Results 21 - 40 of 53
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Hiskid84 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Hiskid84 | 129969 | ||
Greetings, Brother Hank. Thank you for a very insightful reply. I appreciate your truthfulness, clarity and humility. (Just don't let it go to your head) :) You ended your post with the question, "How would you answer your question?" Why, I would borrow your answer, of course! "Your question is tough. It makes me think, and I don't like that." (Is this beginning to feel like a game of "gotcha last"?) Seriously, you did a wonderful job. There's not really anything I can think of to add. Your guidelines in the quest for truth were right on. Your comment, "Man loves to gussy up the plain gospel message with "user-friendly" dross; to dilute its power to convict sinners and feed the saints by sprinkling in a big dose of I'm-O.K.-you're -O.K. humanism" reminded me of something my pastor said in his sermon last week. In preaching on Ephesians 3:7-12, and specifically on grace as it was exhibited in Paul's life, he was showing some of the ways that God's grace has become less than amazing in today's modern world. We must have an accurate understanding of our fallen state. God gives grace to the humble--humility comes through comparison of our true selves to the holiness of God. (Sorry my sermon notes are a little choppy) Then he made this statement, "We need to stop trying to get people saved and get people lost." Hopefully you'll make the connection. Thanks again for putting thought and effort into your reply. Your sis, Karen |
||||||
22 | Does asking in His name ever work? | John 14:13 | Hiskid84 | 129980 | ||
Hi, Emmaus. You did a very good job of answering. In fact, you said everything I was going to! :) I just want to add one thought. I know many times I have prayed for something and it seemed God did not answer. However, later I realized that He had indeed answered but in an unexpected way. To give a very basic example: I pray a prayer for God to change me and make me more like Him. I'm expecting to see an obvious answer. After all, I'm certain that my prayer isn't being asked amiss. So I'm looking for an opportunity to help someone, or maybe gain some new insight into the Bible or understanding of God. Some "confirmation" that God has answered my prayer. In the meantime, something comes along in my life that I don't handle very well and find myself asking God, "Why has this happened?" Far too often I realize, after the fact, that in this "event" I had opportunity to change and be more like Him. Did I? No. I took my eyes off of Him and fixed them on the problem. If I had kept my eyes on Him I might have learned to trust Him more. I could have meditated upon Philippians 4:13 and relied upon His strength and not my own. I could have put 1 Thess. 5:16-18 into practice, knowing I was fulfilling His will for me. Would these things have produced growth and change in me? It's very likely. Would that have been a direct answer to my prayer. Most definitely! Did God cause something bad to happen in order to bring about His answer? No way. However, He has this wonderfully unique way of taking unexpected things and using them for our good (growth) and His glory. So sometimes He uses circumstances to answer prayer. We just have to be open to whatever way He may choose to reply. Just my 0.02 worth. Karen |
||||||
23 | Human Power? | John 15:5 | Hiskid84 | 129174 | ||
Country Girl, I know your posting time is limited but I was wondering how you explain Ephesians 1:13-14. "(Eph 1:13) In Him you also trusted, after you heard the Word of Truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, (Eph 1:14) who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory." These verses say that, when we are saved the Holy Spirit (who was promised to come) has come to dwell within us. This indwelling of the Holy Spirit is God's seal upon us, signifying that we are His. This same Holy Spirit within us GUARANTEES our inheritance. Do you read it some other way? Another verse I am curious about is John 6:44, which says: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." These are the words of Jesus Christ and they are saying that those who come to Him will be raised by Him AT THE LAST DAY. In the surrounding verses I find nothing about exceptions. It seems that if there were exceptions it would have been written, "I will raise him up at the last day UNLESS..." What is your interpretation of this verse? Thank you for any reply you may be able to give. In Him, Karen |
||||||
24 | Human Power? | John 15:5 | Hiskid84 | 129399 | ||
Country Girl, It appears that you are replying to this post by Mark: "Hi Country Girl, I'm glad you brought this up. To me, this verse (Rev 3:20) ties together several current threads. Salvation IS conditional, and the condition rests with us. God has already said He wants in. IF anyone hears His voice and opens the door..." Is this correct? I'm curious because in the following post BradK replies that the statement above ("salvation IS conditional and the condition rests with us") is unscriptural. In the next post Mark agrees and retracts that statement. Your post says: "I appreciate your speaking up. Sometimes, it gets lonely defending the truth. Preach on, dear friend, preach on." My question then is, did you make the statement above in response to Mark's original post to you (the one quoted above)? If so, was it in response to his post in its entirety or were your remarks only directed to the portion of his post that was not retracted ("God has already said He wants in. IF anyone hears His voice and opens the door...")? I'm sorry I seem to be in the minority of those to whom it is not (pretty) clear. Unfortunately, your Gal. verses didn't even tie it all together for me. Thanks for any help you can give. In Him, Karen |
||||||
25 | Human Power? | John 15:5 | Hiskid84 | 129403 | ||
Hi, Hank. I just wanted to share my interpretation of Acts 5:1-11. (I really hope I'm not opening a can of worms here) Please keep in mind that I am not attempting to use this as a proof text for losing or keeping salvation. Just trying to interpret the passages in context and curious as to your thoughts. I always read Acts 5:1 to be a continuation of what was going on in the last section of Acts 4. Acts 4 ends with Barnabas having land, selling it, bringing the money and laying it at the apostles feet (Acts 4:36-37). Acts 5:1 picks up with the word, "But", and begins to tell the story of Ananias and Sapphira doing (basically) the same thing as Barnabas, with the exception of keeping part of the money and lying to God. Now, if you were to back up to the beginning of the text that includes the story of Barnabas you would find yourself at Acts 4:32, which begins: "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurretion of the Lord jesus. And great grace was upon THEM ALL (emphasis mine). Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need." Acts 4:32-35 I always thought that it was keeping in context to say that Ananias and Sapphira were included in the "all" mentioned above (Acts 4:33). Verse 32 says "the multitude of THOSE WHO BELIEVED". Okay, so with that in mind, this has been my take on the whole thing with Ananias and Sapphira: They were both believers (sinners saved by grace). Though they may have been the first, I'm certain they were not the last Christians guilty of the sin of greed or of trying to hide their sinful deeds from God. I always figured God used them as an example to the rest of the believers. After all, it says, "great fear came upon all those who heard these things." God definitely had their attention as the early church was being established. However, taking the lives of Ananias and Sapphira doesn't (in any way) mean that they lost their salvation. God could have removed them from the scene, both to give a warning and to prevent them from doing worse. (I know, I know..."incoming flak") To sum it up, I guess one could say that Ananias and Sapphira's sin was punishable by death. However, if they were saved I know their salvation wasn't lost. If they were not saved, it's kind of interesting that they were punished (by death) for the sin of greed and lying to God. Although it may just be that it's past my bedtime, it seems like the lesson would have carried more weight among the believers if God had been punishing believers for bringing shame to His name and upon His church than for punishing non-believers for sin. Anyway, those are just my humble thoughts. I didn't intend to put speculation in there but it happened anyway. So, pull out a worm and tell me what you think. :) In Him, Karen |
||||||
26 | Human Power? | John 15:5 | Hiskid84 | 129404 | ||
Hello, Hank. In reference to Mark's statement, "IF anyone hears His voice and opens the door...", I was going to ask the very same question of Mark concerning who is able to hear His voice, since it appears that only some can hear it. Which would lead to the next question (also asked by you), how is it that some can hear and some not? Ah, well...you phrased them better. :) I do hope Mark will respond. In Christ, Karen |
||||||
27 | Human Power? | John 15:5 | Hiskid84 | 129459 | ||
Greetings, Mark. :) Thank you for clarifying your statements. Please forgive me for coming to a wrong conclusion from your posts with BradK. I stand corrected! (And please accept this post as my response to your request that I read 129449) I think we are probably in more agreement than appears on the surface. I definitely agree that this is a sensitive subject and we walk a fine line in keeping with board rules. I completely agree with your statement, "God’s choice is sovereign, and man’s repentance is required." Scripture does clearly teach both. Where people begin to part company seems to be in the order it takes place, which becomes an issue of ability. On the one side, it is believed that we are not capable (being spiritually dead) of recognizing our sin, and hence, our need for a Savior. Therefore, God must do a work in us (regeneration) and the repenting and believing naturally follow. This is how we are able to say that salvation is all of God and yet it is we who do the repenting and believing. Scripture seems to bear that out because we read in Eph.2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." It would seem that God has established His plan of salvation in such a way that He gets all of the glory for it. We are only able to do (repent and believe) what God enables us to do. On the other hand, some believe that we, through the hearing of the Word and conviction of the Holy Spirit, are able to see our sinfulness and our need of forgiveness. When we acknowledge these things before God, He responds and saves us. That would seem to be in line with the first statement except that in this scenario we are able, of our own ability (apart from God), to recognize that we are spiritually dead and in need of spiritual life. That puts the ball in our court first. Does Scripture back this up? It would seem to with verses that command us to repent and/or believe in order to be saved (Acts 16:30-31 or as you pointed out above, Luke 13:3). The doctrine of election is most definitely a difficult one to grasp and I'm certain that no one person has ever had it exactly right (being fallible humans with only the tiniest understanding of the things of God). I would like to say that one reason this doctrine is dear to those who embrace it is because it acknowledges a truly sovereign God. It's difficult to see Him being sovereign in a scenario where He is waiting and hoping that we will make the right choice. Wouldn't that make Him dependant upon man? (If not, in what way wouldn't it?) I'm going to stop (and hope I am not in trouble for this post). I do appreciate your honesty and your earnest search for truth. May God richly bless you in your endeavors! I pray that we all come to the Scriptures with a true desire to learn and the humility needed to do so. When you have time, would you please share your definition of "sovereign" with me? In the meantime, I'm going to give myself the assignment of defining what it means to me. :) In His love, Karen |
||||||
28 | Human Power? | John 15:5 | Hiskid84 | 129461 | ||
Hank...thank you so much for taking my attempt at exegesis and, not only graciously being kind in your comments but, for tying together so many wonderful points that were in my mind but never made it into my post! I just wasn't able to express my thoughts as clearly as I wanted to (partially due to that sense of needing to tiptoe through certain issues). Yet you took what I was wanting to convey (but couldn't) and made it wonderfully clear! Maybe we can form some sort of tag team. :) "Defenders of the Faith": I'll come in and make them dizzy with my random thoughts and you come in behind me and knock 'em out with your clear and rational explanations. (Sort of a one-two punch) In Him, Karen |
||||||
29 | Human Power? | John 15:5 | Hiskid84 | 129486 | ||
Hank, I'm sure Doc will be happy to referee... he's wonderfully helpful that way. And I just know that he will make a fine and impartial referee, as per Matthew 5:9. (That's my Scripture reference for this post) I woulda asked him to be my tag-team partner but sorting out my random thoughts can be a daunting task. (Feel free to resign if the job gets too hard) --Karen |
||||||
30 | why evangalise if God has already chosen | Rom 10:14 | Hiskid84 | 130708 | ||
We evangelize because because we are commanded to do so. Charles hadon Spurgeon used to say something to the effect that if God had painted a yellow stripe down the back of the elect, he would have run around London lifting up shirt tails. Since God hadn't done that, Spurgeon had to preach to all men. Doc (On the far-better-half's computer) |
||||||
31 | One God, One Jesus Christ | 1 Cor 8:5 | Hiskid84 | 130359 | ||
Psssst...ROGER459...actually it's vs. 3 and 4 of Acts 5. (You offered vs. 4 and 5 as proof text that the Holy Spirit and God are One) Also, a tip if I might; it would be easier to email you if you would post your email address in your personal profile. I would like to see your web site. My email address is str8narroway@yahoo(dot)com. Would you please email me the link? Thank you. Or should I say Thank You! :-) Karen |
||||||
32 | Are terms being used synonymously? | 1 Cor 12:1 | Hiskid84 | 211111 | ||
I'm going to tiptoe in behind John here, to ask a question. Are the words "gift of healing" and "healing" being used synonymously in some posts? It seems a lot of discussion in favor of the gift of healing (regarding its validity today) is being based upon whether people are healed today. I thought John distinguished between the two when he wrote, "...no one has said that God cannot or does not perform miracles. But He does not give the gift of performing those miracles to individuals today as He did in the early Church." (Unfortunately, it seemed to get lost in the text that followed) So the question of whether the gift of healing is still bestowed upon those the Holy Spirit so chooses is not answered through proof that God still heals today. Which isn't to say proof should exist that God still heals "through certain idividuals" (the "gift" of healing) to prove its validity today. :) By His grace, hiskid |
||||||
33 | We should quit competing with the Top 40 | 1 Cor 14:40 | Hiskid84 | 130311 | ||
Hank, Your comments are (as) equally scary as they are true. I know this has been discussed on the forum before but I haven't had a chance to go through all of the posts. I was wondering if you are aware of any posts (or threads) that give a basic outline of what the true function of the church (as a gathering place) is from a biblical standpoint. If there aren't any, it might make for a good topic. That seems to be where most of the confusion comes in. Here are some things to consider: Is the primary purpose of the church building a place for the saints of God to gather or a place to bring the lost so that they might be saved? Is God's Word taught for the growth and edification of the saints (discipleship) or so that the lost might be saved? Is God worshipped in song as a means to glorify and exalt Him in unity or so that the lost can feel something emotional and as a result, might be saved? Do we offer up prayers to give thanks to an awesome and holy God because, for His purposes alone, He has made a way for us to become children of God, in spite of our utter unworthiness, or so that we might present God as One who is standing by eagerly waiting to fulfill our every need (physically, emotionally, financially, relationally and ummm...oh, yeah, spiritually) in the hopes that the lost might be saved? Does the church building exist so that saints of God might come together with reverence for a holy God as they worship Him through the reading of and attentiveness to His Word, in song, in giving, in prayers, and in fellowship with one another and thereby building up the body of Christ as a living temple of God or is it so that the view of Christianity being projected to the world is one of a people who are "in step with the times", who will "go the extra mile" to make them feel at home (even providing a continental breakfast), whose music mirrors the world's in the hopes that they will find the worship of God an enjoyable experience, whose preaching and teaching consists of taking one or two verses and building a sermon filled with pop psychology and "instant gratification" phrases in an attempt to persuade them that, if they will just untie God's hands and allow Him to, He can fix their every problem and in such a presentation hope that the lost might be saved? We cannot save anyone. Only God saves. He saves through His Word (the gospel of Christ) and through the work of His Holy Spirit. We are commanded to preach the gospel. We are commanded to love. Do we do these things because we love Him who saved us? Or do we do them in a way that says we think God needs our help (our slogans, our ideas, our wisdom in knowing how to get them into the Kingdom and entertain them sufficiently to keep them there)? I humbly suggest that God does not need our help. He has given us His commands. He works in our obedience to them to bring others to the cross, where He alone saves them. Yes, we invite others to attend church services with us. It is here that they (hopefully) witness the community that exists between God's people, our love for one another and for God. It may be here that God chooses to bring His Word to life in a heart. But let's leave the world outside the door. If we bring the world inside, what do we offer that the world doesn't already offer (i.e., a quick fix)? God meets the lost at the core of their need; forgiveness of sin. If recognition of our sin and hopelessness as well as our desperate need for a Savior brings pain and suffering to our heart and causes us to cry out for relief from the only One who can supply it, why are we trying so hard to make the lost feel comfortable in our pews?? May we show forth God's truth; we are a set apart people called to a life of holiness, not worldliness. Halfway up the driveway leading to our church there are identical signs, one on each side. As you arrive at the church, the signs welcome you there. As you leave, this is what the (backside of the) signs read: YOU ARE NOW ENTERING THE MISSION FIELD Because of Him, Karen |
||||||
34 | Fruit vs. Works: the same or different? | Gal 5:22 | Hiskid84 | 129749 | ||
Fruit vs Works: are they the same thing? Jesus said, in regards to bearing fruit, we can do nothing outside of Him (John 15:5). He says we must abide in Him. In verse 9, He says if we abide in His love we will keep His commandments. While doing a study today of John 15:5 and surrounding text, I realized I was trying to equate fruit with works. Is this an incorrect assumption? Are they two separate things? I'd greatly appreciate any Scripture showing that they are either equal or two separate things. In Christ, Karen |
||||||
35 | Fruit vs. Works: the same or different? | Gal 5:22 | Hiskid84 | 129841 | ||
Posted by Doc: "Hi, Karen... don't I know you from somewhere? :-)" Karen: Hi, Doc. Yes, you do seem vaguely familiar...Oh, I know! Weren't you sitting across from me at the dinner table? Doc wrote: "(Will I still get dinner if I'm mistaken?)" Karen: See answer above. :) Doc wrote: "Based on these scriptures, it is my very humble opinion that it is safe to treat them as pretty synonymous." Karen: Doc, you know that I'm absolutely crazy about you. You also know that when I am presented with information that does not "gel" in my mind I must pick it apart in an attempt to find what is truth (and will not rest till satisfied). As mommapbs so eloquently put it, "the hair shaft/truth remains but the nit/error is removed." So on that note, let the nit-picking begin. :) For the sake of space I am not going to quote the verses in the previous post in their entirety. I'm only going to post the portions that pertain to my point: "unfruitful works" Eph. 5:11 "fruitful in every good work" Col. 1:10 "good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful." Titus 3:14 In each of the verses that you based your conclusion upon (that fruit vs works could be treated as "pretty synonymous") you are using the word "fruitful" (or "unfruitful" in the case of two of them) to prove your point. I (lovingly!) object to your equating the word "fruitful" with "fruit". I don't think it would be in error to say that the word "fruitful", as used in the aforementioned verses, basically means to "be productive". Am I butchering Scripture to say "unproductive works" (Eph. 5:11), "productive in every good work" (Col. 1:10), or "works for necessary uses, that they be not unproductive." (Titus 3:14)? In the verse, "fruit of my labor" (Phil. 1:22) you would be refering to the result (or outcome) of "my labor." In this sense, the word "fruit" and "fruitful" are similar. But can the the word "fruitful" be shown to be similar to the word "fruit" when used in verses such as Gal. 5:22? Well, this is interesting...here is Gal. 5:22 as shown above this post in the Amplified version: "But the fruit of the [Holy] Spirit [the work which His presence within accomplishes] is love, joy (gladness), peace, patience (an even temper, forbearance), kindness, goodness (benevolence), faithfulness," When read in that version the word "fruit" is equated with "work"! Maybe you're on to something! Here's something I find even more interesting: in the Amplified version, the "fruit of the Spirit" is "the work which His presence within accomplishes"! Wow! Does this mean that if any of the attributes named in Gal. 5:22-23 are evident in my life they are not the result of something I have done but what God has done in me? Fruit of the Spirit: the evidence of God's work in me. :) To be continued later. For now, "works" of a different nature call. :) In Christ, Karen |
||||||
36 | Fruit vs. Works: the same or different? | Gal 5:22 | Hiskid84 | 129842 | ||
In my last post, I wrote (okay, typed): "Fruit of the Spirit: the evidence of God's work in me. :)" This is a continuation of that thought which also ties back to my original post, asking if "fruit" and "works" were one and the same. "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." John 15:5 Jesus is the vine. We are the branches. What can a branch do apart from the vine but wither and die? What can the branch do when connected to the vine? Produce fruit. Where does the fruit come from? It is manifested on the branch but where did its life, its ability to grow or even exist, come from? It came from the vine. The branch simply manifests the evidence of the life supplied by the vine. Jesus supplies the life needed to produce fruit within us. We simply cannot "grow fruit" apart from Him. Any evidence of fruit in our lives only exists because of Him. In His own words, "Without Me you can do nothing." Nada. Zip. Zero. No fruit. Thoughts? In Him, Karen |
||||||
37 | Fruit vs. Works: the same or different? | Gal 5:22 | Hiskid84 | 129875 | ||
AO, I'm sorry. I'm afraid I don't know what it is other people believe about the fruit mentioned in John 15:5. I only know what I believe based on my understanding so far. Before I say what that is though, I would like to explain that I have posted as I've tried to reason this out. This means that everyone that reads my posts will be seeing the process I've gone through to arrive at the point where I am right now. (It also means that perhaps I should work it all out before posting) With that said, here goes: I wouldn't say they (fruit) are "righteous attributes" in and of themselves. I think it has more to do with how those attributes affect how we interact with others. The fruit (attributes) on a branch (me) may look lovely but they serve no real purpose until they are plucked and eaten (i.e., put to use in my relationship with others). In fact, how can attributes even be visible unless they are exhibited in my interaction with others? If I am patient in dealing with others, if I am loving and kind, if I exhibit peace and joy, if I put others before myself, I am being Christ-like. I, as the branch, am an extension of the vine, Christ. I cannot produce this "fruit" within myself. I am dependant upon Him to produce it in me. The fruit He produces in me is an extension of His relationship with me and mine with Him. I believe that somehow this is all tied together with John 15:10. Jesus abides in the Father's love for Him. We abide in Jesus' love for us. As the Father loves the Son and the Son loves us, we are to "love one another" (John 15:12). On our own, we are unable. With His life flowing through us (as the vine) we are able (we exhibit His fruit-- His life within us). This has become much longer than I anticipated when I started. Because of the lateness of the hour I am going to try to sum up what I am trying to say (so far). Any "fruit" within our lives has to come from God. He produces it within us. The same with "works". I believe our works are directly related to our relationship with Him. These things come from Him and therefor, bring glory to Him. They are simply the evidence of His working in us. So whether fruit or works or any good thing...they are all His handiwork so that it is He who is glorified and not we. What is your opinion regarding your question? In Him, Karen |
||||||
38 | Fruit vs. Works: the same or different? | Gal 5:22 | Hiskid84 | 129985 | ||
Hi, Country Girl. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. They gave me some new things to think about. I'm not sure if it was intentional on your part but you refered to us as the vine and Jesus as the Branch. I believe it is always the other way around in Scripture (He is the vine, we are the branches). I would also address the point where you and I differ in every post. I understand that you are compelled to say that we may be surprised with a one-way ticket to hell on Judgment Day if we aren't careful in accumulating enough "good works" to gain us entry into heaven. I know you say this in sincerity of heart, believing it to be both true and also to be beneficial to the readers of this forum. In the same way I am compelled to disagree. Though I do appreciate your thoughts on fruit and works, I believe that both are born out of our relationship with God, not the other way around. You wrote: "Some of these fruits are also inter-related but we should strive to add them all to our spiritual person and upon adding them, strive to improve them and grow in our spiritual relationship with our Lord." According to your order we must first gain fruit, then work (with diligence) to improve them, and lastly, grow in the Lord. Even if I agreed that we could do these things on our own (and I don't), I would beg to differ with the order. As I stated in my previous post, in my understanding of Scripture our fruit and/or works come out of our relationship with God, not the other way around. Just as you feel it is imperative to continually tell people they should constantly work at gaining access into heaven (just in case all that work is needed), lest they miss it, I feel it is just as imperative to refute your statement and suggest that people should rely on the finished work of Christ for their eternal heavenly home. You see, for me it is not a matter of "covering all the bases." It is a matter of helping people to see God for who He truly is. The Sovereign Creator of everything and Ruler over all His creation. To make salvation dependant upon our works is to make God impotent rather than Omnipotent. Thus man's view of God becomes smaller and smaller. Okay. That's all. May you be blessed, Karen |
||||||
39 | Fruit vs. Works: the same or different? | Gal 5:22 | Hiskid84 | 129986 | ||
Hi, AO. I'm sorry I didn't reply to your questions today. I hope to do so tomorrow. I'm sure you must know what my answers will be if you are a regular reader of this forum. I do not hide the fact that I believe any/all of our (Christ-like) works are EVIDENCE of our salvation, not the MEANS of (keeping) salvation. However, I want to give your questions appropriate consideration when answering and appreciate the chance to exercise my ability in defending what I believe to be true. In Christ, Karen |
||||||
40 | Rule or Ideal? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Hiskid84 | 129984 | ||
Hi, GB. The following statement that you wrote is very puzzling to me: "In such a day as this, your phrase "one woman man" reeks with the stench of the same arguments that grew to advocate same sex marriage. Your thought could very well be interpreted as anti marriage." Would you please share how you came to that conclusion? I honestly can't see it, though I've tried. (However, occasionally I have been known to be slow on the uptake). I don't see how the term "one woman man" would imply anything other than Doc's definition of "a man who has never in his life loved more than one single woman." As in, no fooling around for him. No previous marriages, either by death or divorce. Only one wife. Period. Unless you took it to mean "loving only one woman at a time" but this is not the definition Doc used. Or does your "anti marriage" statement mean you think this "one woman man" and his woman are only living together? Or is this another instance where I realize I live a sheltered life? Is this some kind of new slang (since you wrote "in such a day as this") meant to be used in a derogatory or homosexual way? Does the "woman" in "one woman man" mean a man impersonating a woman? I hope you can clarify your answer. Now I'm really curious as to your meaning. I do like your phrase, "I wouldn't know whether to debate your thought or light a fire under it." Cute. :) Karen |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |