2 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyContraire.
If FG's thinking, "There is no Ice Cream; it doesn't exist for me today" she's being arbitrary and foolish. If FG said, "On the basis of my reasoning and taste, Ice Cream doesn't exist for me today" at least she'd be making a logical decision. If FG had confidence in your authority as the provider of the opportunity to enjoy Ice Cream, she also may have ordered.
Not having is not the same as not wanting.
I'm not having a lot of things, depending on what they are.
It doesn't mean I don't want them.
"Yes, I would like some ice cream."
"No, I'm not having ice cream."
One does not necessarily eliminate the other.
Originally posted by SuzianneOriginally posted by Suzianne
Contraire.
Not having is not the same as not wanting.
I'm not having a lot of things, depending on what they are.
It doesn't mean I don't want them.
"Yes, I would like some ice cream."
"No, I'm not having ice cream."
One does not necessarily eliminate the other.
Contraire.
Not having is not the same as not wanting.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Went to the ice cream shop with four 8-9 year old's in tow.
Queue up to order. Waiting. Waiting.
Our turn.
First girl orders.
Second girl likewise.
Third orders same as first.
Fourth girl: I am not having ice cream.
Doh?
Me: You don't like ice cream?
FG: I didn't say that; I am not having ice cream.
Me: Okay. Are you allergic?
FG: I am not having.
Me: Do you not like these flavors?
FG: Not having.
Me (really confused): Are you not feeling well?
FG: Not having.
Not having..
Not not liking.
Not physically unable to consume.
Just, simply, not having.
Me: (shrugging shoulders) I guess she doesn't want ice cream.
Suzi, in context the speaker appears to conclude that they are one and the same.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe speaker does, sure.
Originally posted by Suzianne
Contraire.
[b]Not having is not the same as not wanting.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Went to the ice cream shop with four 8-9 year old's in tow.
Queue up to order. Waiting. Waiting.
Our turn.
First girl orders.
Second girl likewise.
Third orders same as first.
Fourth girl: I am not having ...[text shortened]... e cream.[/b]
Suzi, in context the speaker appears to conclude that they are one and the same.[/b]
But the speaker is not the little girl, nor is he even female.
Not having is not the same as not wanting.
Originally posted by SuzianneI'm glad you guys got the intent of the story; often my thoughts feel sharp in my brain but make their way to the page dull and obscure.
The speaker does, sure.
But the speaker is not the little girl, nor is he even female.
Not having is not the same as not wanting.
In this case, Suzianne, how do you see 'not having' as not the equivalent to 'not wanting?' In other words, what else is there?
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAs a Christian, you should see the parallel.
I'm glad you guys got the intent of the story; often my thoughts feel sharp in my brain but make their way to the page dull and obscure.
In this case, Suzianne, how do you see 'not having' as not the equivalent to 'not wanting?' In other words, what else is there?
We may want something, and yet know it is not good for us, or in our best interests. So we simply do not have.
I skip things like ice cream all the time. It doesn't mean I could not go for an opulent creamy chocolate milkshake. I skip it because it is not good for me.
I do not have, but it does not mean I do not want.
I could give you many more examples, but I don't want you to think badly of me. 🙂
Originally posted by SuzianneOh, you coy little kitten...
As a Christian, you should see the parallel.
We may want something, and yet know it is not good for us, or in our best interests. So we simply do not have.
I skip things like ice cream all the time. It doesn't mean I could not go for an opulent creamy chocolate milkshake. I skip it because it is not good for me.
I do not have[/i ...[text shortened]... ]want.
I could give you many more examples, but I don't want you to think badly of me. 🙂
<ahem> where was I?
Sorry, I've lost all trains of thought.
Originally posted by Suzianne"Not having is not the same as not wanting."
The speaker does, sure.
But the speaker is not the little girl, nor is he even female.
Not having is not the same as not wanting.
Reaching a state of mind in which they coincide, while remaining different, seems to be a desirable way to live.
Originally posted by SuzianneIt's never a sin to be tempted [both Christ's humanity and deity were tempted during the First Advent]; it becomes sin when you say: "Okay, just one time"; "Yes, I deserve it"; "Yeah, gimme some of that" [which He never did, not even to Satan].
Less temptation that way, for sure.