But Christian men should not wish to be turned on by ungodly women. And married Christian men (who should have made a covenant with their eyes!) should not wish to be turned on by any godly women other than their wives.
I could not care less about SteveR's contributions to this forum and nor should you. Nor should you use him as an excuse for unrighteousness.
ladybug wrote: To Philadelphia, You state "How many questions do I have to answer before you answer just one? If plain answers that agree with you make me a Romanist in disguise (aka Jesuit), what would that make you?" You have twisted my question beyond it's intent.
Absolutely I pushed your question beyond your intent but I have not twisted it. Are you the arbiter of all things? Why should one rule apply to me and not to you? Do you own this forum?
I have given you several plain answers, but you still have not answered my first question to you.
ladybug wrote: especially in light of the fact that you claim Rome's overriding of God's word concerning marriage isn't devilish.
I say you are now bearing false witness. If not, prove it from a direct quotation of my words.
Christopher000 wrote: ...only insofar as one handle is used per topic/conversation. Otherwise, I personally view multiple handles within the same conversation to be nothing more than sneaky attempts to make it appear as though friends are popping by to strengthen a case, or to voice "their" agreement and/or disdain over whatever and whoever.
ladybug wrote: Perhaps before we continue our discussion Philadelphia, would you mind responding to my prior question? What are two or three of the most recent monikers you've used? Also, you said you've used many, is 'stever of mt. zion' one of your monikers? Sister JA, before you respond to 'Philadelphia', you might want to wait for them to answer my question concerning monikers. We don't know if we are dealing with a Romanist in disguise....
How many questions do I have to answer before you answer just one?
If plain answers that agree with you make me a Romanist in disguise (aka Jesuit), what would that make you?
ladybug wrote: Sister JA, Thank you for the explanation on the devilsh origin of the RCC's 'annulment'.
With respect ladies I have only seen an assertion, and not an explanation, of this.
An explanation would I believe at the very least require: 1. An explanation of the distinctions between and biblical usages of á¼€Î¸ÎµÏ„á½³Ï‰ and á¼€Ï€Î¿Î»á½»Ï‰. 2. An explanation of the historical inception and development the annulment practice within the RCC.
I took the time to examine the quote provided by SteveR.
I would regard Lurker's original question as ill-advised but well intended. In its full context he clearly did not regard John Yurich as an "ignorant autistic person" or anything close to it but on the contrary he displayed a degree of compassion and understanding.
He explicitly states that his question is not meant as a put down or an insult. Specifically, it was so that there would be understanding in how JY's comments would be perceived/received.
SteveR, having dug out a partial old quote, is profoundly misrepresenting it. We should also note that Lurker wondered if JY was savant, which would be indicative not just of high intelligence, but genius level intelligence. Hard to interpret that as an intended insult.