A doctrine of alienation

[Drich]

This is a good point. Our notions of "self" are largely culture-based programming, and this should not be overlooked. I'm not sure I go as far as Pinker's conclusions in The Blank Slate, in terms of how much this programming influences how our brains work, but I certainly concede this point.

:thumbsup:

True. However, modern studies have suggested fairly conclusively that only about half of the human race is biochemically equipped to be monogamous, on a genetic basis (genes for a set of neurochemical receptors that cause longterm mate-pair bonding). It's one of two strategies we seem to have evolved. The other is a "4 year itch" serial monogamist strategy in which a short-term bonding system causes romantic infatuation, which fades when the initial dopamine-reward-system ceases to be triggered by the person. In effect, there's a three-tiered sytem: a lust-attraction system, based on testosterone (yes, even in females), a romantic-infatuation system, based on dopamine, and a longterm pair-bonding system based on vasopressin (mainly in men) and oxytosin (mainly in women). You can read about it from the US National Institutes of Health, here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK97287/

If this were true then why the sudden spike in divorce in just these last few generations?
I would tend to agree IF all marriages ended as a result of adultery, but adultery is just one of the many reasons we get divorced.. We can get divorced now simply by claiming irreconsiable differences. Which has nothing to do with monogamous relationships. This is a condition that can only exist between two individuals. Because if you become one, then their is no me/I in the relationship.

In other words, marriage isn't for everyone, but we go on teaching that it is, and that "something is wrong with you" if you're not the marrying type, so a lot of people get married who should never do so. We expect 100% of couples to be faithful, and about half don't even have the systems to allow this sort of pair-bonding to happen. That 50% figure seems right in-line with that datum. I wish our society allowed people to be more honest about that. I'm a monogamist, but I've historically been attracted to women who turned out not to be.

this is in contrast to what Paul taught. In that Marriage is not for everyone, and if you don't get married it is better for you, but if you can't help yourself and you burn with lustful passion then get married.

If the one with the penis disagrees, then he can discuss it with his equal partner until they reach a concensus or compromise, or else they're not equal partners.

Which is why I guess we need for "irreconcilable differences" to be a legit reason for divorce.

Besides, Biblical-type or not, any married man will tell you that there are times you just gotta let her do what she wants.

No doubt.
A good leader knows when those he is to care for are in need, and sees to those needs before they become a point of contension.

Becoming a SeAL unit member transforms you in numerous ways, physically and mentally, as well. Yet the SeAL is still an individual, in addition to his place on the team. And I agree that we change greatly from the experience of falling in love with someone on a level deep enough to even consider life-partnering with them, since it's a radical change from being an sing individual to being a part of a two-person team in which you would unhesitatingly lay down your life or sacrifice individual goals in favor of adopting their happiness as part-and-parcel of your own happiness. I get that. I like the playdoh analogy, except I'd call it something like this, where your individualities merge to make purple at the places where you have fused, but there's still plenty of blue and red.

but again, you can't put All Blue and All red back into their original containers. To do so is to retain one's indivisuality. "purple" is what happens when blue and red are permenatly mixed, so even if/when the colors were separated the blue and red still remain fused together.



The goal of a biblical marriage is to be all purple with no other colors remaining in the mix. The idea is two separate playdohs become one. where both indivisuals die to their own selfish wants or needs and both work together to create a new being/family. in doing so each person's needs get met in far greater abundance than if we work as indivisuals at the same goal.

No argument from me on this, except to say that "wives submit to your husband" is much more controlling, since he's standing right there, telling her what to do or not do, than "husbands submit unto the Lord", since other than the guiding principles in the Bible, the specifics are much, much more nebulous and open to personal interpretation...

I guess that will completely depend on what/How one believes in God. Because what I have laid out puts men in the shoes of Christ. Christ served the church to the point of death. Inorder to do that one must love whatever he serves greater than he loves Himself, fore their is no greater love than one person to give his life for another. One can not love someone to the degree commanded and at the same time subjugate them. To hold another under one's personal authority is to love self over the subject.

Again this is not what is required of us. as such is not what I'm talking about. Again, it seem like your only able to discuss the abuses of a biblical marriage and not speak on what has actually been outlined as a biblical marriage.

not even counting the tendency of people to "cherry-pick" out of the Bible when determining what God really wants of them. (Some of the cherry-picking is a good thing, since we don't really want people stoning their children for talking back to dad, now, do we?)

That is call reconciling scripture.

If we are to be OT Jews, then we must follow OT law.

However if we are to be NT Christians then we must 'reconcile' the OT with the New. (something I have already given detail on in my response to Luckie.