Wifely Submission

[Saeph]

If we're going to use a body part as a metaphor, I prefer the example that I use to describe my own marriage. He and I are the two hemispheres of the brain-- each individual with our separate strengths and expertise, but dependent upon each other to function at our best. Neither is superior. We have different things that we excel at, but we work even better when we work together.

Exactly.

The brain can't work withouth the heart and the heart can't work withouth the brain.

... Yin Yang.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

It is my OPINION that women were denigrated throughout the middle ages and Antiquity?
It is my OPINION that the Middle East was (and is) dominated by intensely patriarchal societies that designate a place of submission to their women?
It is my OPINION that the books of the Bible were written by men who belonged to these societies?
It is my OPINION that Abrahamaic mythology transferred the act of birth (from a rib) to Adam in order to show that woman was created from (and for) MAN rather than vice versa?

Horses_boy, the next time you try to refute historical facts as "not true", come up with a little more than just *your* OPINION.

1. The Bible was written during the Middle Ages?
2. The Bible was written by "The Middle East"?
3. Most of the Bible was written by men.
4. It is your opinion that it was CREATED by man for that purpose.

And how do you justify your assumption that they don't understand? Why are you assuming that you're more of a Biblical expert than they are?

Saying that you cannot speak from experience while we can is an objective observation. Saying that you have a greater understanding of the Bible is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion.

The fact that the general "they" say things such as that the Biblical system of marriage promotes wife-beating shows it.

And please, find me where I said that I have a greater understanding of the Bible.

And oh, btw, one doesn't need to die to "speak from experience" about death, one only needs to see it - if you catch my drift.

Here's a tip: When I reply to you, and then go on to another point, don't assume that my universal "you" refers to you specifically. Did you stop to consider that the people who say that the Biblical model doesn't apply well to modern society may be speaking from experience? I know that my Christian husband has no interest in following the Biblical model and it doesn't weaken his faith. He just doesn't believe that the strong-minded, opinionated woman he fell in love with should automatically submit upon marriage. Many, many modern male Christians believe the same. You don't have a monopoly on Biblical translation, or the authority on how it applies to modern society.

Ditto on the experience note.

Now listen, what I need to understand is on what grounds can you just toss aside what the Bible says in one instance, such as marriage, and then take in what the Bible says in another, such as salvation? They both come from the same book - you're picking and choosing your own Christianity, not God's, not Jesus', not the Bible's. Tell me, you think that Biblical marriage no longer works in society, but what if salvation no longer works in society? I've seen so many people who are appalled at the thought that not every single person is saved - are we just going to toss out the idea of salvation now and say there's no need for it, we don't need to be saved from anything because salvation doesn't work with our society?

And please, read what's been said. The matter of submission in Biblical marriage isn't "my way, no highway." Listen to what people have said on this thread (from experience, oooh):

Submission has less to do with authority than it does with accountability. You see, God has placed the husband in a position of accountability before Him for everything that happens within the household. The husband is responsible for all that is taught to the children, all the spiritual condition of the family, taking care of (physically, financially and emotionally) his family to the best of his ability).
In our home, hubby and I make descisions together. There are some tasks/descisions that he delegates to me (such as homeschooling our children). My submission in those areas is in keeping him informed and listening to any concerns he has (like about curriculum choice). On the other hand, there are times we disagree. In that case, we discuss the issue and try to form a resolution. If (and this hasn't happened, yet) we can't come to a resolution, hubby has the final say, because he's ultimately accountable for what happens.

I feel like an equal partner in our marriage. Oh, and Scripture is clear that all Christians are to submit to one another in "brotherly love", and doesn't exclude spouses in that statement. The thing about respect/love is more on how the other party has a tendency to see things: Men tend to see unpleasantness as disrespect, whereas women tend to see unpleasantness as unlove. To avoid those misconceptions, women are to treat their husbands with respect and men to treat their wives with love.

Rachel

I believe in the authority of the husband, but also in the (legal as well as morally acceptable) right of the wife to divorce him if he uses his authority in a tyrannical rather than mutualistic way. If the wife feels like she is at a loss due to the use of the authority of the husband, he isn't being a good husband. The purpose of his authority is to provide guidance and unity of action, not promote his self-interest. That's what I think.

Does this make me an evil misogynist?

(Janissary is a Muslim, but his take on it is the same as mine)

And you haven't seen every marriage. You haven't been part of any marriage, for that matter.

No I haven't seen every marriage - neither have you . But I can speak from what I've seen, and one person's experience differs from another. The Bible says that the wife is to submit to her husband (when it says sexually, that goes both ways), but it also says alot about the husband which is often left out in our society - that doesn't mean that the model has failed, only that people have failed to follow it.

BTW, staying together is by no means a reliable indicator of marital success. My grandparents were the epitome of the Christian model of wifely submission, and they were together until my grandfather died. But their marriage was anything but happy.

Yeah - that's common sense.

I do understand what is layed out as a christian marriage and I disagree with it and refuse to consider myself less then and subserviant to my husband.

If you understand what is laid out in a Christian marriage by the Bible then you will understand that a wife is neither less than nor subservient to her husband.

Not Jesus' words, but Pauls.

Oh, Pauls words mean nothing now? So if we're going to cast out what Paul has said on marriage let's cast out the rest of what he said - forget about going to Church, heck, forget about your salvation through Jesus Christ!

i agree, imo if a marriage is unhappy, if there is abuse then it has failed. but you know something horses boy people generally don't wash their dirty laundry in public and abusers generally don't advertise the fact they beat their wives.

You are most certainly right. But still, what I'm talking about is the model for a Christian marriage laid out by the Bible - which specifically, and in more than one way (direct and indirect) and in more than one case denounces abuse.

I could certainly take a stab at it. For the record, though, I don't know how many Christians would really take the input of an apostate seriously. Seein' as how I don't have the Holy Spirit and all that.

But, for the sake of the debate, I'll see what I can come up with, based on the days when I was a Christian. My answers are based on my own thoughts, as well as what I remember of the various positions of fellow Christians.

First let's take a look at some NT verses about marriage, and about how the members of a marriage are to relate to one another. (I've used the KJV translation here in my link, though I tend to prefer the NASB personally.)

Note also that I have focused on the verses which reference spouses most directly, not to eliminate context (which is provided by the link to the surrounding verses), but to focus on verses most directly relevant to the thread topic, and for post brevity.

Here are some verses which I have seen Bible-believing, Holy-Spirit-led Christian couples use to assert male authority within a marriage.

From Ephesians 5:
22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
From Colossians 3:
18Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

From I Corinthians 11:
3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Note that I am well aware that there are additional verses admonishing husbands to love their wives, and regard them as Christ regards his church; again, I have not ommitted them in order to leave them out of the argument, but to focus on verses which are more closely related to the topic of this thread - namely, wifely submission.

I recall plenty of Christian couples who used these verses to assert male authority within their relationships. Indeed, when I was a married Christian, it seemed pretty clear to me that there wasn't much question who was supposed to be in charge in a marriage relationship - and it wasn't the woman.

Most Christian couples I knew at the time fortunately regarded the additional admonishments to husbands, and treated their wives like adult human beings. Others gave lip service to the idea, but did not follow through with action, and treated their wives poorly. (My ex-husband sadly fell into this category.) Nonetheless, all of these relationships were ultimately unequal.

Interestingly enough, this verse from I Peter 3 suggests that Christian wives are also to submit to their non-Christian husbands:

1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

I had a fairly literalist interpretation of the Bible when I was still a Christian, and so at the time made the effort to submit to my Christian husband's authority. Nonetheless, I knew a few Christians who took other, more general verses about the equality of those under Christ, such as this one from Galatians 3:

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

...and by all accounts the Holy Spirit led them to believe that verses such as this trumped the ones about men being in charge, so they had egalitarian marriages. Others took verses such as Ephesians 5:21 the same way, operating under a form of "mutual submission", which in practice ended up meaning that neither of them was ultimately "in charge" over the whole deal.

Granted, though, as I said - this is the input of an apostate. And what do I know?


Yeah. There are different ways of looking at it.

In my current marriage there are two people and neither one has ultimate authority over the other, or over both. We're a team of two people.

A very good post. I'm a little bit confused, because I was expecting to see two interpretations that would create a pickle where I couldn't tell which was the right interpretation, but still, a good post.

You certainly show considerable knowledge of the issue - I didn't say that you, an apostate, wouldn't know anything about it, but I am quite annoyed with "former Christians" (the Bible says that "former Christians" were never Christians) doing all that they can to attack Christianity, like it's their life purpose to attack Christianity in any way that they can and it's oftentimes so obvious to me how it's blinded them.

If we're going to use a body part as a metaphor, I prefer the example that I use to describe my own marriage. He and I are the two hemispheres of the brain-- each individual with our separate strengths and expertise, but dependent upon each other to function at our best. Neither is superior. We have different things that we excel at, but we work even better when we work together.

I don't know if you meant to, but that's an interesting way to look at it, two hemispheres of the brain - because each controls the opposite side of the body.

But I can hardly see how it's suggestive that the male is superior in a Christian relationship (as set out by the Bible) - each have their own roles.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

1. The Bible was written during the Middle Ages?
2. The Bible was written by "The Middle East"?
3. Most of the Bible was written by men.
4. It is your opinion that it was CREATED by man for that purpose.

Please read my post a little more thoroughly before you reply to it, The_Horses_Boy. See here:

1. It was written in antiquity, and misogynist sentiments originated back then but prevailed *throughout* the middle ages and well into our present age, based on religion.

It is my OPINION that women were denigrated throughout the middle ages and Antiquity?

2. The Bible was written by members of intensely patriarchal societies that existed *in* the Middle East. And these societies were essentially misogynist and, in many cases, remained so to this day.

It is my OPINION that the Middle East was (and is) dominated by intensely patriarchal societies that designate a place of submission to their women?

3. The Bible was written by men who belonged to aforementioned societies.

It is my OPINION that the books of the Bible were written by men who belonged to these societies?

4. What purpose? The Bible explicitly states that Eve was created as a subservient companion for man. And the Bible explicitly states that Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs.
I said nothing about its purpose.

It is my OPINION that Abrahamaic mythology transferred the act of birth (from a rib) to Adam in order to show that woman was created from (and for) MAN rather than vice versa?

 

[belladonic-haze]

Okay, the bible says that Eve is made from Adam's rib. That in itself is biological impossible.....not only from growing a whole person out of a bone, but also genetically speaking. Male cells have XY Female cells have XX....

So - to explain it to myself again - Eve is made from a bone of a male which is only possible in "the fifth element", and is definitely genetically engineered as well to change the sex chromosomes.....

If that is a reason to submit the wife it is the most lame reason I have ever heard.

 

[kopilo]

*scratches head* How does an inferior product come from a superior material and a perfect creation?

If one thinks that women should be submissive because of a rib cage... How submissive are some christians to the earth? ...

 

[TheMissus]

The fact that the general "they" say things such as that the Biblical system of marriage promotes wife-beating shows it.

And please, find me where I said that I have a greater understanding of the Bible.

And oh, btw, one doesn't need to die to "speak from experience" about death, one only needs to see it - if you catch my drift.

Unfortunately, there are far too many cases of abusive husbands who have used the Biblical model to justify the abuse. It is an interpretation of the Bible that supposedly advocates this form of "tough love" that can be found on CF. It's not a rare viewpoint. It's a perversion of the message, but it happens all too often.

You can't speak from experience about marriage even if you've watched married couples, because you're not privvy to their late-night conversations, their past, their most intimate thoughts and feelings, etc etc. Observing something that is so complex and so private isn't enough to speak with any authority. Watching someone die is incredibly simple in comparison.

Now listen, what I need to understand is on what grounds can you just toss aside what the Bible says in one instance, such as marriage, and then take in what the Bible says in another, such as salvation? They both come from the same book - you're picking and choosing your own Christianity, not God's, not Jesus', not the Bible's. Tell me, you think that Biblical marriage no longer works in society, but what if salvation no longer works in society? I've seen so many people who are appalled at the thought that not every single person is saved - are we just going to toss out the idea of salvation now and say there's no need for it, we don't need to be saved from anything because salvation doesn't work with our society?

Picking and choosing which verses to follow and which ones to ignore is something that everyone is guilty of, including yourself, so I feel no need to justify the fact that people do it. Me, I'm equal-opportunity on the matter-- I choose not to believe in any of it.

And please, read what's been said. The matter of submission in Biblical marriage isn't "my way, no highway."

I've never heard the phrase "my way, no highway" so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

No I haven't seen every marriage - neither have you . But I can speak from what I've seen, and one person's experience differs from another. The Bible says that the wife is to submit to her husband (when it says sexually, that goes both ways), but it also says alot about the husband which is often left out in our society - that doesn't mean that the model has failed, only that people have failed to follow it.

That would be an excellent point if not for the fact that I never claimed to have seen every marriage. My whole point is that each marriage is different and complex and simple observation isn't enough to draw an educated conclusion.

Your assertion that the model didn't fail, only people failed to follow it doesn't work with logic. You cannot know the intimate details of the marriage, including the private thoughts and deeply-harbored secrets that the couple held. It could very well be that they tried their hardest to make it work according to the Bible and it simply didn't. Assuming that your knowledge is sufficient to make any sort of judgment is presumptuous. You cannot predict with any degree of certainty why a relationship you're not a member of fails.

I don't know if you meant to, but that's an interesting way to look at it, two hemispheres of the brain - because each controls the opposite side of the body.

But I can hardly see how it's suggestive that the male is superior in a Christian relationship (as set out by the Bible) - each have their own roles.

Yeah, my whole point was that he and I are separate beings who work together. We're equals. Where did you read into it to say anything about Biblical roles of male dominence?

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

I just love it how people will debate points that no one has made. Who here said that women need to submit to men because Eve was created from the rib of Adam (sidenote, the Bible is big on analogies and let's see... a woman made from man, to be like man ).

But of course, an all-powerful God has his limitations.

Unfortunately, there are far too many cases of abusive husbands who have used the Biblical model to justify the abuse. It is an interpretation of the Bible that supposedly advocates this form of "tough love" that can be found on CF. It's not a rare viewpoint. It's a perversion of the message, but it happens all too often.

Well the Bible tells the husband not to abuse the wife... So there's still nothing wrong with the Biblical model.

You can't speak from experience about marriage even if you've watched married couples, because you're not privvy to their late-night conversations, their past, their most intimate thoughts and feelings, etc etc. Observing something that is so complex and so private isn't enough to speak with any authority. Watching someone die is incredibly simple in comparison.

And so your vast pool of experience is what, 2 cases?

Irrigardless, I have heard of marriages that have failed but never one that failed because of the Biblical model. People will find one problem that they have with the Biblical model but don't think about anything in it except for the wife, ultimately, submitting to the husband (which, if you read the Bible, doesn't mean that the wife doesn't have an opinion and it isn't a partnership).

I've never heard the phrase "my way, no highway" so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

... Then I'm pretty sure that you can figure out the meaning of it.

That would be an excellent point if not for the fact that I never claimed to have seen every marriage. My whole point is that each marriage is different and complex and simple observation isn't enough to draw an educated conclusion.

Your assertion that the model didn't fail, only people failed to follow it doesn't work with logic. You cannot know the intimate details of the marriage, including the private thoughts and deeply-harbored secrets that the couple held. It could very well be that they tried their hardest to make it work according to the Bible and it simply didn't. Assuming that your knowledge is sufficient to make any sort of judgment is presumptuous. You cannot predict with any degree of certainty why a relationship you're not a member of fails.

Well let's see... I have no capability to ask people why their marriage failed, or even simply to hear it from them? Do I have no ears? Cannot I not hear? Have I no eyes? Can I not see?

Of course, if experience is all that matters you might want to sit out before saying that, because one or two marriages is hardly a real pool of experience.

Yeah, my whole point was that he and I are separate beings who work together. We're equals. Where did you read into it to say anything about Biblical roles of male dominence?

I didn't, so touchy and defensive.

 

[TheMissus]

Well the Bible tells the husband not to abuse the wife... So there's still nothing wrong with the Biblical model.

The Biblical model is used to justify abuse. Not by all, but certain scriptures are chosen to justify abuse.

And so your vast pool of experience is what, 2 cases?

Irrigardless, I have heard of marriages that have failed but never one that failed because of the Biblical model. People will find one problem that they have with the Biblical model but don't think about anything in it except for the wife, ultimately, submitting to the husband (which, if you read the Bible, doesn't mean that the wife doesn't have an opinion and it isn't a partnership).

How did you arrive at the number of two cases?

My whole point is that I can't speak from experience on behalf of any marriage other than my own, because every marriage is so complex and private that no one else can make a value judgment as to why the marriage succeeded or failed. An educated conclusion requires more information than an outside observer could ever glean from simple observation.

... Then I'm pretty sure that you can figure out the meaning of it.

Once again, that makes no sense. You make a nonsensical statement, then tell me that I can figure out the meaning. Right.

BTW, the correct phrase is "my way or the highway" which makes sense. Your statement does not.

Well let's see... I have no capability to ask people why their marriage failed, or even simply to hear it from them? Do I have no ears? Cannot I not hear? Have I no eyes? Can I not see?

Of course, if experience is all that matters you might want to sit out before saying that, because one or two marriages is hardly a real pool of experience.

Can you read minds? Otherwise, your observations don't tell you enough to know for sure why any marriage worked or didn't work. There's a difference between observing Action A --> Reaction B and saying with any degree of certainty why an entire marriage succeeds or doesn't.

I didn't, so touchy and defensive.

If you meant something else, say so. Clarify. Don't resort to petty name-calling.

 

[christalee4]

Ancient laws and readings interpreted from the Hammurabi, as well as Medieval scripts and stories, including those from Roman and the ancient Greek era, detail how women are not worth in their status next to men, that women are weak emotionally and mentally, that women are thieves, as well as lazy, and other low-ended insults and descriptions. This phenomenon has existed for hundreds of years, and women have always taken a back seat in the arena of social alignment of power and arrangement: due to the perception that they are lower, weaker physically and mentally, and that because they have children, that they must be relegated to one set role in society and life.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Ancient laws and readings interpreted from the Hammurabi, as well as Medieval scripts and stories, including those from Roman and the ancient Greek era, detail how women are not worth in their status next to men, that women are weak emotionally and mentally, that women are thieves, as well as lazy, and other low-ended insults and descriptions. This phenomenon has existed for hundreds of years, and women have always taken a back seat in the arena of social alignment of power and arrangement: due to the perception that they are lower, weaker physically and mentally, and that because they have children, that they must be relegated to one set role in society and life.

Earlier in this thread someone claimed women are "more easily misled". Apparently all of these archaic notions are not completely extinct.

 

[jak]

Earlier in this thread someone claimed women are "more easily misled". Apparently all of these archaic notions are not completely extinct

<sigh> based on one verse, the meaning of which cannot be questioned, no sir...

 

[christalee4]

Throughout ancient up through modern Christian society, the subjugation of women as second-class citizens to men has primarily been backed up with the following:

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I
permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men;
she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived
and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through
bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and
holiness, with modesty (I Timothy 2:11-15).

“As the Church is subject
to Christ, so let wives be subject in everything to their
husbands” (Ephesians 5:24).

Quote from the link below:

"The low esteem for women in Western society dur-
ing the early centuries of Christianity is reflected in
the writings of the Church Fathers. The characteristics
they considered to be typically feminine include fickle-
ness and shallowness, garrulousness and weakness,
slowness of understanding, and instability of mind.
There were some violent tirades, such as that of Ter-
tullian: “Do you not know that you are Eve?... You
are the devil's gateway.... How easily you destroyed
man, the image of God. Because of the death which
you brought upon us, even the Son of God had to die”
(De cultu feminarum, libri duo I, 1). On the whole,
the attitude was one of puzzlement over the seemingly
incongruous fact of woman's existence. Augustine
summed up the general idea in saying that he did not
see in what way it could be said that woman was made
to be a help for man, if the work of child-bearing be
excluded."



http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv4-72

I further move, that in addition to religious theology and interpretation from other religions in the ancient world that formed the general cultural sentiment that women are inferior and weak, that because women have less brute upper-body strength than men, they have always been considered to be weaker, and therefore not as worthy. It's a primitive mindset, yes, but nevertheless
effective as cultural social restraint that dictates roles and the place of women in society. The idea that the more powerful rightfully rules over the weaker is an ancient one, and I think, a real factor in the older evolution of social roles.

 

[InHisSpirit]

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

If a Christian husband truly loves his wife as Christ loves the church, he will never demand servitude or treat her with disrespect. He would not blow money or have a big head over being the head of the household. He would be humble, understanding, and listen to his wife's suggestions. Full submission is required when your husband treats your relationship as Jesus treated his followers while on earth.

 

[tocis]

I've answered from the POV of my bygone christian days and said "submission is archaic".

 

[Konkurrent]

I wield supreme authority in my household.

My wife says I do. Until she tells me otherwise.


Seriously though, I married her because she was the first woman I met who was my equal. Which is not to say that the other women I'd met were inferior or superior. They simply weren't a match.

I simply am not willing to pursue any kind of long-term relationship with anyone who is not my intellectual equal, which in turn means anyone who is not more than sufficiently armed to stand up to and against me.

It is not possible to truly respect anyone you dominate. It is not possible to love without respect. If my wife couldn't or wouldn't act as an equal member of our marriage she wouldn't be my wife.

Frankly I find the very concept of being married to a submissive woman distasteful.

 

[christalee4]

Is Patriarchy still a valid form of rule in society?

I don't think so. I have read many Christian essays and papers on the positive aspects of Patriarchy, in that because God is described as eminating from the Father, that all of us must respect the aspect of the masculine Master, or Father.

The aspect of the Mother as being a holy being is somewhat acknowledged by Maryist Catholics, but otherwise, the idea of women as holy beings is highly controversial, and more associated with pagan religions, rather than Christianity.

In my opinion, the issue of the female holiness within Protestant Christianity has been primarily subjugated by the issue of the Patriarchal version of religious scripture, by those such as Thomas Of Aquinas and St. Paul. Gender distinction in terms of women being able to be equal to men was determined by the older fathers, who decided that Patriarchy, in terms of men being the leaders and dominators of society, is what is needed to manage religion within society.

 

[Konkurrent]

because God is described as eminating from the Father

What version of the Bible is that from?

In the Christian Bible God doesn't "eminate" from anything or anyone. He's described as having always existed - he has no genesis, beginning, or creator.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

If a Christian husband truly loves his wife as Christ loves the church, he will never demand servitude or treat her with disrespect. He would not blow money or have a big head over being the head of the household. He would be humble, understanding, and listen to his wife's suggestions. Full submission is required when your husband treats your relationship as Jesus treated his followers while on earth.

The Biblical model is used to justify abuse. Not by all, but certain scriptures are chosen to justify abuse.

How did you arrive at the number of two cases?

My whole point is that I can't speak from experience on behalf of any marriage other than my own, because every marriage is so complex and private that no one else can make a value judgment as to why the marriage succeeded or failed. An educated conclusion requires more information than an outside observer could ever glean from simple observation.

So if you can't arrive at an educated conclusion...

Oh, and just so we're clear, the marriages I know (that have worked and failed), I know from more than mere observation. I observe, I listen, I talk to the people.

Once again, that makes no sense. You make a nonsensical statement, then tell me that I can figure out the meaning. Right.

OK, you know "my way or the highway" phrase. It means: do as I say or hit the road (Jack?). Now, let's try a complicated twist. "my way, no highway". It means: do as I say, no hit the road option.

It's a spinoff. If you get what it means now, read it in original context.

The matter of submission in Biblical marriage isn't "my way, no highway."

BTW, the correct phrase is "my way or the highway" which makes sense. Your statement does not.

... the matter of biblical marriage isn't simply "the man's way."

Can you read minds? Otherwise, your observations don't tell you enough to know for sure why any marriage worked or didn't work. There's a difference between observing Action A --> Reaction B and saying with any degree of certainty why an entire marriage succeeds or doesn't.

... I don't mean this in any form of offense, but are you deaf and/or mute? Because my prefferred method of learning involves mostly speech and listening.

 

[TheMissus]

Oh, and just so we're clear, the marriages I know (that have worked and failed), I know from more than mere observation. I observe, I listen, I talk to the people.

And they go into graphic details? They delve into parts of their subconscious that they're not even aware of?

... I don't mean this in any form of offense, but are you deaf and/or mute? Because my prefferred method of learning involves mostly speech and listening.

And how can that question be interpreted as anything other than an insult? Are you also suggesting that deaf or mute people cannot learn through communication? Two birds with one stone of condescension, very impressive.

A successful marriage has so many factors, including a deep-seated love that defies explanation, that you couldn't possibly fully grasp it without experiencing it firsthand. I thought I knew what went into a happy marriage too, until I experienced it personally, and now I realize just how limited my knowledge was. You can't "get it" until you've been there. No amount of observation and empathy would suffice.

 

[Konkurrent]

The_Horses_Boy: How can you not see the point she's making?

You're a blind man arguing with the painter about what is the right mixture of colors to paint a sunset, citing what you've been told by other people. You have no actual knowledge on the subject, only hearsay.

Sure, your information may be accurate within certain contexts, but it is arrogant in the extreme to believe that you are correct without any first-hand experience and the person who actually has experienced what they're talking about is wrong.

I'm both an adult and a married man. I can tell you without question that you are speaking from a position of exceptionally low knowledge. Or do you believe that talking with a whole slew of race car drivers somehow qualifies you to operate a motor vehicle at more than 200 miles per hour? Or even better, teach others how to do so?


Marriage isn't something you can observe part time or get a grasp of by talking to people. For one thing, people are rarely completely honest if for no reason other than that they have a limited perspective. What they believe is true may or may not be factual.

But the most important fact here is that marriage doesn't stop. It's 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for every year after it starts. Unless you've been stalking a few married couples around the clock, you've missed out on more than you can imagine. You think you know what you're talking about. Married people are telling you that you don't.

Why do you insist that your second-hand information beats everyone else's actual experience?