Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell
Happy 50th Anniversary, John and Jane!
When Drake says about John's post "... at the risk of being accused of being henpecked", this is his backhanded way of accusing John of being "henpecked." This says more about Drake than it does about John.....
This statement by Drake: "So though, I am sympathetic to the people involved yet I reject the dangerous path of Jane's teaching on this subject" is woefully shortsighted. I would say that Drake would do well to take the path John is on...unless of course, he's already on this path.
Nell
|
Nell
To the first point....Er.. if you read all the responses 3 or 4 more times you would see just how supportive I was being of John.
Yet... "woefully shortsighted" in calling out the dangerous path Jane has taken in changing selected "lemon" Bible verses to fit her new world view? "Woefully shortsighted" in calling out the slippery slope Jane is now on where one aberration leads to another? Just how far does she follow Bushnell doctrine? Down the hermaphrodite path? Surely she read that part... and she is still all in or does she also draw a line? If so, where?
John's devotion is understandable. So is yours. However, the most beneficial comments are not those of a devoted husband or friend but rather the voice of the contrarian. Reading John's defense of his wife another 3 or 4 times won't do anything to help Jane and the dangerous path she is on. What you consider comments attacking Jane are really cries of support akin to "hey kid, stop playing hopscotch in the middle of the intersection at Beach and Garden Grove!".
Drake