Are Our Standards Too Low?

[mkgal1]

Becuase its there under the radar, or else the entire discussion is meaningless. If you are just going to inform someone they are not meeting a standard, and they keep not meeting it...then what?

We cant meet these anyway, so its an excercise in futility to try field goals where the bar is moving.

For someone who seems to like things in black and white or defined formulas....you sense a lot of things that are NOT there.

What I would hope for a marriage, when things are brought to light (which AGAIN)- isn't about an INDIVIDUAL not meeting the standard, but the MARRIAGE-is that the two would work on a resolution together.

I don't know about the "then what?"....I guess it is up to every unique situation. But, we cannot get hung up on the "and then what?"....we should strive to not even get there to begin with.

And WHY do you feel these are standards that are so unreachable? It seems that God believes we can get there...with HIS help. I believe we can get there, with HIS help. I see many examples of couples that have met these standards and are completely blessed for it. Why do you not believe God has those same blessings for you?

 

[mkgal1]

If there were no standards or expectations for our spouse what would even be the point of getting married?

That is a very good question! I think I can answer it for you on everyones behalf..........."to have sex" would be the over-riding answer.

But then, MY question would be.......how intimate do you expect sex to be without those other standards? You just cannot get away from them OR even define them for yourself.......marriage takes two to be in agreement.

 

[chaz345]

And where in this thread was that ever suggested?? WHY does that continue to be brought up?

That is happens was brought up in this thread by me because, while I see the standards mentioned as a good thing, I, very often see one person's failure to meet those standards, SOLELY in the opinion of the other person, used as a weapon of sorts.

The standards are good. How they are wrongly applied, by one person onto another person, is a big enough and common enough problem though that it needs to be mentioned.

 

[chaz345]

And WHY do you feel these are standards that are so unreachable?

I ask this, not in a "prove it" way but to try to get a better understanding of how you hear things.

Where exactly did you get the impression that he thinks the standards are unreachable? Specific words of his would be helpful. Like I said, I'm not trying to make you prove anything, I'm just trying to get a better idea of how you process things to maybe improve future communication.

But aside from him saying that no one will ever perfectly meet those standards, which is an objectively true statement, I can't understand how you get the idea that he's saying they are unreachable.

 

[chaz345]

I think people like conservate just say the standards of marriage are to hard which is a cop out, I guess if your wifes standard was that you solved world hunger or she wont love you then there is an issue.

But there are standards set by one spouse that are every bit as impossible and every bit as un-Biblical all the time. Often those standards relate to the list that was presented at the beginning of the thread. All that Cons and I are saying is that those standards themself are all well and good, in fact some level of them being present is critical, but if it comes to a point of one person deciding that the other is not meeting the standard, to their OWN definition of it, then there is a problem. IOW exactly what meeting those standards looks like needs to be agreed upon by both, and if one starts perceiving a shortcomming by the other, any discussion of it needs to take into account the virtual certainty that perception is at least a PART of the problem.

 

[mkgal1]

That is happens was brought up in this thread by me because, while I see the standards mentioned as a good thing, I, very often see one person's failure to meet those standards, SOLELY in the opinion of the other person, used as a weapon of sorts.

The standards are good. How they are wrongly applied, by one person onto another person, is a big enough and common enough problem though that it needs to be mentioned.

Hmmmm...you brought up a good point earlier about how we each need to approach things and realize part of the issue may just be our own perception of it. This is an excellent example of that, and I am thankful we now have something more specific to deal with.

These standards would NOT be "wrongly applied" if they are met in unison. That is the beauty of the standards McScribe laid out. They all have the common thread running through them of humility and genuine love. You can't go wrong with that. Even better, they are in line with the Bible.

 

[mkgal1]

The standards are good. How they are wrongly applied, by one person onto another person, is a big enough and common enough problem though that it needs to be mentioned.

The standards are not "applied onto" another person. They are standards for the marriage.

 

[mkgal1]

I ask this, not in a "prove it" way but to try to get a better understanding of how you hear things.

Where exactly did you get the impression that he thinks the standards are unreachable? Specific words of his would be helpful. Like I said, I'm not trying to make you prove anything, I'm just trying to get a better idea of how you process things to maybe improve future communication.

But aside from him saying that no one will ever perfectly meet those standards, which is an objectively true statement, I can't understand how you get the idea that he's saying they are unreachable.

Cons said in post #40:

We cant meet these anyway, so its an excercise in futility to try field goals where the bar is moving.

 

[chaz345]

Cons said in post #40:

I'll have to let him explain to be sure but I took that, based on what he's said earlier in the thread to mean that it is impossible to perfectly meet those standards, not only because we're flawed imperfect beings, but also because there is no objective line to determine success or failure.


If I were to go with my gut feeling I'd say that the attempt to paint him as saying that the standards are too hard so why even bother is a cheap debate tactic that is doing nothing more that trying to make him look bad.

But my own standard of assuming the best until proven otherwise requires me to see it as an honest misunderstanding.

 

[mkgal1]

But you choose to discount standard #4 as a necessary stardard which includes relating to your spouse, right? Is that YOUR definition? What if, by your wife's definition, she considers that standard THE standard to live by? She can hardly meet that standard on her own....even with God's help and guidance.

I would like an answer to this, because I believe it is the majority of the argument, and as Bacon said, this web is getting larger and more confusing.

I am going by McScribe's standards on the first page, as I believe they are the most thorough and sound standards we can go by. Cons has stated (in different words) that that we shouldn't request from our spouse aid in meeting these standards, but seek to meet them on our own, with God's help.

I don't see how that is possible as it takes two....I see great opportunity for conflict especially if we are left to self-define these standards.

 

[mkgal1]

I'll have to let him explain to be sure but I took that, based on what he's said earlier in the thread to mean that it is impossible to perfectly meet those standards, not only because we're flawed imperfect beings, but also because there is no objective line to determine success or failure.


If I were to go with my gut feeling I'd say that the attempt to paint him as saying that the standards are too hard so why even bother is a cheap debate tactic that is doing nothing more that trying to make him look bad.

But my own standard of assuming the best until proven otherwise requires me to see it as an honest misunderstanding.

When someone says,

We cant meet these anyway, so its an excercise in futility to try field goals where the bar is moving

That clearly sounds like, "It is too difficult....so why even try".

Debate tactic??? You have a feeling that I am attempting to "paint him as saying"? I don't even KNOW debate tactics (but assume YOU do). And you have a feeling that I am attempting to "paint" Cons as anything? I am trying to have a conversation....but, now I am painting him as something??? So by stating what he says, which you asked me to do, BTW....I am "painting him"?? I repeated verbatim what he said. That is all. And you know what the Bible says about "feelings" right? (your words).

 

[about2blow]

all about that stuff I had to say I said already and why? Why?

 

[chaz345]

.

 

[about2blow]

Its all in the other threads.

 

[mkgal1]

Quick editing job.

 

[chaz345]

I would like an answer to this, because I believe it is the majority of the argument, and as Bacon said, this web is getting larger and more confusing.

Ok then allow me to simplify.

The standards mentioned in the OP, as a guideline to apply to ourself as we relate in our marriage = good.

The standards mentioned in the OP as agreed upon by BOTH people in the marriage as to what constitutes meeting them = good.

The standards in the OP, with performance of one person defined by the other person = bad.

 

[mkgal1]

Its all in the other threads.

YOu mean the threads where you are posting as Cons?

 

[chaz345]

When someone says,


That clearly sounds like, "It is too difficult....so why even try".

Debate tactic??? You have a feeling that I am attempting to "paint him as saying"? I don't even KNOW debate tactics (but assume YOU do). And you have a feeling that I am attempting to "paint" Cons as anything? I am trying to have a conversation....but, now I am painting him as something??? So by stating what he says, which you asked me to do, BTW....I am "painting him"?? I repeated verbatim what he said. That is all. And you know what the Bible says about "feelings" right? (your words).

By itself, yes it sounds like that, but have you not read what he said elsewhere in the thread about those standards?

As for my feelings, you'll note that all I did was express them, and then say that I was going to assume something counter to them. IOW I was NOT being ruled or run by them, which is what the Bible warns against.

The reason it seems like a tactic to me is that I cannot see how anyone who has been following what he's said all along can honestly come to the conclusion you did. But like I said, until proven otherwise I'll go with the idea that it's an honest misunderstanding.

 

[mkgal1]

Ok then allow me to simplify.

The standards mentioned in the OP, as a guideline to apply to ourself as we relate in our marriage = good.

The standards mentioned in the OP as agreed upon by BOTH people in the marriage as to what constitutes meeting them = good.

The standards in the OP, with performance of one person defined by the other person = bad.

But you weren't the one to originally state that...it was Cons. I would like an answer to post #38 and I would like Cons to clear that up since he was the one that is saying that standards may be defined by each spouse.

 

[Conservativation]

Yes