A doctrine of alienation

[Drich]

Here's the thing.. Most of the core members know that I make a very great effort in speaking to everyone on equal terms. When the conversation is respectful I in turn show that same respect. However when it becomes harsh I to also become harsh. It is a 'do unto others' in practice.

That said I have no disillusion about Paul mandating a man's role in the marriage is to be over the woman. I am simply pointing out that this dominance is not to benfit the man for his personal gain. That we take on the role of Christ and the wife takes on the role of the church. We are supposed to love, respect and direct our wives as Christ so loves, respects and directs the church.

What was going on with Lucky's dad, was not a biblical example of the mandate Paul set fourth. In said mandate we are not meant to be equal partners. We are to fill roles, and these roles have guidelines and responsibilities we must honor. If we each fill our role correctly no one person rises over the other. But rather the two separate people become one whole unified being that brings honor love and respect to God and to ourselves.

That's why I said I disagree with your social conclusions, but felt you were interpreting the verses correctly. The dad was definitely "using the Bible wrong", as the saying goes.

I simply don't agree with the Pauline ideal of marriage, thinking that women don't have a "place", and neither do men. To me marriage is a partnership of equals, and each may fill whichever role they play best, complementing the skills of and filling in the gaps of the other. Of course, by my standard, the dad was equally wrong.

By the way, you didn't just spell out the "do unto others" rule in Christian terms. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the Christian idea. Yours is "do unto others as they do unto you", which is according to Carl Sagan, the "Brazen Rule" (or the Brass Rule). We atheists, according to the same article, tend to follow what he calls the "Tit-for-Tat" Rule, which states, "Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do unto you."

But, that is it.. I want people to treat me as I treat others. So in turn I treat people how they treat others. Why? It reminds me constantly to check what it is I am saying, doing, and why. If I am being a pompus condescending ass for no other reason than I think I'm right and your wrong, then if I am wrong I want to be checked hard, so as to not make such a prideful arrogant mistake again. but at the same time I do not want to needlessly escalate the situation, so I use the conversation/exchange we are having to set the upper limits on how harsh I am. That said I so have an upper limit that members here go past that I will not. So essentially one can treat me or say things I will not say to them in return. My efforts center around the thought processes, the source material, philosophy, and 'logic' most of you blindly assume that your arguments contain, but really don't. So I take your lack of vetting your source material, and feed it back to you all in the same way you present your arguments to me. except when I do it I usally have several points of reference to support my conclusions. which usally sets up a level of irony that most (those looking to argue for the sake of arguing) can not ignore, so then I'm usally set on ignore. meaning I leave them alone and I get to work and spend time with those who really want the information I can provide... What they do with it from there is on them.

I've been doing this long enough to know that meeting tit for tat in a controlled way does indeed seem destructive and counterproductive. But, only if it is one's goal is to reach/convert everyone. I am not so prideful as to think that I will be everyone's cup-o-tea. No, I speak to a very specific group who truly want clarity about God and biblical truth. The rest are intentionally disruptive. My goal it to limit this disruption so i do not spend time with people who do not care/look to just argue, and spend all the time i can with people who do want the truth. So what better way to clear a path to those who want truth than to hack down those who are just looking to argue for the sake of arguing, by showing them a picture of who they are to me? I have found those who attack the intelligence of others have doubts about their own smartie-ness. To bring their insecureities to light, generally ends the time consuming attacks.

As far as your views about what Paul has to say about marriage.. I get it. Paul is trying to set up a atmosphere so we can learn more about our eventual relationship with Christ, so we may be blessed in this life and the next.. and you don't believe in God. You believe that roles in a marriage is wrong and that somehow we need to maintain our individuality in a marriage union.

The problem I see with individuals who get married and remain individuals after they are married is when life happens (a prolonged situation where one individual is not being treated fairly or that persons individuality is been stimmied for a prolonged time) it then becomes far too easy to separate/divorce and try again.

When we follow the rule Paul sets into place as husband and wife, the marriage is no longer about individuals. We both live to honor and serve the union. which means if we follow our role and do what it is we are supposed to do to honor the union we can work through all sorts of things together. this may have one person in the relationship carrying the brunt of burden and responsibility for a prolonged time, with little to no thought of it unless prompted. We can forgive each other for great injustices committed against each other just as we would forgive ourselves for messing up, and again to never think of it again. However if we retain our indivisuality we are not living as one being but two separate ones looking out for our own best intrests. We tend to remember how this other person has hurt us, because the two remain two and not one in Spirit.

My wife and I have lived this out many many times over the years, and aside from the really big stuff, I cant remember specific instances of any little thing/How she has wronged me over the years. She will even ask if I'm over certain things, and I will honestly have no idea what she is talking about. She was a 'wild one' growing up, and remained so up until a few years ago. It wasn't till recently that she expressed how happy she truly was and how this is the most joyful she has ever been simply living the life we are meant to live with each other.

I know my example is not how every man uses the power and authority given to him in a scriptural marriage. This thread has shown us examples of how abuses can work, but again I point out that is not the full fillment of the model given, that those types of abuse of power is the oppsite of what Paul/God wants for us. Yet this is the only way most of us will accept or want to talk about the bible's example of marriage. Which again, infact is not the example given. It's a Liberty Valance situation, in that when the Myth becomes greater than the truth, print the Myth. Most of you only want to view the myth so as to feel justified in maintaining your own individuality. That said, now that you know the truth, I need to know how is it wrong to give up one's individuality in an effort to become one with one's marriage partner?

If it is not wrong why live as a 50/50 partner in something when together, you can become whole, complete?