The Nicene Creed is not Christian

Barrd · Jul 29, 2015

ewq1938 said:
Context. She was forgiven because of the love/charity she showed to Christ.

That would be missing the entire point of that event.

I never said she had no faith. Perhaps you are confusing me for someone else?

Of course it does. It matches perfectly what other scriptures tell us about how sins can be forgiven. There is not only one way.

Because he is God. He forgave sins before dying on the cross and without regard to baptism. Baptism is simply one of many ways to have sins forgiven. That's my whole point.

lol...that is exactly what I was highlighting about that! Don't you recall me posting this verse?

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Stop making anything personally about me. I posted that sin can be forgiven in multiple ways and I proved it using scripture. If you disagree you are not accepting what scripture says.

Pardon me. I got a bit confused as to who was insisting on water baptism, and who was accepting that our sins are forgiven without baptism.
It seems, however, that we are in agreement.
My most humble apologies.

Barrd · Jul 29, 2015

Actually, it is my belief that baptism is more of a "birth announcement".
It happens after a person has repented and been forgiven. Why would someone who was still dead in their sins even consider baptism?
And suppose we could convince our atheist friends to come down into the water with us...does anyone honestly believe that they would get any benefit out of it, other than getting wet?
I have a kid brother who is an atheist...my burden...and I've seen him get wet many times. He's even allowed himself to be "baptized"...and I promise you, it has not made a whit of difference.
If anything, he's even more arrogant and annoying than he was before...

ewq1938 · Jul 29, 2015

Doug_E_Fresh said:
No, I disagree with your interpretation of the verse. You claim that loving people/ or charity by your version, forgives sins. that's not what this is saying. Sin can be forgiven one way: a perfect sacrifice. That was Jesus. Nothing else can clean you of your sins. I don't know why you think that anything else can.

Scriptures states it, that's why. Besides, Jesus hadn't been sacrificed yet and he was forgiving sins so it is your misunderstanding of how sin is forgiven that is the issue here. You are defending your beliefs rather than learning from the scriptures.

Here's the biggest problem with your logic:

If sin can be forgiven through charity, then why do you need Jesus?

There is no flaw. Jesus forgave the woman. His shed blood wasn't needed.

ewq1938 · Jul 29, 2015

The Barrd said:
Pardon me. I got a bit confused as to who was insisting on water baptism, and who was accepting that our sins are forgiven without baptism.
It seems, however, that we are in agreement.
My most humble apologies.

I appreciate that thank you.

Doug_E_Fresh · Jul 29, 2015

I don't think you quite understand what you're saying. So I'll try to clear this up a bit.

Only God/ Jesus has the power to forgive sin. Jesus said "You're sins are forgiven." From then on, her sins were forgiven because she placed her faith in who he was. She knew he was the "Messiah". The verse has nothing to do with her salvation coming from the actual act that she did. She was forgiven because of what she believed, not what she did. She did what she did in response to what she believed. He knew he was going to be crucified the whole time. She STILL needed Him to do that, but she already had faith in Him so he gave her assurance because of what she was doing for Him.

ewq1938 · Jul 29, 2015

Doug_E_Fresh said:
I don't think you quite understand what you're saying. So I'll try to clear this up a bit.

Only God/ Jesus has the power to forgive sin. Jesus said "You're sins are forgiven." From then on, her sins were forgiven because she placed her faith in who he was. She knew he was the "Messiah". The verse has nothing to do with her salvation coming from the actual act that she did. She was forgiven because of what she believed, not what she did.

That's just wrong. Read the verse again:

1Pe_4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Do you believe this or not?

Luk 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Luk 7:49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?

It literally says she was forgiven for having much love which is charity.

Barrd · Jul 29, 2015

Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Luk 7:49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?

I think this is a very important question.
I think they knew that only God could forgive sins. Of course, our sinful lady with the tears and the ointment obviously knew that, too.
She must have known Who He was...
And yet, here we are, more than 2000 years later, trying to set limits and impose rules on how God must deal with us.
We have even more reason to know Who Jesus is than that sinful woman so very long ago...yet we are as stubborn and as foolish as the rest of the men who sat at the table with Him.
Oh, if only we could all be as wise...and as full of love...as that lady!

ewq1938 · Jul 29, 2015

The Barrd said:
Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Luk 7:49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?

I think this is a very important question.
I think they knew that only God could forgive sins. Of course, our sinful lady with the tears and the ointment obviously knew that, too.
She must have known Who He was...

It's hard to say if she knew he was the Messiah or not. She likely had heard rumors about him so either she was curious to meet him or she had already believed a Messiah was to come. Scripture calls her a sinner and that usually implies pretty serious stuff when it speaks of a certain individual. She likely was a prostitute although she could have been involved in other crimes or Adultery. Either way, she was living a bad life yet was full of love. That would seem to be a rare combo. I like the story about the two debts being forgiven. Her sins were greater than the other one's matching the story told and as the story tells, she would have been the most thankful for it.

Barrd · Jul 29, 2015

I don't think she was forgiven because of her love. Rather, I think she loved much, because she had been forgiven much.
As the story of the two debtors shows, the one who was forgiven the most had the most love for the one who had forgiven his debt.

It would be kind of hard for her not to have at least heard of Jesus...He was all the rage at that time. His reputation preceded Him where ever He went, and He was regularly followed by great numbers of people, all eager to see another miracle and to hear His gracious words to them.
Chances are pretty good that she had seen and heard Him for herself, and drawn her conclusions...
Obviously, she knew where He'd be eating dinner that night.
I believe she must have known Who He was, and that's why she came to Him. Why else would she throw herself at His feet as she did?
I would not throw myself at the feet of some stranger and begin washing his feet with my tears, and kissing them...would anyone?
But if I knew that the Lord Jesus Christ were staying here, in my town...yes, I can definitely see myself doing something similar.

ewq1938 · Jul 29, 2015

The Barrd said:
I don't think she was forgiven because of her love.

I have to disagree because it actually does say that's why she was forgiven:

Luke 7:47

(ABP+) Of whichG3739 favor,G5484 I sayG3004 to you,G1473 [4have been forgivenG863 G3588 3sinsG266 1herG1473 G3588 2many],G4183 forG3754 she lovedG25 much;G4183 but to whomG3739 G1161 littleG3641 is forgiven,G863 [2littleG3641 1loves].G25

(ASV) Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

(BBE) And so I say to you, She will have forgiveness for her sins which are great in number, because of her great love: but he who has small need of forgiveness gives little love.

(Darby) For which cause I say to thee, Her many sins are forgiven; for she loved much; but he to whom little is forgiven loves little.

(DRB) Wherefore, I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less.

(EMTV) For which reason I say to you, her many sins have been forgiven, because she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little."

(ESV) Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven--for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little."

(KJV) Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

(LEB) [For this reason] I tell you, her sins--which were many--have been forgiven, for she loved much. But the one to whom little is forgiven loves little."

(LITV) For this reason I say to you, Her many sins are remitted, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, he loves little.

(MKJV) Therefore I say to you, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, he loves little.

(Murdock) I therefore say to thee: Her many sins are forgiven her, for she loveth much. But he, to whom little is forgiven, loveth little.

(RV) Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

(TLV) For this reason I tell you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven—for she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little.

(WEBA) Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”

(Webster) Wherefore I say to thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

(WNT) This is the reason why I tell you that her sins, her many sins, are forgiven--because she has loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."

(YLT) therefore I say to thee, her many sins have been forgiven, because she did love much; but to whom little is forgiven, little he doth love.'

This matches perfectly what the other verse says:

1Pe_4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

zeke25 · Jul 29, 2015

HammerStone said:
As is a vow Zeke, which the Apostle Paul took as documented in Acts 18:18. The Lord also made oaths (Hebrews 6:17, Hebrews 7:21, etc.)

Regardless, most organizations distinguish between an oath and creed. We ourselves tend to use creed in the sense of an outward expression of belief, while an oath would go a step further and often be a binding agreement or promise made to someone or some organization. For instance, in past times an oath was made towards a king, not a creed. So it's more complex than your explanation would yield, in fact I'd go as far to say your distinction is quite petty and not coherent. Nonetheless, you yourself have not proven what the Hebrew and Greek meant by oath, because knowing some of ancient cultures in the middle east, an oath would sound more like our modern phrase "I swear to..."

Unfortunately, you totally blew up the meaning of James 5:12. I realize that's probably not a nice way to say it, but it's just bad eisegesis.

This is how the HCSB renders it, without the unnecessary obfuscation of the KJV (I use a KJV for my night reading, btw.):

James 5:12 HCSB
Now above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. Your “yes” must be “yes,” and your “no” must be “no,” so that you won’t fall under judgment.

The point, is further related to the passage in Matthew 5 that you [partially] cited. In fact, you needed to cite Matthew 5:33-37:

Matthew 5:33-37 HCSB
“Again, you have heard that it was said to our ancestors, You must not break your oath, but you must keep your oaths to the Lord. But I tell you, don’t take an oath at all: either by heaven, because it is God’s throne; or by the earth, because it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. Neither should you swear by your head, because you cannot make a single hair white or black. But let your word ‘yes’ be ‘yes,’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no.’Anything more than this is from the evil one.

In other words, all of this nonsense that you're swearing on and cannot control one iota (contemporary translation: "I swear on my mother's grave, etc.") -- stop swearing on it. This is the message of the passage. Make your "yes" and "no" simply iron-clad meanings. When we somehow cite some large thing, as if we ever had the power to move that thing, is quite arrogant and pretentious. So, with all due respect, your theory about oath is bunk, both predicated upon a flawed definition at start, but also on flawed eisegesis as well.

HammerStone,

The vow that Paul took was a pledge or a promise to man or to himself. An oath would normally invoke a pledge to deity. But in some circles deity might be expanded to include a king rather than God. Hebrews 6:17 & 7:21 were solemn promises made by God to insure that man understood that His desires in the matter were set in stone - it would never change. Men cannot back up any oath they make with the assurance that it will never change. We simply are not God. Hence, our admonishment given in Matthew and James would be for us men. I do not see that God has violated a command given to men, nor provided them with an example to follow. Peter said even though all others would abandon You (Christ) I will not. Peter would have rather died than fail to keep this oath. But he failed. Men will fail, when God will not. Thus, men are not to make oaths.

Have I overstepped the meaning of James 5:12 by calling a creed an oath? I can understand your thinking on this. A creed is a pledge of one’s beliefs. Some congregations will cite a creed in unison from memory. You are affirming to yourself and those you are with that this is your firm belief and you will not depart from it. If you do depart from it, then it is best you leave that congregation - you are no longer a part of it.

When I first experienced this group pledge it was a shock. I had already accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior, I had already been baptized, I took communion regularly, and I believed the Bible was the Word of God. But where is a group recited creed in all of this? The words sound good (especially the Apostle’s Creed), but I just didn’t see (and still don’t) the need for it to be a part of the liturgy. It sounded like an oath to me. But if someone wants to draw a firm dividing line between a creed and an oath, I’m sure they can find room to squeeze that line between the two. After all, I can’t find the word creed in the Bible.

So, is my theory about oath bunk, predicated upon a flawed definition at start, and also on flawed exegesis? I’m certainly not going to be upset for those who think so. After all, it’s a tangent road that I myself started down.

My main concern is that no one makes the mistake in thinking their sins can be forgiven by water baptism. And looking through this thread, there are those who think so.

zeke25

zeke25 · Jul 29, 2015

Doug_E_Fresh said:
Just my personal opinions about some of what you said, but thank you for reading what I wrote.

I can see why you may not think that's what they meant, but personally I am willing to give the 150 people who came to the council the benefit of the doubt (to each their own).

From wikipedia about the 381 2nd-Ecumenical Council (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed):

The Council of Nicaea in 325 had not ended the Arian controversy which it had been called to clarify. Arius and his sympathizers, e.g. Eusebius of Nicomedia were admitted back into the church after ostensibly accepting the Nicene creed. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the most vocal opponent of Arianism, was ultimately exiled through the machinations of Eusebius of Nicomedia. After the death of Constantine I in 337 and the accession of his Arian-leaning son Constantius II, open discussion of replacing Nicene creed itself began. Up until about 360, theological debates mainly dealt with the divinity of the Son, the second person of the Trinity. However, because the Council of Nicaea had not clarified the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, it became a topic of debate. The Macedonians denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This was also known as Pneumatomachianism.

Another of my thoughts on this:

Personally, I think its only fair to say that unless we were there, we can't be sure that it wasn't necessary. Even today in this thread we're debating about baptism. I think it comes down to the author's intention, and I'll expound on my view of that a little bit:

If it's true that these things were being debated:

I think making the creed on some level may have done more harm than good, because "now we should define everything about Christianity". I think that this is one place where that problem originally began. We do this today, so much so that the church seems broken to the outside over the smallest ecumenical issues.

But what was it intended for? Unity. It was meant to provide a framework upon which it is safe, and scripturally rooted for you to base new beliefs on top of those foundational ones. Because of this, I don't think it's quite true to the definition of what a creed is, to equate it with an oath. I think sometimes, an oath is coupled with it, but at this point, since it had been changed from what it was in the 325 creed, which one would they "oath" to then? We can agree to disagree on these things, but I think we often find ourselves judging "who is right, or who is saved" by what they believe. In doing so, we have our own creeds about what it means to place faith in Christ. As an example, "no creed, but Christ." That's fine to say, but in saying that, part of the "creed" you believe in, requires you to pray. Otherwise, who would call someone a Christian if they have placed any importance on praying to the one worthy of being worshipped?

That's enough from me for now.

Have a good day zeke25,
- D

Doug,

It sounds as if you are not an enthusiastic creed supporter - no matter how it is worded. Whole denominations declare they are non-credal. One pastor I met, that was his second sentence to me: “We are non-credal”.

Yes, many creeds could be made. I’m sure the few that are still around after all these centuries were given much thought before being brought into existence.

If I were to pick one, or make one up, it might be quite short. For example:

1 Corinthians 2:2 KJV, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save [Yahoshua the] Christ, and him crucified.”

Or, dozens of others.

zeke25

Barrd · Jul 29, 2015

ewq1938 said:
I have to disagree because it actually does say that's why she was forgiven:

Luke 7:47

(ABP+) Of whichG3739 favor,G5484 I sayG3004 to you,G1473 [4have been forgivenG863 G3588 3sinsG266 1herG1473 G3588 2many],G4183 forG3754 she lovedG25 much;G4183 but to whomG3739 G1161 littleG3641 is forgiven,G863 [2littleG3641 1loves].G25

(ASV) Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

(BBE) And so I say to you, She will have forgiveness for her sins which are great in number, because of her great love: but he who has small need of forgiveness gives little love.

(Darby) For which cause I say to thee, Her many sins are forgiven; for she loved much; but he to whom little is forgiven loves little.

(DRB) Wherefore, I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less.

(EMTV) For which reason I say to you, her many sins have been forgiven, because she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little."

(ESV) Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven--for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little."

(KJV) Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

(LEB) [For this reason] I tell you, her sins--which were many--have been forgiven, for she loved much. But the one to whom little is forgiven loves little."

(LITV) For this reason I say to you, Her many sins are remitted, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, he loves little.

(MKJV) Therefore I say to you, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, he loves little.

(Murdock) I therefore say to thee: Her many sins are forgiven her, for she loveth much. But he, to whom little is forgiven, loveth little.

(RV) Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

(TLV) For this reason I tell you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven—for she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little.

(WEBA) Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”

(Webster) Wherefore I say to thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

(WNT) This is the reason why I tell you that her sins, her many sins, are forgiven--because she has loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."

(YLT) therefore I say to thee, her many sins have been forgiven, because she did love much; but to whom little is forgiven, little he doth love.'

This matches perfectly what the other verse says:

1Pe_4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Luk 7:36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.
Luk 7:37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
Luk 7:38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

Luk 7:39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

So we see that the rest of the people in the room knew this lady and knew what kind of life she was leading...good possibility that she was a prostitute. Anyway, Jesus had a few things to say:

Luk 7:40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
Luk 7:41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
Luk 7:42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
Luk 7:43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.

And there it is...the guy who owed five hundred pence would love his creditor more than the guy who only owed fifty...
The love we are talking about here seems to be a deep, heart-felt gratitude.

Luk 7:44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wipedthem with the hairs of her head.
Luk 7:45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
Luk 7:46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
Luk 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

The man who owed five hundred pence had more love for the creditor who had forgiven him than the one who only owed fifty. This woman, whose sins were many had more love for Jesus than others, who were forgiven for little.
Now, while I am sure her heart had a lot to do it, it doesn't seem two be the main reason behind Jesus' gracious words to her. She had not come in asking for forgiveness. She came in humble and loving gratitude to her beloved Savior...evidently, she had already been forgiven at some point, and she had to show Him how much she loved Him.
What a contrast to those ten lepers!
Do we, today, take our salvation for granted? Are we as full of grateful love as this lady?
I wonder...

zeke25 · Jul 29, 2015

The Barrd said:
Now, while I am sure her heart had a lot to do it, it doesn't seem two be the main reason behind Jesus' gracious words to her. She had not come in asking for forgiveness. She came in humble and loving gratitude to her beloved Savior...evidently, she had already been forgiven at some point, and she had to show Him how much she loved Him.
What a contrast to those ten lepers!
Do we, today, take our salvation for granted? Are we as full of grateful love as this lady?
I wonder...

The Barrd,

Sometimes it is refreshing to see a woman's viewpoint as she sees through the eyes of another woman. Indeed she was full of love for her Messiah.

zeke25

Barrd · Jul 29, 2015

The creed says "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins"
Does this mean that the person thinks that the act of being baptized is what absolved him of his sins?
I'm a little fuzzy on this point.
I was taught as a child that baptism is the answer of a good conscience unto God. I took that to mean that he was baptized because his sins had been forgiven, not in order to obtain that forgiveness.

Barrd · Jul 29, 2015

zeke25 said:
The Barrd,

Sometimes it is refreshing to see a woman's viewpoint as she sees through the eyes of another woman. Indeed she was full of love for her Messiah.

zeke25

Why thank you, Zeke! I am deeply flattered.

A few years back, a male friend asked me to do a short story about the woman taken in adultery from the woman's point of view. It was rather a challenge, but the man who had asked me to do it told me that it was among the best things I had ever done (he's a bit of a fan). Of course, I was flattered... B)
Another friend decided he'd read it...and he didn't like it because I had not made the woman look dirty enough. Of course, he had been through a very bad marriage with a young lady who was...um...well-known in the small town they lived in.
So, I guess it does depend on one's point of view...

ewq1938 · Jul 29, 2015

The Barrd said:
She had not come in asking for forgiveness. She came in humble and loving gratitude to her beloved Savior...evidently, she had already been forgiven at some point,

Well, context shows she was forgiven after meeting Christ not before. She was forgiven because she showed so much love to him and it matches the other scripture which says showing love/charity can forgive/cover sins.

ewq1938 · Jul 29, 2015

The Barrd said:
Why thank you, Zeke! I am deeply flattered.

A few years back, a male friend asked me to do a short story about the woman taken in adultery from the woman's point of view. It was rather a challenge, but the man who had asked me to do it told me that it was among the best things I had ever done (he's a bit of a fan). Of course, I was flattered... B)
Another friend decided he'd read it...and he didn't like it because I had not made the woman look dirty enough. Of course, he had been through a very bad marriage with a young lady who was...um...well-known in the small town they lived in.
So, I guess it does depend on one's point of view...

I would like to read it. I am a male but have a different take on that woman and that entire situation. A different thread?

zeke25 · Jul 29, 2015

The Barrd said:
The creed says "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins"
Does this mean that the person thinks that the act of being baptized is what absolved him of his sins?
I'm a little fuzzy on this point.
I was taught as a child that baptism is the answer of a good conscience unto God. I took that to mean that he was baptized because his sins had been forgiven, not in order to obtain that forgiveness.

I believe that is exactly what the Nicene Creed is declaring. I've come across whole congregations that believe that water baptism forgives sins. Some that are posting here believe that too. That's why I started the thread and that is the error I'm trying to address. You were taught correctly. Some have speculated on this thread that the N. Creed is saying something different. I'm still convinced that it is declaring that water baptism forgives sins. But it gets worse. Ewq1938 appears to be declaring that lots of different things forgive sins. But he has me on his ignore list - oh happy day for me.
zeke25

zeke25 · Jul 29, 2015

The Barrd said:
Why thank you, Zeke! I am deeply flattered.

A few years back, a male friend asked me to do a short story about the woman taken in adultery from the woman's point of view. It was rather a challenge, but the man who had asked me to do it told me that it was among the best things I had ever done (he's a bit of a fan). Of course, I was flattered... B)
Another friend decided he'd read it...and he didn't like it because I had not made the woman look dirty enough. Of course, he had been through a very bad marriage with a young lady who was...um...well-known in the small town they lived in.
So, I guess it does depend on one's point of view...

I always enjoyed one pastor's comment on this story of the woman caught in adultery. He said, "How do you do that? It takes a lot of sneaking around." He was purposefully not flattering to those who brought her forth.

The Nicene Creed is not Christian

His Humble Servant

His Humble Servant

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

gяελ нατ jεsμs ƒяεακ

Well-Known Member

His Humble Servant

Well-Known Member

His Humble Servant

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

His Humble Servant

New Member

His Humble Servant

His Humble Servant

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads