About case-by-case marriages, yes. You can't say why Bob and Sharon divorced because you don't know their deep-seated issues. You can't say why Alex and Jessica are still married, because their connection and devotion to one another goes much deeper than meets the eye, or the ear.
But I can say, as I did, that I've never seen a marriage that followed the Biblical model and failed. It's quite easy to notice that error.
Why would you preface it by saying you don't mean it offensively if you weren't worried that it would be taken offensively? Why say it at all?
I was worried about it being taken offensively, so I said that I didn't mean it defensively. You might not beleive it, but that sentence was a serious question followed up by a point.
Oh, and just because a word gets through the filters doesn't mean it's appropriate.
Simply because you're defensive doesn't mean it's inappropriate.
No, I don't know what makes every single marriage succeed or fail. That's my point. I've stated, in this thread, that various models work with various marriages. It depends entirely on the couple and factors that can vary so widely that it's impossible to predict success or failure based on one factor. Following or not following the Biblical model is only one indicator of success or failure, and marriage is far too complex to simplify it that much.
I wasn't simplifying marriage. The discussion was about the Biblical model of marriage (or, as some wanted to put it, mere wifely submission, which does not fulfill the Biblical model of marriage). My point was quite relevant - look around, and people are making simplifications, like anyone disagrees with them isn't secure, is sexist... You're silent on these simplifications?
Here's the thing: much of the time the people who were actually in the marriage can't speak with certainty on what precisely caused a marriage to fail. Marriage is obscenely complicated. It's the creation of a bond closer than family. It is the single most complication relationship known to mankind. When it breaks down it can be one big obvious problem or, more often than not, a collection of tiny imperceptable problems that create a much larger overall problem.
And if the people in marriage can't always tell what's wrong, why do you think you can speak with any authority on what works or doesn't work?
Actually, I didn't. I just said that I haven't seen a marriage that has followed the Biblical model for marriage (it's very much easier to notice an error than it is to notice that there are no errors).
Go read a book and fly a jet. It's less complicated than marriage - ask any pilot.
Actually don't do that. When you inevitably crash it would end the conversation.
Book knowledge is no substitute for first-hand experience. When you grow up you'll understand this better. I know all the mechanical details of how a helicopter works and how it flies. I am also intelligent enough to realize I stand almost no chance of actually getting a helicopter off the ground without crashing it. They're obscenely difficult to fly (compared to nearly any other vehicle) and take a huge amount of time to master.
That's the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is a measure of what one knows. Wisdom is knowing how little one knows.
Much better example - you need alot more book knowledge to fly a plane, and a helicopter.
It's a side point I don't really care about, but someone who actually gives a horse's bottom about something would take time to learn it. Flying a jet - that's a much better example than a car, even a race car. To fly a jet you do need tons of knowledge (yes, from books) but you also (should have) some kind of experience, but anyone with half a brain knows that you can't fly a plane until you fly one. The only thing you can do is study it, which you can learn alot about, and you can do things like flying a jet - try a flight simulator.
Wisdom: how much of me do you know? You know they say that people learn differently. Some can watch something and know what to do, others need to actually experience something to know what to do. (I'm not saying that I could fly a jet plane as I am, but with a bunch of book knowledge, watching and a flight simulator I don't doubt that I could get it - actually, I've been looking into flying for the Navy for a long time now).
If the wife is unswervingly submissive to the husband there is no capacity for the marriage to fail unless the husband decides that it has failed. The woman sacrifices her right to make decisions contrary to what her husband wants, making divorce IMPOSSIBLE unless it is initiated by the man. And why would the man throw away a perfectly good servant girl?
You're absolutely right - that's not how it should be, nor is that how the Bible describes marriage.
It's like saying that handcuffing two people together is the way to guarantee a successful marriage (assuming, of course, that you're defining marital success by simply not being divorced).
No, not really. If you fail to understand what's being said, sure, but not if you understand what's being said.
Which brings up my next point: how are you defining "success" in terms of marriage? Simply not visibly failing? Would you consider a marriage where both people stay together but can hardly stand to be in the same room as each other a "success"?
No. A good relationship isn't determined by the lack of problems, but how it deals with them.
But we're not arguing about something as simple as the sequence of numbers. We're talking about a perspective you do not have and can only experience by outside observation and word of mouth.
I can't describe blue to a blind man in any meaningful way. No one really undestands marriage until they look their spouse in the eye and it hits them for the first time (of a great many) that they are going to spend the rest of their life with this person.
Hell, I don't even claim to fully understand marriage myself. I wouldn't presume to give marital advice until I've got a fair few more years under my belt.
That, my friend, is where myself and (I believe) many of the other married people on this forum are taking umbrance with your remarks. You claim to have answers - this "method" that you belive beats everything else out there.
But you're not married and you're scarcely old enough to even be married. It'd be like me trying to tell people what it's like to live in a nursing home because I talked to some elderly people.
What's next, are you going to tell me what military life is like? Because I can tell you the real truth of that, too.
The whole problem is misunderstandings:
1. People seem to misunderstand the Biblical model as man=better than woman, woman=submissive to man. Read what the Bible says on marriage, and answer me this: does Jesus see you as nothing more than a servant girl?
2. I actually never claimed superior knowledge to marriage, let alone to have all of the answers. That's a candlestick that's been put in my mouth by other people - what I said was: "I've never seen a marriage that followed the Biblical model and failed." Refer to 1 for help on 2.
3. I haven't told anyone what any kind of life is like. Neither marriage nor the military. Another candlestick shuved in my mouth - why do you want to do that?
The point is that when you argue with people who have real experience and you have none you are, in effect, claiming that your knowledge beats theirs. That's true of any argument or debate. Each side claims to have the better facts.
And yes, the basis of your opinion is a target. It's a viable target - not because your position is unassailable, but because it has no foundation.
Again, you're making failed assumptions. I never argued with anyone over what marriage is, but the Biblical model vs. "other." This attacking my position never came until I said this: "I've never seen a marriage that followed the Biblical model and failed." This is a typical thing I've seen around the world - you can't attack what someone says, so you attack them.
This what is what I am talking about; Konkurrent sounds like a man who doesn't constantly need to have to his masculinity approved and affirmed by a religious code. Because he is a man, he is probably still pretty sure he is a man, and therefore not frightened, nor upset if his wife speaks her mind and voices her opinions about issues pertaining to their household.
Men who feel that they must wield the upper hand in terms of being "the leader" are really missing out on the true love within a relationship, in which ones spouse truly respects, LOVES (and I mean LOVES) and accepts you as an equal, rather than feels that she has to back down to your decision. No true wife who feels equal should think that her husband's position is the leader, because she is also a co-leader in their household decisions, a co-President and a co-eminence, if you will.
The wife has just as much responsbility to God as the husband does, and she sure doesn't want to shirk her responsibilities.
1. So you think that any man who beleives in the Bible is insecure?
2. Having read what the Bible says on marriage, do you seriously think it's about having power over another and being a "leader"? The Bible says that men are to love their wives as Jesus would love them, which I get the inference of unconditionably, unselfishly - oh wait, let's look at those sexist, insecure people from the Bible who spoke on marriage - none of them were ever married
. Does Jesus, let alone Paul, have an invalid opinion?
