Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't like the reference to a pig, no matter what I may think you are, I hold no reason to make such comparrisons that may even hint at an insult to your characther. In the laws of existence, both of us are destined to be with God forever, it is your belief and religion that excludes me and unbelievers from being pigs that are destined to be the very sons of God.
If you keep up such insults, I will no longer hold an intrest in conversing with you.
I take it you are not familiar with that phrase about putting lipstick on a pig. Here, I'll help you understand. Read these links.
Many porcine proverbs describe vain attempts at converting something from ugly to pretty, or from useless to useful. The famous maxim that "You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear" dates back at least to the mid-16th century. Other old sayings play on the ludicrousness of a pig getting dressed up. "A hog in armour is still but a hog" was recorded in 1732 by British physician Thomas Fuller. As Francis Grose later explained in A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1796), a "hog in armour" alludes to "an awkward or mean looking man or woman, finely dressed." Charles H. Spurgeon noted another variation in his 1887 compendium of proverbs, The Salt-Cellars: "A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog," meaning, "Circumstances do not alter a man's nature, nor even his manners."
The "lipstick" variation is relatively novel—not surprising, since the word lipstick itself dates only to 1880. The incongruity of pigs and cosmetics was expressed as early as 1926 by the colorful editor Charles F. Lummis, writing in the Los Angeles Times: "Most of us know as much of history as a pig does of lipsticks." But the exact wording of "putting lipstick on a pig (or hog)" doesn't show up until much later. In 1985, the Washington Post quoted a San Francisco radio host on plans for renovating Candlestick Park (instead of building a new downtown stadium for the Giants): "That would be like putting lipstick on a pig."
Ann Richards did much to boost the saying's political popularity when she used a number of variations while governor of Texas in the early '90s. In 1991, in her first budget-writing session, she said, "This is not another one of those deals where you put lipstick on a hog and call it a princess." The next year, at a Democratic barbecue in South Dakota, she criticized the George H.W. Bush administration for using warships to protect oil tankers in the Middle East, which she considered a hidden subsidy for foreign oil. "You can put lipstick on a hog and call it Monique, but it is still a pig," she said. Richards returned to the theme in her failed 1994 gubernatorial race against the younger Bush, using the "call it Monique" line to disparage her opponent's negative ads.
Hope this helps to clarify the phrase. Now, go back and read my post, knowing what that mean. I was not calling you a pig. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Oh great, there's another phrase you wont understand.
Many porcine proverbs describe vain attempts at converting something from ugly to pretty, or from useless to useful. The famous maxim that "You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear" dates back at least to the mid-16th century. Other old sayings play on the ludicrousness of a pig getting dressed up. "A hog in armour is still but a hog" was recorded in 1732 by British physician Thomas Fuller. As Francis Grose later explained in A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1796), a "hog in armour" alludes to "an awkward or mean looking man or woman, finely dressed." Charles H. Spurgeon noted another variation in his 1887 compendium of proverbs, The Salt-Cellars: "A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog," meaning, "Circumstances do not alter a man's nature, nor even his manners."
The "lipstick" variation is relatively novel—not surprising, since the word lipstick itself dates only to 1880. The incongruity of pigs and cosmetics was expressed as early as 1926 by the colorful editor Charles F. Lummis, writing in the Los Angeles Times: "Most of us know as much of history as a pig does of lipsticks." But the exact wording of "putting lipstick on a pig (or hog)" doesn't show up until much later. In 1985, the Washington Post quoted a San Francisco radio host on plans for renovating Candlestick Park (instead of building a new downtown stadium for the Giants): "That would be like putting lipstick on a pig."
Ann Richards did much to boost the saying's political popularity when she used a number of variations while governor of Texas in the early '90s. In 1991, in her first budget-writing session, she said, "This is not another one of those deals where you put lipstick on a hog and call it a princess." The next year, at a Democratic barbecue in South Dakota, she criticized the George H.W. Bush administration for using warships to protect oil tankers in the Middle East, which she considered a hidden subsidy for foreign oil. "You can put lipstick on a hog and call it Monique, but it is still a pig," she said. Richards returned to the theme in her failed 1994 gubernatorial race against the younger Bush, using the "call it Monique" line to disparage her opponent's negative ads.
Hope this helps to clarify the phrase. Now, go back and read my post, knowing what that mean. I was not calling you a pig. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Oh great, there's another phrase you wont understand.
Interesting how you can find support for an abstract phrase and can't find me biblical support for you christians evangelizing or claiming hell is referenced to in the bible more than heaven.
Interesting how you can find support for an abstract phrase and can't find me biblical support for you christians evangelizing or claiming hell is referenced to in the bible more than heaven.
Not even a thank you. Tell me what disciples do, first. What I find telling is that you persist in the same activity as a disciple yet do it without proper clearance. Why do you do that? Your papers are not in order.
What is this new question you are bringing up, Disciple Mickiel?
Not even a thank you. Tell me what disciples do, first.
You should reconize by now that I am only going to answer that, when you supply the biblical evidence for christian evangelization in this age; see, I already know there are no such scriptures- you christians are just doing it based on your own interpitations of who is really in control of converting humans. I don't care how much one person plants or another one waters, only God can give the increase, but christians think evangelization gives all of the above.
NO one can even come to Christ unless the Father draws them, John 6:44. christians are on a giant ego trip, and its a traditional trip, biblically unfounded.
You should reconize by now that I am only going to answer that, when you supply the biblical evidence for christian evangelization in this age; see, I already know there are no such scriptures- you christians are just doing it based on your own interpitations of who is really in control of converting humans. I don't care how much one person plants or another one waters, only God can give the increase, but christians think evangelization gives all of the above.
NO one can even come to Christ unless the Father draws them, John 6:44. christians are on a giant ego trip, and its a traditional trip, biblically unfounded.
You fear the answer. When you answer my question, we can proceed. It's a give and take in this conversation and you refuse to give, and just take, so we are at an impasse, because I have already answered your question, yet you refuse to answer mine. In light of your evangelizing, you claim there is to be no evangelizing. You keep dressing that pig up as pretty as you can to make a distinction from your other Christians, that you don't even see that it is still a pig. A pig is a pig is a pig.
You fear the answer. When you answer my question, we can proceed. It's a give and take in this conversation and you refuse to give, and just take, so we are at an impasse, because I have already answered your question, yet you refuse to answer mine. In light of your evangelizing, you claim there is to be no evangelizing. You keep dressing that pig up as pretty as you can to make a distinction from your other Christians, that you don't even see that it is still a pig. A pig is a pig is a pig.
The truth is not a pig, humanity no longer has any dirt on them that could condemn them; your gospel puts the dirt on humanity and teachs that God is going to treat them like condemned pigs.
The truth is not a pig, humanity no longer has any dirt on them that could condemn them; your gospel puts the dirt on humanity and teachs that God is going to treat them like condemned pigs.
What do you have against pigs? They are one of the more intelligent mammals, and if allowed to be they are as clean as any other...I like pigs.
The truth is not a pig, humanity no longer has any dirt on them that could condemn them; your gospel puts the dirt on humanity and teachs that God is going to treat them like condemned pigs.
I'm not the one preaching a gospel, you are projecting.
You still don't get the pig phrase, do you. I know English is not your first language, but you still should be able to grasp a little bit of logic. Lets make it a rose. You like roses, don't you? You can pour garlic over a rose, but the thorns will stick you just the same. Capiche?
What do you have against pigs? They are one of the more intelligent mammals, and if allowed to be they are as clean as any other...I like pigs.
He is following his hero, Jesus. Jesus did not like pigs. In Mark 5:13, when Jesus was casting out evil spirits, instead of just destroying the evil spirits, he transferred them to 2,000 pigs and then drowned the pigs. I will guess that the owner of the livestock was not happy with the turn of events, but what can you do?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
