A doctrine of alienation

[TheRocketSurgeon]

---

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.

Human nature has not changed. People simply could not get divorced, before, either because it was not legal, originally, or because there were no alimony/palimony laws that allowed it to happen without causing utter ruin. That's why I recommend the book, The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap by Stephanie Coontz, which will give you a better overview of the "changes" in society, which turn out to be mostly the product of things that were hidden becoming visible, and a good deal of idyllic thinking.

Half of humanity still manages to have only one marriage, despite it being completely permitted in modern society. Think on that for a bit. (Indeed, the numbers of those actually getting divorced is less than half, since all are counted in the total, and people with three or four marriages are one person adding two or three divorces to the total.)

---

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.

That verse from Paul isn't quite on point. He's referring to celibacy if you can manage to do it (as he did), since it's holier, as the Catholic clergy practice (but almost no one else in Christendom), among the early Christians. I'm simply referring to people who don't have the neurological architecture to allow them to be happily monogamous.

---

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.

Another way to look at it is as a way to compensate for the fact that the secondary-infatuation system, the dopamine-reward center that tells us we're in loooooove, which will fade around the 4 year mark after that initial rush wears off (if not replaced by the reinforcement of the tertiary system I described before) in about half of individuals. Evolution seems to have built this system so people stay together long enough to at least raise their resulting offspring to toddler age, together, where the mother at least has a chance to raise the child successfully (thus being evolutionarily viable as a strategy) if she leaves the father, or vice-versa.

---

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.

Most relationship psychologists agree that it's unhealthy to totally "lose yourself" in the other person. A degree of blending seems to be the healthiest option, in realistic terms. Even so, it's why a divorce is always a painful thing (assuming you were even in love to begin with, though why people get married for any reason other than that has always astounded me). People change from the time they're in their early 20s (when most first marriages occur) to their later selves. If they work hard at a loving relationship, often they change together in a way that makes them closer. I'd even say "usually". But that deeper bonding can't happen without the reinforcing effect of the tertiary system. It becomes psychologically torturous to people who are not bonded on the third level, if their Bible-friends tell them they "should" be doing something that is not in their heart (or genes). As an IDEAL, I think it's great. But it's not always in conformity with reality.

---

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.

My parents have a "Biblical marriage", as they are both hard-core Southern Baptists, and have been happily married for 41 years. And I'm glad! I'm not "only" pointing out the problems, I'm pointing out the problems with A) assuming it's an all-encompassing reality, rather than something that not all people are inherently suited for, and B) to make sure that you grasp that the concept is great when it works, but terrible when it doesn't. In other words, I'm trying to shatter your "rose-colored glasses".

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.

I understand. I do! But can you understand that, from my point of view, I must consider all the ways people choose to interpret scripture (at present, there are ~40,000 sub-denominations of Christianity), and not focus on the one particular brand of "right interpretation" that you present, based on your own denomination's teachings?

This is a common point of contention between Christians and atheists, on here, as we will easily go from arguing with one type of Christian who tells us with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that _____ is "the way it is", with scripture, only to flip the page to another thread and have a second Christian argue something else about the same theological principle with the same certainty. We see both, but the Christians don't see each other, and thus both Christians think we're just being assholes when we bring up the conflicting point. We're not! Just calling it like we actually see it.