TOTALLY GEEKED!

Ohfour wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Sure they can. I don't care. I won't do it though. Plus, its not allowed....

---

 Shut up, let me talk.  

---

 Milady...

---

 

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

This is like virginity. To some it is really really important and they are saving it for marriage. To others losing it before marriage isn't a big deal at all. No reason to not respect the others choice though.

---

 nope, wrong analogy.

huskerbb wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

LOL Husker. OH 4 and G are awesome together. They like being with each other. They have no desire to go out without the other, but will if the situation calls for it. You really are just being argumentative.

---

But that wasn't the initial premise.  Her first posts were about gossip and reputation.  She only added the other later after she realized how nonsensical and silly the first premise was.  

---

 Do your seriously think there is just on factor in people's behavior?  Come on Husker, you weren't born yesterday, although I believe some of your opinions were.  O4 has a great relationship which reflects the person she is and part of that is not doing things that others may question.  Pretty simple concept when one is in the public spotlight.  Perhaps that is the issue you don't get.

---

No, my opinions on this subject are MUCH more modern.   I believe that women and men can be friends without it being sexual.   

---

 Sure they can.  but you don't address the points about many factor's, etc.  Why is that?  Do you just get one thought stuck in your head and can't let it go?

---

 Ok, being in the public spotlight makes the issue even WORSE.  People in the public spotlight have to deal with all sorts of people--and they won't always be the same gender. 

 

Do you suppose that a Congressman would get away with having lunch with only male lobbyists?  Or hiring only male interns?  If Nancy Pelosi calls him in for a private meeting on some issue or another do you suppose he can ask to have another guy present you know, just in case? 

---

 And so now you are defending O4's earlier points?

Ohfour wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

I would say Ohfour works hard at keeping a good reputation whereas you don't really care about yours. That is the difference.

---

 So what about me?  I care about my reputation.  My business reputation was very important to me.  Hell, if my reputation was poor, I would not have been asked to testify in front of congress.  And yet, I have been known to have dinner with men who were not of my family.  I have been known to even travel around the country with men who were not of my family and no one blinked.  

WHY?  Because in this day and age of equality, women can actually do more than sit home and cook and clean.  And that includes sometimes doing jobs that bring us into contact with <gasp> other men.  

And honestly, how is Ofour going to be able to DO her job if she is never allowed to go out amongst her constituency alone?  Is she going to have to call her husband every time there is a meeting with one of the village elders or lawyer or school district superintendent?  How is this going to work?

This has to be one of the most sexist posts on here ever - and that says a lot given Husker is here. 

 

---

I don't have to call my husband for anything.  This is MY decision out of respect for myself and my husband.  If I was invited to dinner or a closed door meeting with another man, I would bring along someone else. 

And this has nothing to do with being a woman.  My husband wouldn't do it either, so you can stop playing the sexist card.

Here at work, we have a policy that there be no closed doors when a man and a woman are meeting.  No one has ever had a problem with that. 

---

 But you are basing this on what other's might perceive.  And those perceptions are solely based on a sexist, mysogonistic belief system.  

That the IMMEDIATE perception of YOU or ANY woman around your husband (you yourself said women thrown themselves at him all of the time) alone with a male means something untoward is happening.  Hell, you or your husband couldn't even be in a closed door meeting on work premises during work hours with someone of the opposite sex is because the very first and only impression is of some sort of inappropriate behavior. 

That literally means that YOU or any woman coming into contact with your husband is LESSER of a professional.  

I don't care if that is what "works for you and your husband".  Because what works for your husband not only could make my job harder, it also puts out the perception that I - as a professional woman - am not trustworthy enough to be able to focus on my job when it comes to working with men.  And while YOU may think that all YOU are doing is protecting the sanctity of your marriage, others will think that your snubbing me is due to any number of other problems/concerns/issues. 

That is why your whole stance sucks. 

 

And quite frankly - it's not the people that avoid the appearance of impropriety by being overly cautious and studious to avoid it - it's the ones who actually screw around that are the ones that cause the people not to seem trustworthy. If people would stop cheating, and screwing around at work - no one would ever actually have to think it could be a problem.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

I would say Ohfour works hard at keeping a good reputation whereas you don't really care about yours. That is the difference.

---

 So what about me?  I care about my reputation.  My business reputation was very important to me.  Hell, if my reputation was poor, I would not have been asked to testify in front of congress.  And yet, I have been known to have dinner with men who were not of my family.  I have been known to even travel around the country with men who were not of my family and no one blinked.  

WHY?  Because in this day and age of equality, women can actually do more than sit home and cook and clean.  And that includes sometimes doing jobs that bring us into contact with <gasp> other men.  

And honestly, how is Ofour going to be able to DO her job if she is never allowed to go out amongst her constituency alone?  Is she going to have to call her husband every time there is a meeting with one of the village elders or lawyer or school district superintendent?  How is this going to work?

This has to be one of the most sexist posts on here ever - and that says a lot given Husker is here. 

 

---

I don't have to call my husband for anything.  This is MY decision out of respect for myself and my husband.  If I was invited to dinner or a closed door meeting with another man, I would bring along someone else. 

And this has nothing to do with being a woman.  My husband wouldn't do it either, so you can stop playing the sexist card.

Here at work, we have a policy that there be no closed doors when a man and a woman are meeting.  No one has ever had a problem with that. 

---

 But you are basing this on what other's might perceive.  And those perceptions are solely based on a sexist, mysogonistic belief system.  

That the IMMEDIATE perception of YOU or ANY woman around your husband (you yourself said women thrown themselves at him all of the time) alone with a male means something untoward is happening.  Hell, you or your husband couldn't even be in a closed door meeting on work premises during work hours with someone of the opposite sex is because the very first and only impression is of some sort of inappropriate behavior. 

That literally means that YOU or any woman coming into contact with your husband is LESSER of a professional.  

I don't care if that is what "works for you and your husband".  Because what works for your husband not only could make my job harder, it also puts out the perception that I - as a professional woman - am not trustworthy enough to be able to focus on my job when it comes to working with men.  And while YOU may think that all YOU are doing is protecting the sanctity of your marriage, others will think that your snubbing me is due to any number of other problems/concerns/issues. 

That is why your whole stance sucks. 

 

---

 Appearances matter.  Even the Bible tells you to avoid the APPEARANCE of impropriety.  And if that's the way her and her husband treat their marriage, it is nobody's business to question it, whether you agree with it or not.

---

 I said the same thing. Husker doesn't grasp the concept. 

---

 I get it--you're just wrong.  You are wrong in your quoting of the bible which says evil, and not impropriety.  You are wrong in saying that YOU somehow get to decide what is "improper".  You are wrong in condemning what is NOT a sin--and failing to condemn what is.

Ilumine wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

I would say Ohfour works hard at keeping a good reputation whereas you don't really care about yours. That is the difference.

---

 So what about me?  I care about my reputation.  My business reputation was very important to me.  Hell, if my reputation was poor, I would not have been asked to testify in front of congress.  And yet, I have been known to have dinner with men who were not of my family.  I have been known to even travel around the country with men who were not of my family and no one blinked.  

WHY?  Because in this day and age of equality, women can actually do more than sit home and cook and clean.  And that includes sometimes doing jobs that bring us into contact with <gasp> other men.  

And honestly, how is Ofour going to be able to DO her job if she is never allowed to go out amongst her constituency alone?  Is she going to have to call her husband every time there is a meeting with one of the village elders or lawyer or school district superintendent?  How is this going to work?

This has to be one of the most sexist posts on here ever - and that says a lot given Husker is here. 

 

---

I don't have to call my husband for anything.  This is MY decision out of respect for myself and my husband.  If I was invited to dinner or a closed door meeting with another man, I would bring along someone else. 

And this has nothing to do with being a woman.  My husband wouldn't do it either, so you can stop playing the sexist card.

Here at work, we have a policy that there be no closed doors when a man and a woman are meeting.  No one has ever had a problem with that. 

---

 But you are basing this on what other's might perceive.  And those perceptions are solely based on a sexist, mysogonistic belief system.  

That the IMMEDIATE perception of YOU or ANY woman around your husband (you yourself said women thrown themselves at him all of the time) alone with a male means something untoward is happening.  Hell, you or your husband couldn't even be in a closed door meeting on work premises during work hours with someone of the opposite sex is because the very first and only impression is of some sort of inappropriate behavior. 

That literally means that YOU or any woman coming into contact with your husband is LESSER of a professional.  

I don't care if that is what "works for you and your husband".  Because what works for your husband not only could make my job harder, it also puts out the perception that I - as a professional woman - am not trustworthy enough to be able to focus on my job when it comes to working with men.  And while YOU may think that all YOU are doing is protecting the sanctity of your marriage, others will think that your snubbing me is due to any number of other problems/concerns/issues. 

That is why your whole stance sucks. 

 

---

My stance is also my company's stance.  By policy, there can be no one woman and one man behind closed doors. Hasn't hampered me or my colleagues one bit. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

I would say Ohfour works hard at keeping a good reputation whereas you don't really care about yours. That is the difference.

---

 So what about me?  I care about my reputation.  My business reputation was very important to me.  Hell, if my reputation was poor, I would not have been asked to testify in front of congress.  And yet, I have been known to have dinner with men who were not of my family.  I have been known to even travel around the country with men who were not of my family and no one blinked.  

WHY?  Because in this day and age of equality, women can actually do more than sit home and cook and clean.  And that includes sometimes doing jobs that bring us into contact with <gasp> other men.  

And honestly, how is Ofour going to be able to DO her job if she is never allowed to go out amongst her constituency alone?  Is she going to have to call her husband every time there is a meeting with one of the village elders or lawyer or school district superintendent?  How is this going to work?

This has to be one of the most sexist posts on here ever - and that says a lot given Husker is here. 

 

---

I don't have to call my husband for anything.  This is MY decision out of respect for myself and my husband.  If I was invited to dinner or a closed door meeting with another man, I would bring along someone else. 

And this has nothing to do with being a woman.  My husband wouldn't do it either, so you can stop playing the sexist card.

Here at work, we have a policy that there be no closed doors when a man and a woman are meeting.  No one has ever had a problem with that. 

---

 But you are basing this on what other's might perceive.  And those perceptions are solely based on a sexist, mysogonistic belief system.  

That the IMMEDIATE perception of YOU or ANY woman around your husband (you yourself said women thrown themselves at him all of the time) alone with a male means something untoward is happening.  Hell, you or your husband couldn't even be in a closed door meeting on work premises during work hours with someone of the opposite sex is because the very first and only impression is of some sort of inappropriate behavior. 

That literally means that YOU or any woman coming into contact with your husband is LESSER of a professional.  

I don't care if that is what "works for you and your husband".  Because what works for your husband not only could make my job harder, it also puts out the perception that I - as a professional woman - am not trustworthy enough to be able to focus on my job when it comes to working with men.  And while YOU may think that all YOU are doing is protecting the sanctity of your marriage, others will think that your snubbing me is due to any number of other problems/concerns/issues. 

That is why your whole stance sucks. 

 

---

 Appearances matter.  Even the Bible tells you to avoid the APPEARANCE of impropriety.  And if that's the way her and her husband treat their marriage, it is nobody's business to question it, whether you agree with it or not.

---

 Well, when her views on appearances negatively affect my job and my reputation, then yes I can question it.   I worked in the National Political world and my husband currently works in the local government (in the south no less).  

If my husband was to deny a closed door meeting with our county's lawyer while going over something private, to deny carpooling to a board meeting with our Female County Commissioner or stop off and have lunch with his female counterpart after Restore Act meeting, the immediate response would not be "oh he is keeping up appearances, but "Oh my, Sandy or Kathy or Sue must have done something to force DH to not want to be alone with him."   

Can you NOT see how demeaning that is?  How that would and could ruin these perfectly professional women's reputations?  These women have a right to do their jobs to the best of their ability.  And in this world, that includes a number of impromptu lunches, closed door meetings, carpooling and dinners.  

So why is OFOUR or Her husband's reputation more important than the other women around them?  

Ilumine wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

I would say Ohfour works hard at keeping a good reputation whereas you don't really care about yours. That is the difference.

---

 So what about me?  I care about my reputation.  My business reputation was very important to me.  Hell, if my reputation was poor, I would not have been asked to testify in front of congress.  And yet, I have been known to have dinner with men who were not of my family.  I have been known to even travel around the country with men who were not of my family and no one blinked.  

WHY?  Because in this day and age of equality, women can actually do more than sit home and cook and clean.  And that includes sometimes doing jobs that bring us into contact with <gasp> other men.  

And honestly, how is Ofour going to be able to DO her job if she is never allowed to go out amongst her constituency alone?  Is she going to have to call her husband every time there is a meeting with one of the village elders or lawyer or school district superintendent?  How is this going to work?

This has to be one of the most sexist posts on here ever - and that says a lot given Husker is here. 

 

---

I don't have to call my husband for anything.  This is MY decision out of respect for myself and my husband.  If I was invited to dinner or a closed door meeting with another man, I would bring along someone else. 

And this has nothing to do with being a woman.  My husband wouldn't do it either, so you can stop playing the sexist card.

Here at work, we have a policy that there be no closed doors when a man and a woman are meeting.  No one has ever had a problem with that. 

---

 But you are basing this on what other's might perceive.  And those perceptions are solely based on a sexist, mysogonistic belief system.  

That the IMMEDIATE perception of YOU or ANY woman around your husband (you yourself said women thrown themselves at him all of the time) alone with a male means something untoward is happening.  Hell, you or your husband couldn't even be in a closed door meeting on work premises during work hours with someone of the opposite sex is because the very first and only impression is of some sort of inappropriate behavior. 

That literally means that YOU or any woman coming into contact with your husband is LESSER of a professional.  

I don't care if that is what "works for you and your husband".  Because what works for your husband not only could make my job harder, it also puts out the perception that I - as a professional woman - am not trustworthy enough to be able to focus on my job when it comes to working with men.  And while YOU may think that all YOU are doing is protecting the sanctity of your marriage, others will think that your snubbing me is due to any number of other problems/concerns/issues. 

That is why your whole stance sucks. 

 

---

 Appearances matter.  Even the Bible tells you to avoid the APPEARANCE of impropriety.  And if that's the way her and her husband treat their marriage, it is nobody's business to question it, whether you agree with it or not.

---

 Well, when her views on appearances negatively affect my job and my reputation, then yes I can question it.   I worked in the National Political world and my husband currently works in the local government (in the south no less).  

If my husband was to deny a closed door meeting with our county's lawyer while going over something private, to deny carpooling to a board meeting with our Female County Commissioner or stop off and have lunch with his female counterpart after Restore Act meeting, the immediate response would not be "oh he is keeping up appearances, but "Oh my, Sandy or Kathy or Sue must have done something to force DH to not want to be alone with him."   

Can you NOT see how demeaning that is?  How that would and could ruin these perfectly professional women's reputations?  These women have a right to do their jobs to the best of their ability.  And in this world, that includes a number of impromptu lunches, closed door meetings, carpooling and dinners.  

So why is OFOUR or Her husband's reputation more important than the other women around them?  

---

It's really not as big a deal as you like to think... It works quite well for a lot of people and companies.

Ilumine wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

I would say Ohfour works hard at keeping a good reputation whereas you don't really care about yours. That is the difference.

---

 So what about me?  I care about my reputation.  My business reputation was very important to me.  Hell, if my reputation was poor, I would not have been asked to testify in front of congress.  And yet, I have been known to have dinner with men who were not of my family.  I have been known to even travel around the country with men who were not of my family and no one blinked.  

WHY?  Because in this day and age of equality, women can actually do more than sit home and cook and clean.  And that includes sometimes doing jobs that bring us into contact with <gasp> other men.  

And honestly, how is Ofour going to be able to DO her job if she is never allowed to go out amongst her constituency alone?  Is she going to have to call her husband every time there is a meeting with one of the village elders or lawyer or school district superintendent?  How is this going to work?

This has to be one of the most sexist posts on here ever - and that says a lot given Husker is here. 

 

---

I don't have to call my husband for anything.  This is MY decision out of respect for myself and my husband.  If I was invited to dinner or a closed door meeting with another man, I would bring along someone else. 

And this has nothing to do with being a woman.  My husband wouldn't do it either, so you can stop playing the sexist card.

Here at work, we have a policy that there be no closed doors when a man and a woman are meeting.  No one has ever had a problem with that. 

---

 But you are basing this on what other's might perceive.  And those perceptions are solely based on a sexist, mysogonistic belief system.  

That the IMMEDIATE perception of YOU or ANY woman around your husband (you yourself said women thrown themselves at him all of the time) alone with a male means something untoward is happening.  Hell, you or your husband couldn't even be in a closed door meeting on work premises during work hours with someone of the opposite sex is because the very first and only impression is of some sort of inappropriate behavior. 

That literally means that YOU or any woman coming into contact with your husband is LESSER of a professional.  

I don't care if that is what "works for you and your husband".  Because what works for your husband not only could make my job harder, it also puts out the perception that I - as a professional woman - am not trustworthy enough to be able to focus on my job when it comes to working with men.  And while YOU may think that all YOU are doing is protecting the sanctity of your marriage, others will think that your snubbing me is due to any number of other problems/concerns/issues. 

That is why your whole stance sucks. 

 

---

 Appearances matter.  Even the Bible tells you to avoid the APPEARANCE of impropriety.  And if that's the way her and her husband treat their marriage, it is nobody's business to question it, whether you agree with it or not.

---

 Well, when her views on appearances negatively affect my job and my reputation, then yes I can question it.   I worked in the National Political world and my husband currently works in the local government (in the south no less).  

If my husband was to deny a closed door meeting with our county's lawyer while going over something private, to deny carpooling to a board meeting with our Female County Commissioner or stop off and have lunch with his female counterpart after Restore Act meeting, the immediate response would not be "oh he is keeping up appearances, but "Oh my, Sandy or Kathy or Sue must have done something to force DH to not want to be alone with him."   

Can you NOT see how demeaning that is?  How that would and could ruin these perfectly professional women's reputations?  These women have a right to do their jobs to the best of their ability.  And in this world, that includes a number of impromptu lunches, closed door meetings, carpooling and dinners.  

So why is OFOUR or Her husband's reputation more important than the other women around them?  

---

 Ohfour only has to care about HER reputation.  Why does anyone else's matter to her in her decision making?

I think the company policy of no one on one behind closed doors is a good one. In this litigious world where sexual harassment suits are common & hostile work environment claims are not uncommon I think they are covering their bases. Not to mention messy work affairs & then breakups.

 

 

2 Corinthians 8:16-24New Living Translation (NLT)

Titus and His Companions

16 But thank God! He has given Titus the same enthusiasm for you that I have. 17 Titus welcomed our request that he visit you again. In fact, he himself was very eager to go and see you. 18 We are also sending another brother with Titus. All the churches praise him as a preacher of the Good News. 19 He was appointed by the churches to accompany us as we take the offering to Jerusalem[a]—a service that glorifies the Lord and shows our eagerness to help.

20 We are traveling together to guard against any criticism for the way we are handling this generous gift. 21 We are careful to be honorable before the Lord, but we also want everyone else to see that we are honorable.

22 We are also sending with them another of our brothers who has proven himself many times and has shown on many occasions how eager he is. He is now even more enthusiastic because of his great confidence in you. 23 If anyone asks about Titus, say that he is my partner who works with me to help you. And the brothers with him have been sent by the churches, and they bring honor to Christ. 24 So show them your love, and prove to all the churches that our boasting about you is justified.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Wednesday 8th of July 2015 12:33:38 PM

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

You are not paying attention to all the right verses. Try 2 Corinthians 8:16-24 regarding the appearances related to handling money.

---

 Um, yeah, that says nothing about what we are discussing.

---

 Yes, it does.  It talks about how the appearance of how they handle the money is important, not just what they actually do.  They equates to all things, not just that specific issue.  Or are you incapable of understanding the lessons of the Bible and acribing them to other aspects of life? 

 

---

 No, it does not.  It doesn't even hint at that. 

 

Again, who gets to decide what something "looks" like?

 

Drinking alcohol in and of itself is not a sin.  Drunkenness is.  To some people, imbibing ANY amount of alcohol makes you a drunk.  Using your ridiculous theory, then, NO ONE should ever be able to drink alcohol because drinking ANY amount would "appear" to some people that you are getting drunk.

 

That is CLEARLY not what the Bible says on the topic--so using your ridiculous theory, and has to abstain from doing things that are NOT sins because some people will misconstrue those actions and then commit the ACTUAL sin of gossip or bearing false witness.  

 

Agian, to use your ridiculous theory, men and women could NEVER interact one on one because someone might think it "appears" to be something it is not.  I couldn't even meet a cousin or an aunt oe, heck, even my mother for dinner out alone--because people would not know we are related.  Similarly, you could never dine alone with your father or a brother.  

---

 Yes, Husker - you should avoid the APPEARANCE of sin.  We are Christians and our job is to lead people to Christ.  People don't like hypocrites.  So, everyone knows it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage, so staying the night at your girlfriend's house with your car in the driveway, or moving in together appears to be having sex - even if you are not. 

Taking in donations for a charitable cause and then buying a pricy new car does not look good - even if you actually gave the money to the charitable cause and spent your own money on the car.  It still LOOKS bad.

Being seen around town all the time with a woman not your wife is going to cause people to think you are having an affair. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

You are not paying attention to all the right verses. Try 2 Corinthians 8:16-24 regarding the appearances related to handling money.

---

 Um, yeah, that says nothing about what we are discussing.

---

 Yes, it does.  It talks about how the appearance of how they handle the money is important, not just what they actually do.  They equates to all things, not just that specific issue.  Or are you incapable of understanding the lessons of the Bible and acribing them to other aspects of life? 

 

---

 No, it does not.  It doesn't even hint at that. 

 

Again, who gets to decide what something "looks" like?

 

Drinking alcohol in and of itself is not a sin.  Drunkenness is.  To some people, imbibing ANY amount of alcohol makes you a drunk.  Using your ridiculous theory, then, NO ONE should ever be able to drink alcohol because drinking ANY amount would "appear" to some people that you are getting drunk.

 

That is CLEARLY not what the Bible says on the topic--so using your ridiculous theory, and has to abstain from doing things that are NOT sins because some people will misconstrue those actions and then commit the ACTUAL sin of gossip or bearing false witness.  

 

Agian, to use your ridiculous theory, men and women could NEVER interact one on one because someone might think it "appears" to be something it is not.  I couldn't even meet a cousin or an aunt oe, heck, even my mother for dinner out alone--because people would not know we are related.  Similarly, you could never dine alone with your father or a brother.  

---

 Yes, Husker - you should avoid the APPEARANCE of sin.  We are Christians and our job is to lead people to Christ.  People don't like hypocrites.  So, everyone knows it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage, so staying the night at your girlfriend's house with your car in the driveway, or moving in together appears to be having sex - even if you are not. 

Taking in donations for a charitable cause and then buying a pricy new car does not look good - even if you actually gave the money to the charitable cause and spent your own money on the car.  It still LOOKS bad.

Being seen around town all the time with a woman not your wife is going to cause people to think you are having an affair. 

---

 So you would never go have lunch alone with your father?

no one is talking about spending nights or moving in.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

You are not paying attention to all the right verses. Try 2 Corinthians 8:16-24 regarding the appearances related to handling money.

---

 Um, yeah, that says nothing about what we are discussing.

---

 Yes, it does.  It talks about how the appearance of how they handle the money is important, not just what they actually do.  They equates to all things, not just that specific issue.  Or are you incapable of understanding the lessons of the Bible and acribing them to other aspects of life? 

 

---

 No, it does not.  It doesn't even hint at that. 

 

Again, who gets to decide what something "looks" like?

 

Drinking alcohol in and of itself is not a sin.  Drunkenness is.  To some people, imbibing ANY amount of alcohol makes you a drunk.  Using your ridiculous theory, then, NO ONE should ever be able to drink alcohol because drinking ANY amount would "appear" to some people that you are getting drunk.

 

That is CLEARLY not what the Bible says on the topic--so using your ridiculous theory, and has to abstain from doing things that are NOT sins because some people will misconstrue those actions and then commit the ACTUAL sin of gossip or bearing false witness.  

 

Agian, to use your ridiculous theory, men and women could NEVER interact one on one because someone might think it "appears" to be something it is not.  I couldn't even meet a cousin or an aunt oe, heck, even my mother for dinner out alone--because people would not know we are related.  Similarly, you could never dine alone with your father or a brother.  

---

 Yes, Husker - you should avoid the APPEARANCE of sin.  We are Christians and our job is to lead people to Christ.  People don't like hypocrites.  So, everyone knows it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage, so staying the night at your girlfriend's house with your car in the driveway, or moving in together appears to be having sex - even if you are not. 

Taking in donations for a charitable cause and then buying a pricy new car does not look good - even if you actually gave the money to the charitable cause and spent your own money on the car.  It still LOOKS bad.

Being seen around town all the time with a woman not your wife is going to cause people to think you are having an affair. 

---

 So you would never go have lunch alone with your father?

no one is talking about spending nights or moving in.

---

 That doesn't make any sense at all.  My father would not be an un-related man. 

 

huskerbb wrote:

---

You never addressed the alcohol situation, either.

---

 I agree with you on the alcohol - drinking it is not a sin, but drunkenness it.  Acting drunk would be the appearance of sin, not imbibing a glass of wine.  And the Bible doesn't say that drinking alcohol is a sin, so your comparison there fails.   

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

You are not paying attention to all the right verses. Try 2 Corinthians 8:16-24 regarding the appearances related to handling money.

---

 Um, yeah, that says nothing about what we are discussing.

---

 Yes, it does.  It talks about how the appearance of how they handle the money is important, not just what they actually do.  They equates to all things, not just that specific issue.  Or are you incapable of understanding the lessons of the Bible and acribing them to other aspects of life? 

 

---

 No, it does not.  It doesn't even hint at that. 

 

Again, who gets to decide what something "looks" like?

 

Drinking alcohol in and of itself is not a sin.  Drunkenness is.  To some people, imbibing ANY amount of alcohol makes you a drunk.  Using your ridiculous theory, then, NO ONE should ever be able to drink alcohol because drinking ANY amount would "appear" to some people that you are getting drunk.

 

That is CLEARLY not what the Bible says on the topic--so using your ridiculous theory, and has to abstain from doing things that are NOT sins because some people will misconstrue those actions and then commit the ACTUAL sin of gossip or bearing false witness.  

 

Agian, to use your ridiculous theory, men and women could NEVER interact one on one because someone might think it "appears" to be something it is not.  I couldn't even meet a cousin or an aunt oe, heck, even my mother for dinner out alone--because people would not know we are related.  Similarly, you could never dine alone with your father or a brother.  

---

 Yes, Husker - you should avoid the APPEARANCE of sin.  We are Christians and our job is to lead people to Christ.  People don't like hypocrites.  So, everyone knows it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage, so staying the night at your girlfriend's house with your car in the driveway, or moving in together appears to be having sex - even if you are not. 

Taking in donations for a charitable cause and then buying a pricy new car does not look good - even if you actually gave the money to the charitable cause and spent your own money on the car.  It still LOOKS bad.

Being seen around town all the time with a woman not your wife is going to cause people to think you are having an affair. 

---

 So you would never go have lunch alone with your father?

no one is talking about spending nights or moving in.

---

 That doesn't make any sense at all.  My father would not be an un-related man. 

 

---

 How would anyone know the difference?   To an outsider, the appearance would still be the same.

 

how would they know a woman I might be seen with isn't my sister or a cousin?

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

You never addressed the alcohol situation, either.

---

 I agree with you on the alcohol - drinking it is not a sin, but drunkenness it.  Acting drunk would be the appearance of sin, not imbibing a glass of wine.  And the Bible doesn't say that drinking alcohol is a sin, so your comparison there fails.   

---

 No, yours does.  The bible doesn't say that having dinner with a person of the opposite sex who isn't your spouse is a sin, either.  

Why does anybody care enough about what Ohfour and her DH do in their marriage? I swear you'd argue with a lump of coal just to be right husker...lol

I understand what husker is saying. It's not that difficult.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

I understand what husker is saying. It's not that difficult.

flan

---

 No one said they didn't understand what he was saying just that he gets pretty worked up about how Ohfour does things in HER marriage. Boy you sure love to defend him even when he's arguing for no reason but I was involved so I understand you can't help yourself...lol

Ohfour wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I understand what husker is saying. It's not that difficult.

flan

---

So, do you think I'm untrustworthy and can't control myself around other men? 

---

You know me better than that.

This is the first time I have heard of a business specifically prohibiting its employees from going to lunch with a member of the opposite sex.

But you have also said that, even without the company rule, you and G would choose to live that way and that's fine.

It's just hard for some of us to understand, that's all.

flan

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

You never addressed the alcohol situation, either.

---

 I agree with you on the alcohol - drinking it is not a sin, but drunkenness it.  Acting drunk would be the appearance of sin, not imbibing a glass of wine.  And the Bible doesn't say that drinking alcohol is a sin, so your comparison there fails.   

---

 No, yours does.  The bible doesn't say that having dinner with a person of the opposite sex who isn't your spouse is a sin, either.  

---

 Please show me where, in the Bible, wives are having dinner with other men than their husbands without their husbands present?

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

You never addressed the alcohol situation, either.

---

 I agree with you on the alcohol - drinking it is not a sin, but drunkenness it.  Acting drunk would be the appearance of sin, not imbibing a glass of wine.  And the Bible doesn't say that drinking alcohol is a sin, so your comparison there fails.   

---

 No, yours does.  The bible doesn't say that having dinner with a person of the opposite sex who isn't your spouse is a sin, either.  

---

 Please show me where, in the Bible, wives are having dinner with other men than their husbands without their husbands present?

---

Jesus had dinner with Mary and Martha--TWO women.  Scandalous. 

---

 I know it's hard Husker, but try to keep up.  She Said WIVES.  WIVES.  One more time in case you don't understand, WIVES.