Are people who are dating single?

Probably got banned if there were any.

SMH

"Good grief..."

In the context of my discussion of the use of the word 'single' as it applies to marital status, I am only talking about the usage of the word 'single' as it applies to marital status.

My use of the word 'handled' in the post you quoted is with regard to the usage of the word 'single' as it applies to marital status.

It is "a separate issue" (or, should be) in that it is dealt with (or, should be) separately from the usage of the word 'single' as it applies to marital status.

In other words, "preconceived ideas about divorced/widowed people" should not be "attached" to the word 'single' in such a way that the mere use of the word "conjures up" all of the 'baggage' and 'crap' of the kind that has been filling up this thread.

The pure evidence of this in this thread absolutely-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt proves beyond question what I am saying about the effects of not using this word properly in this context.

In the context of my discussion - I am not interested in - nor am I talking about - anyone's sexual mores, the government, or whatever...

I am not declaring any right or privilege to "lord over" or be the judge of anyone's life.

None of these "conjured up" ideas about what I am saying have anything whatsoever to do with what I am saying.

I am only talking about the correct and proper use of the word 'single' as it applies to marital status. That is all.

All of the rest of the 'crap' going on in this thread is coming from the conscience of other people about issues that they have somehow managed to "attach" to the word 'single'.

If you (generic/whoever) are [automatically] offended ["outright"] by someone's marital status, then you have a problem that this thread cannot even begin to approach.

I think you missed the part where God said we should be truthful and not lie to each other.

I believe that the [real, true] historical record shows the original intent and use of the word 'single' with regard to 'marital status'.

And, common sense knows that it really is the best way to define it.

~

I guess you would have me to "lead her on" until she falls in love with me - and then tear her heart out when I find out she is divorced - and have to tell her that, out of 'principle', I cannot marry her.

NO - it is not right.

It is better to know the truth up front in order to protect her. (and not just me)

I have no intention to marry a divorced woman. (My personal [biblical] conviction and preference.)

Therefore, I need to know "early on" - for her sake as well as mine.

Besides - why go through all of that time and effort if it is "doomed from the get-go"...???

Sure - unless Satan has modified or removed all of the relevant documents from the 1960s and 1970s...

Obviously not, or so many people wouldn't disagree.
Only because you misunderstood her use of the word "single" to mean she was never married.
Then have that conversation instead of looking for the quick answer. Why would you even be dating someone before you knew this about them anyway?

Good question.

Paul refers to himself as single in the Bible, but at my Christian school, they said he was believed to have been part of the religious sect that required marriage for membership before his conversion.

Apparently no one knows if his wife died or if they divorced.

I have known some people whose spouse left with someone else, yet they would not sign divorce papers, and so the person left behind remains in an indefinite state of limbo.

EXACTLY!!!

There are those of you who are vividly illustrated by the egg on the wall - you want 'single' to mean what you want it to mean - rather than how it was originally defined. (and still should be, and the usage thereof)

Correct!

When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, NO ONE misunderstood the meaning of 'single' with regard to marital status.

And, that was because everyone accepted the commonly-held singular definition (no pun intended) instead of every other person inventing their own!

Uh... Dude... They're not the ones doing all the yelling.

You are.

Wait, I was there for a bit of that time period. And "single" was definitely applied to people who were divorced.

I mean I was young at the time, but I'm pretty sure "single" meant "not married or engaged to anybody at this particular time."

And even if it didn't back then... It does now, no matter how big your fonts get.

Well - perhaps I might "go back" and do some research on it. If I am wrong, I am man-enough to admit it...

(I am even man-enough to do the research - knowing that I might possibly find out that I am wrong.)

I am not "yelling"...

I sent my mom a text. She was older than I back then so she'll remember it better.

My mother is also a language nerd, and she says it could easily be applied to a divorced person, i.e. "Frankie is single again." (That happened a lot to Frankie. He never could keep a girl back then.)

Check out your post #82.

If you're that scared of dating a woman and finding out she was once married, months into the relationship... Just make a point to ask about it on the first date.

I mean usually it comes out LONG before the engagement. It's not something people generally keep a secret.

If she does intentionally keep it a secret then:
1. The definition of the word "single" is not going to help with this case;
2. Surely there should be other clues that you can't trust this girl anyway.

Yeah, but what if she waits till months or even years into the relationship to tell you she hasn't always been a woman?

that could happen nowadays...

Then it's the man's fault, because he spent several months so wasted that he couldn't tell a real woman from a man!

Not sure if Pharisees were required to be married. The Saducees, another sect, DID ask about marriage. They were a bit obessesed with it and didnt believe in the resurrection.

Paul was a Pharisee.

I don't know of a verse that specifically says he was part of the Sanhedrin, but according to articles I've read, it seems likely he was being prepared to be one.

Before Paul was converted, he was in presence with and condoning the death of Stephen, who was stoned by the Sanhedrin. Because of this, I have read that some think Paul may have been part of the Sanhedrin.

I have often wondered what Paul and Stephen's reunion was or will be like in heaven.

I've read seemingly conflicting reports of whether or not the Sanhedrin required marriage as part of membership, but some believe it was.

It's just a possibility, not an absolute.

Paul referred to himself as unmarried in the Bible, which is interesting.

If he was at one point he was married, separated, or divorced, he doesn't specify, but only says he is not married.

I'm certainly not saying that everyone who is not married should say they are single without specifying their individual situation.

Rather, it's just food for thought, because if Paul had been married, I wonder at which point did he then choose to call himself unmarried rather than specifying a more precise status.

wouldnt he just have said he was widowed if he had been married?
I dont think people should complicate things as it was quite clear in those times he was unmarried.