of Londontown, then we will see if she will still have him. He shamed himself. Mr. Duck you eys past us, here you are calling Clive Lloyd filth…look he is the best cricket player that the world has ever known and as such Guyana Stadium should be re-named Clive Lloyd Guyana Stadium….We know what Jamaicans give and I am sure Clive was lured by that Jamaican mistress though trickery, so men must beware of Jamaicans..see what happened to a great man. Bye Oh goodness my favourite show on on NCN Guyana TV . Have to stop wrting .Bye

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    Adrian

    First of all, I was not responding to your post per se. Like you, I was stating my opinion.

    As far as I am concerned, Clive Lloyd was a good cricketer. I dont see that the details of his marital breakdown- regardless to his at fault- is so relevant to me; though it may be relevant to you and others. We do like our gossip. Dont we? That is the hallmark of our society.

    So Clive Lloyd is a sinner; an adulterer. And so are many others. There are many who have not actually been unfaithful to thier spouses. But they have thought of it, wished they could or wanted to. Jesus says that those are just as guilty as if they had. He also said as I quoted in a similar context in John chapter 8 “He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”

    You dont have to agree with me, but I like his words. He also said in John 7:24 Judge righteous judgement and not by the apearances. You can not judge without all the facts.

    And I dont see why Clive Lloyd has to talk to the tabloids or tell us his side of the story– it is his busyness.

    Which of us has always been right? We are all sinners. Like it or not!

    Like

  • leaves peoples’ private life along!

    Like

  • Jukecheckedeyskirt

    Adrian Hinds…..Very articulately stated and accurate in your analysis. A good goose is not necessarily a tasty goose because what makes him succulent is not his goodness but how tender he is at the cooking. At the end of the day no one is interested in how good the goose is but how it taste.

    Clive Lloyd’s acheivements speaks for themselves but that has nothing to do with his moral standing to decency and what is right.

    Owen Arthur is the first Prime Minister to have a historic three terms in office but the impressions he have left in the mouths of many moral Barbadians is quite a bitter taste to swallow. Does that means that he is an icon and role model to follow. CLive Lloyd is flesh and all flesh is subject to sin and acts of ruthlessness. Popularity, goodness, historic acheivements, or wealth is not equal to morality, ethics or good standing because all flesh is susceptible to ruthlessness. Most of the time we all pretend to be what we are not and in the public eye we are very good at putting on mask showing the actors quality all of us possess.

    Like

  • I am with you GP.

    I personally feel that this should have remained private business. I see his declining to rebut publicly as a plus for him…
    ..unfortunately that leaves a one-sided story.

    I am so happy to see that so many of us qualify to cast the first stone… no wonder this is such a righteous place… 😉

    No outsider knows what goes on in a marriage – sometimes not even others in the same household.

    … and judging from the outside is always risky and speculative….maybe we should just pray for them all….

    How does this shame the Caribbean David? …that LLoyd is only human and not perfect?

    … I was not aware that he took an oath to be Mr. perfect any more so than any other of us… now if he was a priest, or teacher….or if he ran a blog….

    Like

  • If it is shaming of the Caribbean to have an outside woman, one must start with Owen S Arthur. Not because he was the first to have multiple women, but because as a national leader he should be expected to set the example.

    Let us not forget though that many wives tolerate their husband having an outside woman because it relieves them of marital duties. Also we cannot forget that many young women are happy to have a sugar daddy (or two or three) who is married. They should not complain when in 15 years they are the ones wondering where their husbands are.

    comes around, goes around!

    Like

  • Good God, they were married for 37 years……a very good “run” and better than most. People change and what once attracted them to each other also changes. We can’t possibly know the ins and outs of anyone’s marriage. Based on their current ages, they married very young. Peoples dreams and goals and desires change in 37 years.
    How do we know that the wife didn’t love all the fame and money that her husband provided her with but lost sight of the MAN himself and the love that he needed?

    Like

  • Absolutely none of my business. Dont know hy you think it is yours David?

    Like

  • GP you response is more of the same as your first. My opinion of Clive Lloyd’s actions as told by his wife and which he did not refute cannot be akin to “casting a stone” in the context that Jesus of Nazareth made the famous statement “Ye without sin cast the first stone” The story as told in the New Testament, first tells of an incident that preceeded this utterence from Jesus. People were actually assemble to pelt, throw, indeed cast stones at someone for some transgression. Nothing that i have done can be simlar in deed to this very real action. All i did was judge Clive Lloyd’s actions. Now if you had invoke the other blibical statement “Judge not less ye be also judge” i would concede some merit to it’s use in defining my responses to this thread. But atlast it would not be enough to stop me from so doing, since to my mind the statement sets a condition under which I can judge others. Judge not LESS YE BE JUDGED ALSO, clearly gives one the license to judge others as long as they themselves do not mind being judged. I do not mind being judged by others, so i will judge Clive Lloyd. 😀

    Like

  • Bush tea // May 21, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    I am with you GP.

    I personally feel that this should have remained private business. I see his declining to rebut publicly as a plus for him…
    ..unfortunately that leaves a one-sided story.

    I am so happy to see that so many of us qualify to cast the first stone… no wonder this is such a righteous place…

    No outsider knows what goes on in a marriage – sometimes not even others in the same household.
    =================================

    Two people where in this marriage, one decided to talk. It is no longer private, and it is not gossip becuase it is now public.

    In your BU published treatise ”
    Responding To The Challenges Of Expensive Energy” you ended with a vague hint at the way forward which led to ask for more detials as it suggested to me that you where a practising Christian. Your response to that request was equally as vague. Be that as it may. Your response and that of GP are similar to the response non-christians often throw out to Christians for judging the actions of others.

    Read the following and tell me what you think….

    “”Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

    This is another counterfeiting of the Scriptures many have tried to use to shame us for what we do in his name. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is not speaking judging. Let me explain.

    Using the KJV this time, in John 8:1 – 11 scribes and Pharisees had caught a woman in the act of adultery (the woman commonly referred to as the prostitute) and told Jesus who was teaching in the temple that the Mosaic Law required she be stoned to death. Trying to make an opportunity of this to trick Jesus that they might accuse Him, they, with stones in hand, asked Jesus what He says about the Law. After Jesus tried to ignore their repeated questioning, He told them “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” One by one each man dropped his stone and walked away.

    Jesus was not arguing with the judgment. Nor was Jesus arguing the law nor the woman’s guilt. Jesus was arguing with our right to execute the woman. Once all the men had dropped their stones Jesus confronted the woman and asked her if any of the men were still there to condemn her. When she answered “No man, Lord”, Jesus told her that neither did He – He forgave her of her sin. He did not excuse the sin of adultery/prostitution, he forgave her of it. All that is sinful before forgiveness is still sinful after forgiveness. Not only was Jesus not afraid to call a sin a sin, He was not afraid to call a sinner a sinner. He even reminded her of the sin of adultery/prostitution by telling her “Go and sin no more.”

    The point of this as applicable to this article? Jesus did not argue the act of judging the chosen behavior of the adulteress/prostitute.

    =================================
    Matt. 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”

    This is the verse so many use to try to shame Christians for discerning poor behavior, ethics, morals, and values: the “judge not lest ye be judged” verse. So many times people, mostly teens have emailed us saying “judge not lest you be judged” regarding our analysis reports which reveal to their parents the content of movies. Using only Matt 7:1 is entirely incomplete. This verse is not speaking to not judging at all — it is speaking to not judging unfair or any other cheap and selfish way. Read the rest of the story …

    Matt 7:2-5 “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged [if we judge with an evil heart or dark intent, His judgment of us will reflect it; if we judge nobly and honestly, His judgment of us will reflect that, too], and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you [if we use extremes or exaggerations or other unfair means, our judgment will reflect it]. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye [point out his sins, “minor” in Jesus’ example here] and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye [our own sins, even and especially those we will not admit, magnified by our selective blindness]? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ [tell him of his “minor” sins] when all the time there is a plank in your own eye [that there are greater or the same sins in our own lives which we do nothing about or think we are above]? You hypocrite* [pointing out the sins of others while by pretense we think of ourselves as above sin], first take the plank out of your own eye [sincerely ask the Lord for forgiveness and learn and live the Truth and Light by His Word], and then you will see clearly [be in a righteous position] to remove the speck from your brother’s eye [to judge and to help him out of his bondage to sin].” At Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan, Jesus was talking to the multitudes gathered there after hearing of His message and of His healings to beseech them to not become like the pharisees and hypocrites who think they are above sin.

    Like

  • The idea of role model is founded in a concept of aspiring to be like another person who has achieved lofty performances. It is a natural human condition to be like another person who has achieve ‘star’ status. People like Lloyd who are candidates for such expectation has an obligation to respond.

    Like

  • David: You are over reaching yourself. You are just a humble little Caribbean blog. LLoyd has no obligation to respond to you and only had his own conscience to deal with. Quite with the pompsettin do.

    Like

  • I have not cheated on my wife once let alone the multiples of times and the openess with Clive Lloyd is clearly guilty of.

    **************************

    Adrian, I think you’re fortunate to have an extremely, sexy wife! Not all of your brothers are also, so blessed!

    I’m, personally, very lucky! 🙂

    **********************

    MISS Guyana, are you that pretty, yourself, really, or just borrowing the title?

    *************************

    I do not mind being judged by others, so i will judge Clive Lloyd.

    ******************************

    Well said again, Adrian. Those reluctant or unwilling to judge are usually, those with most to be ashamed of! We’ll continue to be proud of who and what we are!

    Adrian, you know I in Barbadian, so what does pompasettin mean! Dat’s a new one to me!!!

    Like

  • We are big believers in the BU household that when things happen whether at the level of the family unit or government or wherever we all should learn from it. It is the reason we highlighted the importance of marriage and family in the piece, we also touched on infidelity. Instead some people continue to focus on whether it is our business. The fact is this story is all over the English media but as usual we are expected to ignore it? Why should we? Clive Lloyd is a public figure and whether he or anyone agrees many of our people admired him not only as a great cricketer but as a successful individual to aspire.

    Barbadians must understand we cannot continue to compartmentalize how we learn from what is happening around us.

    Like

  • many of our people admired him not only as a great cricketer but as a successful individual to aspire.

    ********************

    Apart from knocking a cricket ball around a field successfully, once or twice, please tell me what qualifies him as ‘a successful individual’! Even I mangaed to do that once or twice, when I was at school! Am I also, accordingly, great!

    It would be comforting to know that I was!

    Like

  • The Devils Advocate

    The details of the breakdown of the relationship are not our business. I do believe though that when society affixes the term ‘role model’ to a person they have a responsibility to society. If it was Rhianna would we be saying that her private life has nothing to do with her ‘role model’ status? Children do not separate what you say from what you do and if you get the perks from being raised up by a society then you have a responsibility to continue to earn the respect of the nation and to set a standard for others to follow. Or is it only female role models who are judged by who or how many they sleep with?
    What advice would Sir Clive give to the current young WI cricketers if they ask his advice on how they should conduct themselves? Why do we as a society turn a blind eye to immoral behavior as long as a man is talented in some way. No matter what his talent a man’s major talent should be truth and integrity. We cannot compartmentalise. Remember R. Kelly?

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    Jesus was not arguing with the judgment. Nor was Jesus arguing the law nor the woman’s guilt. Jesus was arguing with THEIR right to execute the woman. Once all the men had dropped their stones Jesus confronted the woman and asked her if any of the men were still there to condemn her. When she answered “No man, Lord”, Jesus told her that neither did He – He forgave her of her sin. He did not excuse the sin of adultery/prostitution, he forgave her of it. All that is sinful before forgiveness is still sinful after forgiveness. Not only was Jesus not afraid to call a sin a sin, He was not afraid to call a sinner a sinner. He even reminded her of the sin of adultery/prostitution by telling her “Go and sin no more.”
    The point of this as applicable to this article? Jesus did not argue the act of judging the chosen behavior of the adulteress/prostitute.
    ================================

    First Adrian. I am indeed a Christian, and I do know how to rightly divide the word of truth. Also I am not seeking to defend Clive Lloyd at all.

    It certainly is of great interest that the woman in John 8:1 – 11 who was caught in adultery was committing adultery by herself! After all her partner was not brought for judgement.

    It certainly is of great interest too, that that the law also required that the other party to the adultery be condemned as well.

    The interpretation of John 8:1 – 11 must be taken in the context of the purpose of the writing of John’s Gospel, which is to prove that Jesus is/was God.

    This passage is essentially teaching that ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE SIN AND CONDEMN SINNERS.

    John’s gospel teaches in chapter 5 that God the Father has given all judgement to the Son. Jesus could set the woman free because, only he had the right to do so. His chosing not to condemn the woman relates to the concept that who the Son sets free is free indeed chapter 8 vs 32 and the declaration of Paul in Romans 8 that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

    Also note that Jesus said let him that is without SIN (and not sins). In other words let him that is without the sin nature- let him cast the first stone. Sinners commit sin because they have the sin nature (discussed at length in Romans 6 & 7). They sin because they are born in sin and shaped in iniquity as taught in the Psalms.

    The point of my quoting Jesus in John 8 was not to defend Lloyd but to challenge his detractors who are judging to remember that they also have SIN- they have the SIN NATURE TOO! THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN LLOYD. THEY ALSO SIN. EVEN IF IN OTHER WAYS, FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.

    Adrian you then quote Matt. 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” And copy and paste some article from somewhere to indicate your omniscience. But I quoted John 7:24 which says JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT AND NOT BY THE APPEARANCE.

    However, it is noteworthy that your source and I are in total agreement. In fact the exposition you quoted on Matt. 7:1 admonishes all those who have criticized Lloyd on this thread that they are not qualified to judge. {Of course I know that we all are prone to judge)

    You copied ……

    For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged [if we judge with an evil heart or dark intent, His judgment of us will reflect it; if we judge nobly and honestly, His judgment of us will reflect that, too], and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you [if we use extremes or exaggerations or other unfair means, our judgment will reflect it].

    Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye [point out his sins, “minor” in Jesus’ example here] and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye [our own sins, even and especially those we will not admit, magnified by our selective blindness]? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ [tell him of his “minor” sins] when all the time there is a plank in your own eye [that there are greater or the same sins in our own lives which we do nothing about or think we are above]? You hypocrite* [pointing out the sins of others while by pretense we think of ourselves as above sin], first take the plank out of your own eye [sincerely ask the Lord for forgiveness and learn and live the Truth and Light by His Word], and then you will see clearly [be in a righteous position] to remove the speck from your brother’s eye [to judge and to help him out of his bondage to sin].” At Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan, Jesus was talking to the multitudes gathered there after hearing of His message and of His healings to beseech them to not become like the pharisees and hypocrites who think they are above sin.

    I thank you for making my point so eruditely.

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    David

    I agree with you and your household that we must all learn from events around us.

    Perhaps you sought to highlight the importance of marriage and the evils of infidelity.

    The importance of marriage and the evils of infidelity should certainly be our business, but that was not the lesson being taught or learned.

    The focus seemed to go off that lesson to the “shaming” or disgrace or fall of Clive Lloyd. The failure of every marriage is a tragedy- not only that of a perceived icon or “role model”

    The failure of every marriage is a tragedy, because God ordained that the basic unit of a nation is the family, i.e a man married to a woman with their offspring. It is to be Adam & Eve- NOT ADAM & STEVE!

    Our attitude to the breakdown of the Lloyd marriage is to pray for God’s intervention in lives. To pray that God might change Clive’s direction so that he might not fail again. That he might help his children and ex wife to depend on HIM not their fallen or failing father, because GOD DOES NOT FAIL.

    When I watch evil on the news, I thank God that he saved my soul, and has delivered me from such, and thank him that one day soon he will come to deliver me from the very presence of sin. I beg him daily to forgive me for my sins, and beg him to keep my sons from sin. I believe that this ought to be the attitude.

    I remain unmoved- Let him that is without sin (sin nature in the Greek) let him cast the first stone.

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie, have you considered writing a book on this subject?

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    On which subject Bimbro? And who would buy it?

    Like

  • GP you and the source for those quotes are not in agreement. That source pretty much agrees with judging people, as does the quotes. You do not, and continue to claim that only God can judge.
    That there are consequences for judging the action of others and that these consequences can be good or can be bad, and that these two outcomes are contingent on your attitude, frame of mind, and even tone when so doing, DOES NOT PROHIBIT JUDGING. We can beg God all we want, but often times we must be the Lords work here on this Earth. If Clive Lloyd does not have a relationship with God what are the chances that your prays to Have God speak directly to him, simply becuase you don’t want to judge, ..will be heard and acted upon? It may very well happen thru one of Gods other and dare i say productive workers who is not afraid or does not have a warp understanding of judging wrong doing,.. to actually bring Gods word to Clive, there by giving him a real chance to reverse course and do the right thing. Blibical teachings are not that difficult to understand, and i am well aware of the need for some to envelop them in needless complexity.

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    Adrian

    I know you think you are omniscient and that you think you can interpret the word to suit your own need to judge others.

    But what is this man saying and what dose this text teach?

    Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye [point out his sins, “minor” in Jesus’ example here] and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye [our own sins, even and especially those we will not admit, magnified by our selective blindness]? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ [tell him of his “minor” sins] when all the time there is a plank in your own eye [that there are greater or the same sins in our own lives which we do nothing about or think we are above]? You hypocrite* [pointing out the sins of others while by pretense we think of ourselves as above sin], first take the plank out of your own eye [sincerely ask the Lord for forgiveness and learn and live the Truth and Light by His Word], and then you will see clearly [be in a righteous position] to remove the speck from your brother’s eye [to judge and to help him out of his bondage to sin].” At Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan, Jesus was talking to the multitudes gathered there after hearing of His message and of His healings to beseech them to not become like the pharisees and hypocrites who think they are above sin.

    Here I am judging Lloyd for womanizing, because I dont womanize (sawdust in my eye ). But I am guilty of more gross sins (the plank in my own eye) .

    I always laugh when folk who have not studied the Word think they are experts at dividing it.

    Not everyone think they are an expert on this that or the other, but everyone is an expert at interpreting the Word.

    Adrian, if you feel you have the right to judge, then judge, but dont get your knickers in a twist trying to prove that you know or have studied the Word consistently for anytime, because it is obvious that you have not.

    You have been found wanting already in being able to examine two texts within thier immediate contexts, and thier general context.

    Take your Strong’s concordance, if you have one, or ever heard of one, and follow the different words used to translate “judge” in both the Hebrew and the Greek and come back and tell me about what the Bible teaches about judging.

    That is not what you call needless complexity, that is what serious Bible scholars do.

    And thanks for helping me to carry the discussion on this thread to a higher plain, while you judge on as you wish to do!

    Like

  • This marital problem Clive Lloyd has with his wife and the other woman is nobody’s business. He is a private citizen and has no obligation to respond to anyone. BU why are you trying to make this an issue? My advice to you is leave it alone.

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie communication is a beautiful thing. What you will find is that BU will often deliver a message through the back door. We are not disposed to using the traditional delivery which is often ignored.

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    Point taken David. You are bowling back of the arm stuff. Well it seems they needed you at Sabina Park today to bowl a few googlies to Ponting.

    Like

  • Actually GP all we need is someone to bowl it fast and straight!

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    ………AND REGULARLY! LOL

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie // May 22, 2008 at 3:40 pm

    On which subject Bimbro? And who would buy it?

    *****************************

    Good question, George! I in sayin nuh no!!

    Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂

    Like

  • ‘nuh mo’! 🙂

    Like

  • Tony Hall // May 22, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    This marital problem Clive Lloyd has with his wife and the other woman is nobody’s business. He is a private citizen and has no obligation to respond to anyone. BU why are you trying to make this an issue? My advice to you is leave it alone.
    =================================

    Tony if you are late to the debate, please understand that this relationship became public knowledge when of it’s members decided to talk. This give me a license to talk about it, and talk i will.

    Like

  • 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.

    Like

  • 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.

    Like

  • • 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.

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    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

    Like

  • 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? 😀

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    BTW from whom did Moses get his laws?

    Adrian even you know the answer to that one. LOL

    Like

  • 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.

    Like

  • 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.

    Like

  • 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

    Like

  • 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!!!! 🙂

    see our last comment to GP

    David

    Like

  • 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.

    Like

  • 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

    Like

  • 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

    ‘foster an appreciation of the role of cricket in West Indian society (extracted from the programme)

    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!

    Like

  • 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!!!! 🙂

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    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!

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    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.

    Like

  • GP we can share that we quite enjoy the dissenting comments from the BU commenters 🙂

    Like

  • But David, my views ent dissenting! I only want for us to observe good manners, dah is all!!!! 🙂

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    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).

    God clearly explains the origin of the human race in Genesis 2:7, “And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being” The New Testament repeats this account by saying, “The first man Adam became a living being. . . the first man was of the dust of the earth” (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47).

    Then the Bible says, that among each of the creatures, no suitable helper for Adam was found. So the Lord said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18). It was God Himself who knew that Adam needed someone to be with him. God knew that Adam needed someone with whom he could talk and have fellowship. Adam needed someone whom he could love. This is the way that God created such a helper for Adam. NOTE THAT IT WAS GOD WHO INSTITUTED MARRIAGE- NOT MAN. HENCE MAN CANT CHANGE THE RULES AS HE SEEMS TO WANT TO TODAY.

    So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:21-23).

    Adam and Eve together were given a work to do for God,
    God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28).

    The work which God gave them to do had two parts; to bear children and to rule over the creatures of the earth. Adam alone could not have carried out this God-given work. He needed a helper. So God Himself planned and brought into being the first marriage. NOTE THE MARRIAGE PLAN WAS FOR MAN & WOMMAN NOT MAN & MAN OR WOMAN & WOMAN. This is irregardless to what modern man or the California courts think!

    The Bible does not often speak about marriage. But there is one statement that is made four different times throughout the Bible. The verse is, “for this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

    Those same words are found in Genesis 2:24 at the time of creation. Jesus quoted the words when He was asked about divorce in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7. Finally, Paul said the same words in Ephesians 5:31 when he used the married life to illustrate the relationship between Christ and His church. The words in those verses explain God’s plan of marriage.

    The verse has three parts. Each one of the parts is necessary (essential) to marriage. The three parts are:
    – Leaving
    – Uniting
    – Becoming one flesh

    Let us discuss these one after another.

    Leaving
    when “leave” is applied to (discussed in connection with) marriage, the word has a very deep meaning. what is meant is that both the bride and the groom leave (forsake) their former life and commit themselves to one another.

    The public announcement that such a commitment is taking place occurs (happens) at the wedding ceremony. Whatever the method, or whatever the social custom, there must be a time when in some way they announce publicly that they are now husband and wife.

    Leaving the old life is the price of happiness and entrance into a new life. Just as an infant cannot grow unless the umbilical cord is cut, similarly a marriage cannot grow unless there is an inward leaving of the old life and a new family unit established. The new couple has a different relationship now. They are no longer just children of their parents.

    Before the marriage the woman and man were under the authority of their parents. At marriage this changes. The wife leaves her parents’ home. She comes to live with her husband and he becomes her new authority. Now the wife’s loyalty and devotion is to her husband. The husband must return loyalty and respect to his wife. The husband is no longer under the authority of his parents, rather he is the one in charge of his new family unit. He has the authority over his wife and children and he is responsible to see that their emotional, physical, spiritual and economic needs are cared for.

    This leaving is not some modern idea. It is not just a Western idea. It is not some silly romantic idea such as is seen in the movies or novels. No, this is Bible teaching. It was given at the time of creation. It was repeated as the teaching for people living in the Middle East in the times of Jesus and Paul. It is God’s plan for all peoples in all places at all times. What is the purpose of the “leaving?” The husband and wife both are to leave their father and mother in order that they may unite with each other.

    Uniting with each other
    The second word used in the Bible verses to explain marriage is “unite.” It means adhere (stick to). The situation can be explained by gluing two pieces of paper together. The glue binds the paper together. The two pieces become one. It is impossible to pull the pieces of paper apart without tearing and hurting both pieces. This is a picture of the way marriage ought to be. The husband and wife ought to be closer to each other than to any other person in the world. they are closer to each other than they are to their parents, to brothers and sisters, to school friends.

    Besides being closer to each other than to any other person, they are closer to each other than to any other thing. His wife must be more important to the husband than his job, his friends, his education, yes, even than his busy service for the Lord. Her husband must be more important to the wife than her housework, any job she might have outside the home, yes, even than her children. Sometimes it happens that after the baby is born, the wife makes a big mistake. She devoted all her time (immerses herself) to the baby. She forgets about her husband and his wishes. The baby becomes the whole center of her life and the husband is outside. When that happens the marriage becomes unhappy. Sometimes the husband even turns to other women for fellowship and comfort.

    It is not required that the husband and wife always think alike, speak alike, act alike (do the exact same thing). In fact, if husband and wife are exactly alike, one of them is not necessary! Each partner will have his own ideas and way of doing things, but these are to be blended together. Each one is to complement (be a help, be a support) to the other one.

    Think of a very fine meal that you have eaten. To prepare the meal, many different foods and spices were used. Some of the spices were sweet, some pungent (hot, sharp); some ingredients salty, some sour. . When the food and the spice are blended correctly, there is not on flavor standing out by itself. No, rather, mixed together, there is a delicious flavor. The blending of husband and wife into one can be compared to that.

    The blending of husband and wife together is one of the most difficult parts of marriage. Each person who has ever been born wants his own way. Each person believes his ideas, his ways are the best. To bring this blend of two people together takes hard work. Both husband and wife need to learn to allow the other one to have his own opinion on a subject. But while having an individual opinion they must think constantly of the partner’s thinking about the matter. Learn to be sensitive (understanding) of the other person’s feelings. Learn to ask, “What does my partner want in this matter?” Learn to laugh together, cry together, express fear or loneliness together. Comfort each other when one is sad. Find their greatest companionship in one another.

    The husband and wife who unite together share their lives with one another. They talk together. They discuss their problems and help each other find solutions. They worship God together. They work and play, they laugh and cry together. This then leads to the third part of the Bible verse.
    Becoming one flesh
    These words describe the physical part of marriage. Just as the leaving and the uniting is part of God’s plan for marriage, so is the physical union between husband and wife.

    Some people feel embarrassed to talk about the physical side of marriage. They feel it is unholy, indecent, something that has nothing to do with God. These feelings of embarrassment are found all over the world. Because of embarrassment, parents find it difficult to give any proper education about sexual matters to their children. Nowhere does the Bible teach that union between husband and wife is wrong or impure. Rather the Bible says, “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure” (Hebrews 13:4). Since this is what God says about marriage it is quite right to discuss this matter.

    God Himself designed the sexual relationship. There are two reasons for this relationship:
    a) So that husband and wife may physically enjoy each other. God intends that husbands and wives enjoy the physical pleasure of sex ( Proverbs 5:15-19). Song of Solomon uses many “love” words (such as “beloved”) to show mutual enjoyment of the physical relationship by both bride and groom. In 1 Corinthians 7:5 the use of the word “deprive” indicates that the relationship was mutually enjoyed by husband and wife. Both willingly deprived themselves for a period of time, in order to pray. It is important to realize that the sexual relationship was not designed only for the husband’s pleasure. The relationship was designed for the pleasure of both husband and wife. 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 shows us that the bodies of husband and wife belong to each other. The husband must treat his wife as an equal in this relationship. She is not a slave. She is not a purchased possession.

    Since the wife’s body also belongs to her husband, she ought not to withhold herself (deny him) the physical relationship. She ought not to use the physical relationship in order to get gifts or special favors from her husband. Rather, she should want to love and please her husband. In doing this she will have pleasure also.

    The husband must treat his wife’s body with respect. He is not to take pleasure from her. he is to give pleasure to her. The wife is not to take pleasure from her husband. She is to give pleasure to him Thus both will find mutual pleasure in each other.

    Sometimes husbands and wives have problems concerning the physical relationship. When problems arise it is good to try to talk gently and lovingly to one another about this. Each partner should tell what is pleasing and what is displeasing to him. Both husband and wife should try to speak honestly about their relationship. But they should talk with each other. This is a very private part of life. It ought not to be discussed lightly here and there with friends and relatives. If there are serious problems which cannot be solved between the husband and wife, then they should seek some reliable person who can help and give good advice.

    b) The second reason why God designed the sexual relationship is to produce children. In Genesis 1:28, God said, “Be fruitful and increase in number.” God repeated this command after Noah and his family came out from the boat which gave them safety from the flood. God said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1).

    For most married couples their greatest joy is having children. Yet, there are some couples who refuse to have children in order that they may have more freedom, more convenience, or more money.

    At the other extreme there are those couples who continue to have more and more children without considering whether or not they can care for them properly.

    Psalm 127:3-5 tells us that children are a heritage (inheritance) from the Lord. Certainly well cared for, loved, well disciplined children bring much joy to a family. but children take a great deal of love and attention. Parents must take the responsibility for their total care for many years. It is important for husbands and wives to pray about this matter and then decide how many children they can care for.

    Do you still remember the verse concerning marriage which is given four times in the Bible? “For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Now, read the verse one more time. How does it end? What is the last thing in that verse? It comes right at the end of becoming one flesh. The answer is a full stop. That full stop gives an important teaching. Four times in the Bible the same verse is quoted to teach about marriage, yet not once is there a word about children. Please do not misunderstand. children are a blessing from God. Those who have someone to call them “Ma” or “Baba” are most fortunate, but children are an additional blessing to the marriage. When God created Adam and Eve, He blessed them first. Then He gave the command, “Be fruitful and increase in number” (Genesis 1:28).

    When God states the parts that are essential to a marriage, children are not mentioned. Leaving, uniting, and becoming one flesh are sufficient. Even if there are no children, the physical union is not meaningless. The full stop shows that a child does not make marriage a marriage. That full stop shows that a childless marriage is no reason for divorce. No man can say, “This woman has not given me children; I will send her away.” Even if there are no children, that is no reason to tear apart the marriage.

    We have studied the three parts of the Bible verse concerning marriage;
    – Leaving
    – Uniting
    – Becoming one flesh
    These three cannot be separated one from another. If one part is missing, the marriage will not be strong.

    Like

  • 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?

    Like

  • anonymous coward

    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.

    Like

  • anonymous coward, ‘The Times’, is a tabloid!

    And why r u such a coward!

    Like

  • anonymous coward which tabloid can you visit and read the text of a sermon scribed by a qualified person of the faith?

    🙂

    Like

  • U tell e, David!

    Laadddddddddddddddddddd!!!! 🙂

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    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.

    Like

  • 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!

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    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.

    Like

  • 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! 🙂

    Like

  • anonymous coward

    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?

    Like

  • anonymous coward reprised

    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?

    Like

  • 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.

    Like

  • 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.

    Like

  • 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?

    Like

  • How many runs did Waveny Lloyd score in her career. What’s her batting average.

    Like

  • 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!!!! 🙂

    Like

  • Noreen O Leary

    Click on these links for more on the mistress Bertha Joseph

    http://www.blogger.com/profile/14096400172923397481

    http://berthajoseph.blogspot.com/

    Like

  • 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.

    Like

  • 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

    Like

  • 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.

    Like

  • 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.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s