1 edit
@fmf saidYes, the denial of knowing someone I knew would be a denial of truth, would it not, not that we were friends. Truth is always true; if I knew you back then, that would be true no matter what. If we were to discuss our friendship 20 years ago when we lived next to one another, the truth of that could change as our relationship changed, we were friendly then we were not, the truth would be we were friendly then we were not, it could never be we were never friendly.
Here is your allegory for my statements about my faith in the past having lost that faith:
If you and I were friends who lived next to one another 20 years ago, and today I deny I ever knew you 20 years ago, as a true statement! Would I be telling the truth?
Christ in us, a relationship with God restored, did that ever happen?
@kellyjay saidThe OP says: "Things changed between them in the last year or two". That's d be the 24th and 25th year. THAT was what resulted in divorce, NOT the 23 years of happiness that preceded it. Boy, it's almost as if you are trying to take the piss out of me by taking the piss out of yourself,
That is where I have a problem; you said love and 25 years of happiness led to a divorce; I'm not the one wriggling.
@kellyjay saidChris and Donna's love was real for 23+ years. The fact that they lost that love does not mean that their love was not real for 23+ years.
Yes, the denial of knowing someone I knew would be a denial of truth, would it not, not that we were friends. Truth is always true; if I knew you back then, that would be true no matter what. If we were to discuss our friendship 20 years ago when we lived next to one another, the truth of that could change as our relationship changed, we were friendly then we were not, the t ...[text shortened]... be we were never friendly.
Christ in us, a relationship with God restored, did that ever happen?
If you and I were friends who lived next to one another 20 years ago, and today I deny I ever knew you 20 years ago, as a true statement! Would I be telling the truth?This form of "knowing someone" - here in the lives we live - is totally different from the "knowing someone" [i.e. Jesus] that occurs with faith.
This makes your analogy a dud ~ and borderline sophistry, in fact, to my way of thinking.
See the OP to this thread instead.
@fmf saidOkay, something happened that took love and 23 years of happiness and turned into nothing worth keeping; you are still up against what I've been asking. We go through all kinds of stuff; what love is, you didn't want to define it and still don't. Love is more than a feeling; it is a commitment; if your love is only a feeling, and we are only talking about how you feel, whatever you feel, it is your feeling no matter or when; that marriage has nothing to do with that question.
The OP says: "Things changed between them in the last year or two". That's d be the 24th and 25th year. THAT was what resulted in divorce, NOT the 23 years of happiness that preceded it. Boy, it's almost as if you are trying to take the piss out of me by taking the piss out of yourself,
@fmf saidAnother definition, defined by you.
This form of "knowing someone" - here in the lives we live - is totally different from the "knowing someone" [i.e. Jesus] that occurs with faith.
This makes your analogy a dud ~ and borderline sophistry, in fact, to my way of thinking.
See the OP to this thread instead.
@kellyjay saidOK, so it doesn't matter to the allegory what the problem was that caused them to split. Furthermore, in the allegory, Chris and Donna had a commitment that lasted 25 years. The love lasted at least 23 years and the commitment only ended after 25 years. Do you identify with the perspective of "B" in the OP's allegory.
Love is more than a feeling; it is a commitment; if your love is only a feeling, and we are only talking about how you feel, whatever you feel, it is your feeling no matter or when.
@fmf saidI asked for clarification of words initially; if love is a feeling and a commitment, you don't throw away commitments; if you can, you were never committed. I was saying that if the marriage is only as good up to something better comes, it isn't based on love. The vows matter, for better or worse, sickness and health till death do us part, is a vow of commitment declared in front of everyone. When it is said, 'will you take,' isn't a declaration of as long as you feel like it; it is a commitment of will unless the vows have changed, and like many things that are they very well could have.
Marriage = love and commitment in "FMF's world", KellyJay. Surely to does in your world too, right?
@fmf saidOh my, the irony!
Well, accusing me of defining something and then pointedly NOT saying what is wrong with it and NOT addressing the point made is just you running away from the conversation.
I was pestering you with questions trying to get you to make what you were saying to make sense to me; you asked for thoughts; you didn't say preapproved thoughts that only looked at this analogy the way you wanted.