George,
As is obvious to anyone reading this thread, YOU are the one who has resorted to personal attacks and are twisting and ignoring MY words! Even a cursory reading of your post #71 reveals that your primary goal was to be inflammatory, not to discuss scripture as is supposed to be our purpose here! Of the dozen Bible references I gave in my post #63, I believe you only commented on ONE, and then you only mentioned it in order to fuss on my proposed correlation! Furthermore, why would you spend a third of your post railing on me for looking up an English word in an English dictionary but refuse to discuss the plain scriptural exhortations and commands that I listed?
By the way, YOU could benefit from the use of an English dictionary - When I said "In a general sense," the word "general" is defined as "concerned with universal rather than particular aspects," so my proposed correlation is legitimate! Also, I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem speculating that a harlot would "most likely" be an unbeliever ("Ye shall know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:16.) [I DID NOT say or speculate, as you slanderously reported, that all "unsaved spouses are the equivalent to harlots." While you're looking up "general," you should check out "correlate," too - "to bear mutually corresponding relations." This embodies exactly what I meant to say...that the harlot in that passage
could represent a lost person!]
Now can we discuss scripture or not? And can you do it civilly?
Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com