Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Rule or Ideal? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Glory Bound | 129963 | ||
I doubt you mean it this way, but your thought could very well escalate in the same manor. 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. I know what you appear to be saying, but personally I do not feel right debating a matter which, stated as you have put it, could very well be the opposite of what it appears. If your question is sincere, you might wish to word it a little differently, for I wouldn’t know whether to debate your thought, or light a fire under it. GB |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | Rule or Ideal? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Glory Bound | 130062 | ||
Please forgive my vagueness. One of my many great faults is in assuming that others are aware of what it is that I am stating. For some reason, the term “one woman man” puts me in mind that the word marriage was being totally left out. Wife indicates a married woman. Woman simply indicates a woman. The fact that a man may have loved only one woman, though it could imply to some, actually does not in any way indicate marriage. It is the way of the enemy to imply what one would expect would be there, but when it comes down to the bottom line, that implication is totally ignored and most often undefinable because when the statement is examined, it did not say what may have been implied. In other words, the statement “one woman man” could easily be advocating just what it says. One woman, one man. Where is Gods ingredient? Marriage. "in such a day as this.” With the condition of morals and the sly tactics of the enemy this day and time… Need I say more? I do not yet know Doc. I was simply noting the implications I saw. I sincerely apologize if I have offended anyone who has misunderstood what I was saying. GB |
||||||
4 | Rule or Ideal? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Hiskid84 | 130078 | ||
Hi, GB. Thank you for replying to my post. I understand very well what you mean when you say, "assuming that others are aware of what it is that I am stating." The longer I am on this forum the more I believe that this (making this same false assumption) happens more often than we may realize. In regards to your statement that I was responding to, your comments did seem a little overly zealous in the context of Doc's entire post. Of course, it's obvious that your response to his initial post was one of those things I just commented on above (i.e., Doc falsely assumed that people would see, after reading his entire post, that his true perspective is that we use the ideal, God's best, for a standard). Your words, "reeks" and "stench" seemed pretty strong but there's nothing wrong in being passionate about defending truth. Since you prefaced your statement with, "I doubt you mean it this way, but" and followed it up with, "I know what you appear to be saying, but..." you did give the general impression that you really understood what he meant. However, your statement in the middle is still difficult to understand, even in light of your explanation. Soooooo... ...if time permits would you please tell me how you concluded that a woman and a man living together but not married, which I understand certainly could be considered as "anti marriage", would lead you to say that it "reeks with the stench of the same arguments that grew to advocate same sex marriage."? What argument would that be? The only conclusion I can come to is this: In a downward spiral, men and women who have no regard for marriage whatsoever do away with marriage entirely and live openly in sin. This leads to gay partners who have lived openly in sin to claim they have the right to exchange wedding vows and be considered married in the eyes of the world. This would be taking something that God instituted and corrupting it in every way (both in the exclusion of marriage by a man and a woman and by the inclusion of marriage by two people of the same gender). You know, that thing that Satan does so well. Am I even close? You know, your answer to my question (as to how you came to the conclusion that led to your statement above) doesn't really matter as far as biblical truths go (the main purpose of the forum). But it might give me insight as to your line of reasoning and help me to better understand your statements, possibly eliminating the need to write as many posts asking for explanations. :-) You certainly didn't offend me and I hope I haven't offended you. In Him, Karen (Mrs. Doc) |
||||||
5 | Rule or Ideal? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Glory Bound | 130179 | ||
Your thought is about as close as I could have worded it, with the exception of the essence of my thought, which I have a hard time putting into words myself. In an attempt... There is so much deception out there today that I have become, perhaps a little too leary of anything that has the slightest appearance of possible deception. I know there is a name for that. I call it my "gut feeling." Whenever I have gone against that "gut feeling" I have inevitably gone wrong. As an example, I believe in total fairness to everyone, no matter the appearance. Yet I have found that, to date, every time I have ever given anyone "the benefit of the doubt" when I experienced that "gut feeling," It has been proven that I should have gone with that "gut feeling" in the 1st place. Though Doc had no ulterior motive, I can only imagine what his phrase could have escalated into. It may sound a little dramatic, but it is not unimaginable that the a-bomb could have originated from a simple and pure curiosity on the part of an individual who wouldn't have hurt a flea. GB |
||||||