People often want things that are very bad for them. This happens not rarely, but often. It is called concupiscence.
I do truly love my husband, but I do not want to give him everything he wants. I want the best for him. The best for him is God, and heaven. I do not misunderstand love. It is rather presumptuous and arrogant of you to say that I do.
I have mentioned this already to you before, but perhaps you missed it. I have been married for nearly 2 decades, and I am currently expecting my 6th child. Furthermore, my husband and I have always been devoted and faithful to each other, and we were high school sweet hearts turned college sweethearts. Who are you to suggest that I am weak on love?
You are shooting yourself in the foot, LethalMouse. On this thread you have used ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with you, claiming your superior mental abilities, superior understanding of love and ability to act like Christ. And yet the only credentials you show to support it was your description of an ended courtship, that sounded incredibly intimate for a dating relationship. You are not going to win any arguments by consistently ridiculing others and puffing yourself up. I have already invited you to argue your point from the level of principles. Can you not do so without turning it into an ad hominem post or a chance to boast?
Not meant to boast, I know of no way to present things without exanple. As I stated on many examples they are excerpts made for the point as in the Rosanne one. Not obviously pride filled since it lacks my personal involvement. But if someone is unwilling to segregate the rest of the show to extrapolatethe relevent parts then it becomes a lost point. For if that example was otherwise perfect with the only failing of the show the pro gay stuff, many would use the fact that the show had pro gay marriage as a reason why all other points are nullified.
The problem is that BlueEyed is an atheist who is as successful in marriage as you are per both of your stated “credentials”. In a theological debate however how is her marriage to be viewed for a Catholic? If marital success or the claim thereof were the metric of our faith then shch logic would nullify the need for God in its entirety.
I would agree with much of your points but we largely argue semantics. And watch any long winded debate with circle talking… humans make errors as they over explain things I am a human.
But the issue is we are trying to hammer home the over arching point and see if there is a semantic that is lacking. And to come together on “what it means”.
As to ad hominem attacks, not one claim cares to address a claim. As I had the much earlier post with the built in proof of misuse, and it was so used. No one will address it. Because it is proof. The post stated it must be used with reference or in conjuction with the following post or else it was taken out of context. It was used against me without said shbsequent post. There is no debate because it was clearly written.
You even take in this very post the mental aspect out of context as I explaibed it in a later post and denounced having the superior ability. The only thing I referenced it for was communication style and a single common theme of believing one things existense negates another, that I do not understand.
I made the one post where I stated understanding the concerns when I did not want to give misconstrued advice to a young lady and have her get hurt. And got the same concerns. Something like that should help bridge the gap between us but since it makes me look decent that is ignored.
And now it seems that I have gone from a male shovenist woman beater to being “wrong” because I say men should be too nice to women.
The best way I can put it is the old adagge:
A relationship is not 50/50 it is 100/100
You know it is like referencing bosses at work, I said that people have 745 or some such number of bosses. Do I mean that the statistically avg person has a statistically avg number of bosses that literally is 745?
Ummmmm NO this is a point maker and not a fact number. As many things are examoles that even if “fact” are good at illustrating a point and not necessarily all encompassing.
When we do an imitation of a famous person it is an exaggerationof their most prominent feature. With all the imitations of GW Bush on TV seeing him on the news the other day he almost didn’t look like him, because he is not a characature. However if I tried to show you how GW acts and avoided the exaggerated actions, you would not kniw who I was pretending to be.
As to giving up what one wants. I want to have time to watch all my tv shows. I was deep into a bunch, but I spend that tv time with my son which is more important. Because I love him. Again you wont think this a bad thing? I want to buy myself a motorcycle, but again I want to provide my son with things, so no motorcycle. Same logic with a woman. Same principles. My wording may have made it sound like something insane, but you have to look at what all I have said and have agreed with that others have said.
