Love and Respect

[mkgal1]

But since you asked again, no I'm not giving out keys to my house. But I also didn't answer because I didn't see it was relevant to what you were saying. Your husband trashed his own house, too, from what you wrote. He wasn't just some friend who you'd given your spare set of keys to.

You seem to be dismissing this (RPD's husband trashing their house) as not being as "bad" since it was where he'd lived, too---is that correct? Are you implying it's his home as well---so that carries some entitlement as to what he does there? I'm grateful that our law enforcement and courts don't see it the way you seem to (Link).

If you could try to imagine what it'd be like if your wife or one of your children was unpredictably violent---maybe you'd be able to begin to understand just how invasive (to say the least) that is. "Just some friend" already has some sort of distance in your life compared to family (one can easily just take the key back or change the locks). Our homes should be a place of security---not a place where we feel as if we're trying to just avoid land mines.

 

[mkgal1]

If a woman is married to a man who chases her around the house with a chainsaw, intent to kill her, I don't expect her to stay there. But I don't believe a woman should remarry if she leaves her husband because he is violent or if he went insane.

Why bother complicating the discussion with something that's not even been mentioned before? No one has said anything about remarriage (or even divorce, for that matter).

I still wouldn't tell a woman like this not to respect her husband. She should still have a measure of respect that governs the things she says about her husband, who she talks to her problems about, not calling him names or insulting him. I don't think separated or divorce men should bad-mouth their wives or ex's. I do believe men should respect their wives, and that Ephesians 5:33's talk of 'fear' is a bit different from the way we usually use respect.

Okay.....HERE is where I think you lose people. Your use of the word, "respect" seems to be all over the place. You seem to be ignoring the different levels of respect here (for one thing). When you say, "governs the things she says about her husband", "who she talks to her problems about", and "not calling him names or insulting him"---I think that's a loaded topic right there.

I know of a "christian" counselor in our area that has this mindset. The problem is....she believes that saying negative things about a husband--even if they're true--is "bad-mouthing" him....gossiping....and insulting him. If you ask yourself..."who would that come from? God or our enemy?".....it sounds more like the life-stealing ways of our enemy (I think)---isolating people in their trials with no support.

 

[mkgal1]

I was going to have the husband just decide not to give the rose because he realized it was a stupid promise, but I already had him doing wrong by making the stupid promise he couldn't keep in the first place, even in the wedding ceremony. If the wife isn't upset, she doesn't have any motivation to come on this forum so some of the sistas can give her permission to get a divorce. Characters in a story need motivation, you know. How about this? You can re-write the story where the man decides just not to give the rose and the wife doesn't complain.

People don't need "permission".......

 

[mkgal1]

Are you saying your husband broke covenant by getting angry at you, yelling at you, etc.?

When we get married, we usually go say some words in front of a preacher, priest, judge, etc. That's a western custom, not something God revealed everyone had to do to get married. Some cultures jump brooms or give bride prices or exchange dowries to cut the covenant.

*Sorry......I was a bit behind, and a LOT had been posted since I last posted.

"Say some words in front of a preacher, priest, judge, etc"? You're dismissing that as a "western culture....not something God revealed everyone had to do to get married"? This makes me curious about how you perceive marriage and a husband's responsibility to the covenant. Do you even perceive it as a covenant? If so.....what is a marital covenant to you?

Like RPD brought up....marital vows are to "love, honor, cherish" and that *is* in line with Eph 5. Promises are more than rituals....there's a spirit behind them....and it ought to be characterized as love and compassion.

 

[mkgal1]

I think generally it's a bad idea and potentially dangerous to suggest people divorce on the forum. I've even seen it here on the forum where one person posts their version and everyone jumps on the spouse's case. Then the spouse shows up and the story is different. And the story of 'my spouse did X horrible thing' could just be a snapshot of the one worst thing that person did in their marriage when their spouse was really doing some bad things, too.

For one thing---you seem to be clouded by this assumption that's happening in *this* thread (it's not).

Marriage is a serious thing, and it bothers me in forums like this that a strange can post, "My spouse is verbally abusive," and, if forum rules allow, some posters have a hair trigger response recommending separation or divorce. A good marriage counselor would probably want to hear both sides of the story. Even well-intentioned people give a skewed picture of marital problems.

Again....this is a clouded view of this thread.

It "bothers me" that some people don't understand the gravity of verbal abuse and consider that the ones that hold the belief that abuse is serious means that they don't consider marriage serious (that's a confounded thought process---as it's an opposite to what's actually true about those beliefs). When marriage is held in high regard (and taken "seriously")---there are expectations that protect both people in that marriage. IOW.....it's more than just "staying bound together".

One of my wife's friend called once talking about her marital problems. They had lots of kids and were facing eviction. She said when she'd talk about their problems, he'd say why don't I just die, or why don't I just go live on the beach. She said he didn't care about the family. It was all about him on the beach.

Then I saw the couple interact. The woman was a vicious harpy toward her husband. I'd never seen anything like it. He'd say stuff about just dying or sleeping on the beach because he was point out that she was talking to him like dirt in a non-direct way, as if he weren't fit to live. But she wasn't picking up on what he was saying. He had this sort of 'agree and amplify' method of dealing with her outrageous statements.

This is your own story and you included the details. It's odd to me that you wrote out the words, "were facing eviction"....but didn't seem to comprehend what a huge burden that must have been on that wife---especially with the husband seeming to have a lackadaisical attitude about it. Even how you wrote out this story---it *does* sound as if he doesn't care about his family, but you're emphasizing how she "talks to him like he's dirt" and how "harpy" she is. Do you not recognize *why* a person would be exacerbated and feeling hopeless in a situation like that (I'm assuming the wife relied on him to provide for their family)? When people set up these rules (like: "men provide financially--women provide by caring for the children and keeping the home") and then they have a carefree attitude of "what's with your harpy attitude" when the family is facing being homeless.......is that *not* a great illustration of "unloving"? That's even within the guidelines they set up (not what someone else imposed on them).

And times my wife would disagree and to hear how she interpreted how I was, my intentions, what happened, I realized it is a lot different from her perceptions.

I've also read a few posts put on blogs about man whose wife went on a religious forum, told an incomplete version of their marriage problems, and was advised to separate and took the advice. Then to read his side of the story, the advice sure seemed totally unjustified.

Encouraging someone to move out or end a marriage is a really big deal. It's one thing to show empathy to someone going to a rough time. It's another to tell that person to leave their spouse when the Bible says, 'let not the wife depart from her husband' and 'let not the husband put away his wife.' Also, telling a wife not to respect her husband is also a dangerous and damaging thing.

I believe in the power of the gospel to transform people, even bad people like people who have abused others, lied, cheated, stole. Things like that.

If a woman is married to a man who chases her around the house with a chainsaw, intent to kill her, I don't expect her to stay there. But I don't believe a woman should remarry if she leaves her husband because he is violent or if he went insane. I still wouldn't tell a woman like this not to respect her husband. She should still have a measure of respect that governs the things she says about her husband, who she talks to her problems about, not calling him names or insulting him. I don't think separated or divorce men should bad-mouth their wives or ex's. I do believe men should respect their wives, and that Ephesians 5:33's talk of 'fear' is a bit different from the way we usually use respect.

Even after affairs, I generally think it may be best to reconcile the marriage if the offending spouse repents, especially if there are children involved.

Btw, I read your story of your ex-, and I haven't pronounced you a sinner for your decision either.

I think I've finally run out of words.

 

[LinkH]

You seem to be dismissing this (RPD's husband trashing their house) as not being as "bad" since it was where he'd lived, too---is that correct? Are you implying it's his home as well---so that carries some entitlement as to what he does there? I'm grateful that our law enforcement and courts don't see it the way you seem to (Link).

Someone coming home and throwing plates or being violent is a scary thing. I know someone whose thrown a few plates, fortunately no one in my immediate family. Just a little of that is unsettling to say the least. But I don't agree with the idea that trashing a house is grounds for divorce or that it gives a married person a free pass to disobey Ephesians 5:33. If it's breaking the promise love or cherish, it doesn't destroy the marriage covenant. Promising to love, honor, and cherish is a tradition, but marriage is created and regulated by God.

 

[LinkH]

For one thing---you seem to be clouded by this assumption that's happening in *this* thread (it's not).

The post I was responding to was about the history of posts over time. I wasn't saying that about this thread.

It "bothers me" that some people don't understand the gravity of verbal abuse and consider that the ones that hold the belief that abuse is serious means that they don't consider marriage serious (that's a confounded thought process---as it's an opposite to what's actually true about those beliefs). When marriage is held in high regard (and taken "seriously")---there are expectations that protect both people in that marriage. IOW.....it's more than just "staying bound together".

Verbal abuse is a bad thing. But we don't know what's going on in someone else marriage. We might get a few snapshots from conversations on the forum.

This is your own story and you included the details. It's odd to me that you wrote out the words, "were facing eviction"....but didn't seem to comprehend what a huge burden that must have been on that wife---especially with the husband seeming to have a lackadaisical attitude about it. Even how you wrote out this story---it *does* sound as if he doesn't care about his family, but you're emphasizing how she "talks to him like he's dirt" and how "harpy" she is. Do you not recognize *why* a person would be exacerbated and feeling hopeless in a situation like that (I'm assuming the wife relied on him to provide for their family)? When people set up these rules (like: "men provide financially--women provide by caring for the children and keeping the home") and then they have a carefree attitude of "what's with your harpy attitude" when the family is facing being homeless.......is that *not* a great illustration of "unloving"? That's even within the guidelines they set up (not what someone else imposed on them).

The man had not been a good husband in so many ways. For all the bad things he'd done, at least when you talked to him, it was like talking with a normal human being. The way she talked to him was just embarrassing to witness for anyone else around. He was holding down a full-time job and she was working a few part time jobs, but it wasn't enough with their children. I know she was stressed. My point was how she misinterpreted what he was saying. When you actually saw him say these sorts of things, his point wasn't that he wanted to abandon his family by living on the beach, but that she was talking about him like she didn't want him and he wasn't fit to live. When I listened to her talk about him and the things he'd say before I met him in person, I got one impression. When I saw them interact, it was something very different from what I heard in the story.

I think I've finally run out of words.

I should get an award for that. Where are the Ripley's Believe it or Not people?

Tone of voice doesn't come through using this medium. I should have put a smiley after the 'haven't pronounced you a sinner' part. I'm being depicted that way in a number of posts.

 

[mkgal1]

Someone coming home and throwing plates or being violent is a scary thing. I know someone whose thrown a few plates, fortunately no one in my immediate family. Just a little of that is unsettling. But I don't agree with the idea that trashing a house is grounds for divorce or that it gives a married person a free pass to disobey Ephesians 5:33. If it's breaking the promise love or cherish, it doesn't destroy the marriage covenant. Promising to love, honor, and cherish is a tradition, but marriage is created and regulated by God.

You have a knack for minimizing---I'll say that. "Unsettling"? If you'd paid attention....it's not an isolated incident....it's been a way of life (post #145):

http://www.christianforums.com/t7856027-15/#post66805343

.....and it takes TWO people to uphold what's laid out in Eph 5:33 (that's what makes it so beautiful). Why does it seem that you are giving the husband a "free pass" to go in the opposite direction of those passages? It seems as if the "must love his wife as he loves himself" part has no meaning to you.

I completely disagree that breaking the vows of loving/honoring/cherishing (as a way of life in the marriage) doesn't destroy the covenant. That's just what a covenant *is* (both parties upholding the values of the agreement).

I'm glad you came right out and said it---that you believe it's "tradition" to promise to love. I can't even respond to that mindset. That seems like it's just a rote ritual and it doesn't really matter. That's so outside of my reasoning I can't even wrap my mind around it (nor do I care to try).

 

[mkgal1]

Tone of voice doesn't come through using this medium. I should have put a smiley after the 'haven't pronounced you a sinner' part. I'm being depicted that way in a number of posts.

It's all about the belief system. Wrapping that up won't change the core or make it any "prettier"---more attractive.

 

[mkgal1]

Verbal abuse is a bad thing.

More minimizing.

 

[mkgal1]

The man had not been a good husband in so many ways. For all the bad things he'd done, at least when you talked to him, it was like talking with a normal human being.

You do realize that people *can* be "normal" and do some pretty appalling things.....right? IOW.....it's not just the people chasing their spouses around with chain saws that do horribly destructive things (it doesn't have to get to that level to be abusive).

The way she talked to him was just embarrassing to witness for anyone else around.

But then there's this disproportionate weight on how the wife speaks to him. He's a "normal human being" (ignoring the state of their life and his dismissive attitude of his wife's needs).

He was holding down a full-time job and she was working a few part time jobs, but it wasn't enough with their children. I know she was stressed. My point was how she misinterpreted what he was saying. When you actually saw him say these sorts of things, his point wasn't that he wanted to abandon his family by living on the beach, but that she was talking about him like she didn't want him and he wasn't fit to live. When I listened to her talk about him and the things he'd say before I met him in person, I got one impression. When I saw them interact, it was something very different from what I heard in the story.

Maybe you should follow your own rule? The one about not knowing just what goes on in a person's marriage (especially if you are going to cast judgement as you are doing here). I'd be beyond "stressed" if I were about to be homeless with my children and my husband was talking [in front of others] about living on the beach in an effort to mock me (instead of trying to comfort me with empathy and possible solutions).

 

[LinkH]

More minimizing.

More nit picking over words

 

[LinkH]

But then there's this disproportionate weight on how the wife speaks to him. He's a "normal human being" (ignoring the state of their life and his dismissive attitude of his wife's needs).

They were under stress. We tried to help them out. My point in bringing it up, as I'll say again, is that if I'd just listened to the wife's descriptions of how the husband reacted to the situation, I'd have a skewed picture of it. The man was struggling to deal with her 'verbal abuse', the constant berating, yelling, etc. He hadn't been a good husband either, which he admits now.

But again, my point is he was responding to the attitude in her comments, which was that he wasn't worthy to be in their home or to be alive, and she was interpreting it to mean that he wanted to abandon the family. She may have had some reason for that to be a really sore spot with her. But still there was more to the story than from just listening to her.

I'd be beyond "stressed" if I were about to be homeless with my children and my husband was talking [in front of others] about living on the beach in an effort to mock me (instead of trying to comfort me with empathy and possible solutions).

She told me about the beach thing, telling me about their conversations in their own home when she called for my wife and my wife wasn't in. I don't recall ever seeing him mock her in front of other people. He had been a bad husband in a number of ways, which he will admit now.

You do realize that people *can* be "normal" and do some pretty appalling things.....right?

Yes I do. That's all the more reason not to side with the idea that a wife doesn't have to respect her husband or a husband doesn't have to love his wife when they tell you a story about their spouse.

 

[mkgal1]

They were under stress. We tried to help them out. My point in bringing it up, as I'll say again, is that if I'd just listened to the wife's descriptions of how the husband reacted to the situation, I'd have a skewed picture of it. The man was struggling to deal with her 'verbal abuse', the constant berating, yelling, etc. He hadn't been a good husband either, which he admits now.

But again, my point is he was responding to the attitude in her comments, which was that he wasn't worthy to be in their home or to be alive, and she was interpreting it to mean that he wanted to abandon the family. She may have had some reason for that to be a really sore spot with her. But still there was more to the story than from just listening to her.




She told me about the beach thing, telling me about their conversations in their own home when she called for my wife and my wife wasn't in. I don't recall ever seeing him mock her in front of other people. He had been a bad husband in a number of ways, which he will admit now.



Yes I do. That's all the more reason not to side with the idea that a wife doesn't have to respect her husband or a husband doesn't have to love his wife when they tell you a story about their spouse.

Your description of his "agree & amplify" tactic (in front of you and others)....is what I believe was an effort to mock her (or--at minimum---to make himself appear "reasonable" and her to appear "harpy"). It worked----right? It all changed your impression of what was *really* going on between the two of them (and now you're using the phrase, "verbal abuse" and assigning it to her). Verbal abuse, BTW, is more than just using "mean" words. There is a whole dynamic that surrounds it.

 

[mkgal1]

Promising to love, honor, and cherish is a tradition, but marriage is created and regulated by God.

I'd love for you to elaborate on that. Explain what your understanding of a covenant is. What's God "regulating" if it's not the love and honor between the two? What's even the basis of the marriage?

How can you post this---when you have gone on about:

"That's all the more reason not to side with the idea that a wife doesn't have to respect her husband or a husband doesn't have to love his wife when they tell you a story about their spouse

....and you've been the only person that's mentioned "doesn't have to"?

Also.....if marriage is regulated by God---then why did you feel the need to "admonish" RPD (and provided your "biblical" support for doing so)? Using your own words.....you can't know what goes on in her marriage. You've only gotten a "snapshot".

 

[LinkH]

Your description of his "agree & amplify" tactic (in front of you and others)....is what I believe was an effort to mock her (or--at minimum---to make himself appear "reasonable" and her to appear "harpy"). It worked----right? It all changed your impression of what was *really* going on between the two of them (and now you're using the phrase, "verbal abuse" and assigning it to her). Verbal abuse, BTW, is more than just using "mean" words. There is a whole dynamic that surrounds it.

I think it's kind of ridiculous to try to diagnose this man just based on what few comments I've given. That's one of my concerns with this forum. If you have an upset spouse complaining about their marriage, you end up with an even more skewed perspective.

I've seen 'agree and amplified' presented as a tactic for dealing with certain kinds of verbal attacks. I don't think this man was doing that as a 'tactic.' He was just trying to figure out a way to deal with the constant verbal attacks during that time. Maybe it was a defense mechanism for him. He was trying to communicate in an indirect manner. Maybe direct hadn't worked for him. I don't know.

I've seen him in other contexts with the children and her after they split up, and they were getting along better then when they weren't under the stress. He never seemed to have an intention to be demeaning as far as I can tell. I have no reason to real mal intent into how he talked with hiw wife.

 

[LinkH]

I'd love for you to elaborate on that. Explain what your understanding of a covenant is. What's God "regulating" if it's not the love and honor between the two? What's even the basis of the marriage?

I've posted on this in the past. The Romans had a custom of standing in front of a priest and saying certain words to get married. The ring on the third finger comes from a Roman custom as well. We probably got our ceremony by their swapping out the pagan priest with Christian elder/priest and changing the words, eventually treating the ceremony as an important part of the faith.

In the Bible, though, the groom would pay the bride's father a bride price for virgins. After some time, he would collect her, and they had a custom of having a feast. The marriage was publically acknowledged in this way. In the case of the widow Ruth, she became his wife when he acknowledged in front of the city elders as witnesses that he redeemed her late husband's family's property and with her took Ruth as wife. This happened either against a backdrop of marriage customs or the customs evolved later, where the bride had to consent to the union, there was a cup that the groom and bride drank from at the betrothal, a wedding party could show up for the bride at a time that wasn't set in stone, etc.

After the destruction of the temple, those who called themselves 'rabbis' took over the religion. Now, they perform wedding ceremonies. But the legal cult wasn't in charge of everything before the temple was destroyed, and I know of no evidence that the Aaronic priesthood performed any kind of marriage ceremony for the people.

So my point is, God ordained marriage. Standing up and saying some words out of the Book of Common Prayer or a variation thereof, or a Roman Catholic version of the same thing isn't what the marriage is based on. If you make promises, you keep them. Fortunately, the BoCP ceremony requires some pretty basic things that should be in any marriage for the most part.

So what I'm saying is if your spouse doesn't cherish you one day, that doesn't mean you have justification before God to get a divorce. God doesn't say, "If He doesn't cherish you one day, you can divorce Him." He might be breaking his promise on his wedding day, but that doesn't mean God authorizes the divorce.

Is love the basis for marriage? Love is certainly important for a marriage, and a key component to a good marriage. But there are different kinds of love. I wouldn't say the American concept of love is what marriage is all about. But even then, there are different concepts of what love is among Americans. If a South American woman wants a Greencard (and I hate it when people just assume that stereotype is true, but I'll use it to make a point), and marries an American, that doesn't mean they aren't really married. If two people are kind of low on emotion and passion and marry without a lot of romantic feelings, that doesn't mean their marriage isn't legit. If the parents of a young man and the parents of a young woman match the up to marry and they marry each other, that doesn't make their marriage a 'sham marriage' because they didn't date and fall in love like Americans.

If we are talking about 'love thy neighbor' kind of love, if a Christian woman is married to an unbelieving husband, and he doesn't really love her as he should, that doesn't mean they aren't really married. The solution is for him to repent and love her, not for her to divorce him.

Also.....if marriage is regulated by God---then why did you feel the need to "admonish" RPD (and provided your "biblical" support for doing so)? Using your own words.....you can't know what goes on in her marriage. You've only gotten a "snapshot".

Huh? My disagreement with RPD, ValleyGal, etc. is over the idea that a Christian woman doesn't have to obey Ephesians 5:33 about respecting her husband if she feels he doesn't love her enough. Live, I've said before, I don't know the details of what is going on in her marriage. But I can see what is posted on the forum. They could talk through nitty gritty issues with a pastor, a marriage counselor, or a wise Christian friend who knows them both and gets a chance to hear both sides if they want to.

 

[mkgal1]

I think it's kind of ridiculous to try to diagnose this man just based on what few comments I've given. That's one of my concerns with this forum. If you have an upset spouse complaining about their marriage, you end up with an even more skewed perspective.

Or....maybe a person hears truth for the first time--and that brings them "life"?

You said earlier you're not one to buy into the "we can't know truth" philosophy.....right? This is the same thing. I'm not "diagnosing this man"---just that one behavior. There are markers for healthy behavior---and markers for unhealthy (even abusive) behavior. There has to be some sort of distinction in order to know what's true.....what's loving....what's acceptable.

I've seen 'agree and amplified' presented as a tactic for dealing with certain kinds of verbal attacks. I don't think this man was doing that as a 'tactic.' He was just trying to figure out a way to deal with the constant verbal attacks during that time. Maybe it was a defense mechanism for him. He was trying to communicate in an indirect manner. Maybe direct hadn't worked for him. I don't know.

I've seen him in other contexts with the children and her after they split up, and they were getting along better then when they weren't under the stress. He never seemed to have an intention to be demeaning as far as I can tell. I have no reason to real mal intent into how he talked with hiw wife.

Dismissing a spouse's concern (especially in the presence of others) is not going to be productive. We know truth based on its fruit---right? This obviously didn't "work" for him (based on them splitting up). I'm not sure why you're reluctant to call that a "tactic" (you were the one that even provided the name for it). If it has a name.....it's a strategy......a "tactic". People's selfish intentions are often subtle (and, again, there are wide levels of selfishness......just like any other unhealthy attitudes. One doesn't have to grab a chainsaw in order to be considered having unhealthy attitudes.).

You seem to have an aversion to labeling any male behavior or attitude as in the unhealthy range (but had no problem throwing the Bible at women).

 

[LinkH]

You seem to have an aversion to labeling any male behavior or attitude as in the unhealthy range (but had no problem throwing the Bible at women).

Have you considered that you have a problem with labelling female behaviors as unhealthy and are quick to label male behaviors as unhealthy?

I never said I thought the way he communicated with her was healthy. Their method of communication wasn't very healthy. But I don't consider it abusive. He didn't say the go live on the beach line when I was around. She'd say something the indicated she didn't think he was worth much, and he'd say something subtle and ironic to point out what she'd said, and she didn't get it. But his responses weren't insulting or abusive. They just weren't understanding each other. I knew some of the bad things he'd done, so I could see why she'd be upset. But I also respected the fact that he could stay so calm and be as understanding as he was toward his wife in the face of the verbal onslaught. In the interactions I saw between them during that time, she seemed more abusive than he did. But he hadn't been a good husband in a number of ways. She was probably still angry about it, and certainly didn't show him respect. Their trying to make it work didn't work without the respect.

My wife is a woman, too, you know, and she was surprised to see how the woman talked to her husband and how he responded after all the stories she'd heard about the man. We talked about the things she'd told about things he'd say and how she wasn't getting it.

Still, I think it's silly for you to try to diagnose filtered through my own comments. This is illustrative of what I see on the forum, though, people getting little pieces of information and giving advice based on that. Some advice is fine. But when the advice goes into telling people they don't have to do what the Bible teaches (not that I recall your doing that on this thread) based on some set of experiences we read filtered through one poster, then that's a problem.

 

[mkgal1]

I've posted on this in the past. The Romans had a custom of standing in front of a priest and saying certain words to get married. The ring on the third finger comes from a Roman custom as well. We probably got our ceremony by their swapping out the pagan priest with Christian elder/priest and changing the words, eventually treating the ceremony as an important part of the faith.

In the Bible, though, the groom would pay the bride's father a bride price for virgins. After some time, he would collect her, and they had a custom of having a feast. The marriage was publically acknowledged in this way. In the case of the widow Ruth, she became his wife when he acknowledged in front of the city elders as witnesses that he redeemed her late husband's family's property and with her took Ruth as wife. This happened either against a backdrop of marriage customs or the customs evolved later, where the bride had to consent to the union, there was a cup that the groom and bride drank from at the betrothal, a wedding party could show up for the bride at a time that wasn't set in stone, etc.

After the destruction of the temple, those who called themselves 'rabbis' took over the religion. Now, they perform wedding ceremonies. But the legal cult wasn't in charge of everything before the temple was destroyed, and I know of no evidence that the Aaronic priesthood performed any kind of marriage ceremony for the people.

So my point is, God ordained marriage. Standing up and saying some words out of the Book of Common Prayer or a variation thereof, or a Roman Catholic version of the same thing isn't what the marriage is based on. If you make promises, you keep them. Fortunately, the BoCP ceremony requires some pretty basic things that should be in any marriage for the most part.

So what I'm saying is if your spouse doesn't cherish you one day, that doesn't mean you have justification before God to get a divorce. God doesn't say, "If He doesn't cherish you one day, you can divorce Him." He might be breaking his promise on his wedding day, but that doesn't mean God authorizes the divorce.

Is love the basis for marriage? Love is certainly important for a marriage, and a key component to a good marriage. But there are different kinds of love. I wouldn't say the American concept of love is what marriage is all about. But even then, there are different concepts of what love is among Americans. If a South American woman wants a Greencard (and I hate it when people just assume that stereotype is true, but I'll use it to make a point), and marries an American, that doesn't mean they aren't really married. If two people are kind of low on emotion and passion and marry without a lot of romantic feelings, that doesn't mean their marriage isn't legit. If the parents of a young man and the parents of a young woman match the up to marry and they marry each other, that doesn't make their marriage a 'sham marriage' because they didn't date and fall in love like Americans.

If we are talking about 'love thy neighbor' kind of love, if a Christian woman is married to an unbelieving husband, and he doesn't really love her as he should, that doesn't mean they aren't really married. The solution is for him to repent and love her, not for her to divorce him.

I'll have to get to all this later....but does it sound reasonable that ANYONE is talking about "not cherishing ONE day"? I'm hoping that's intentionally unreasonable.

Huh? My disagreement with RPD, ValleyGal, etc. is over the idea that a Christian woman doesn't have to obey Ephesians 5:33 about respecting her husband if she feels he doesn't love her enough. Live, I've said before, I don't know the details of what is going on in her marriage. But I can see what is posted on the forum. They could talk through nitty gritty issues with a pastor, a marriage counselor, or a wise Christian friend who knows them both and gets a chance to hear both sides if they want to.

Maybe you've missed the part about him having affairs.....her paying for his place (now).....his expenses (now).....and going through counseling together (in hopes to reconcile---but not be foolish about it)? To minimize that and say it's merely "her feeling he doesn't love her enough" is insulting marriage (what YOU said we ought to take seriously). One person cannot "obey Eph 5:33" on their own---so it's not about "disobeying" anything (that's the straw man you've set up). Based on some of these posts......I'd say RPD may just get the award for taking marriage the *most* seriously (and it honors her husband.....herself...and, most importantly, GOD).