zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 5, 2012 15:12:14 GMT -5
Anyone ever read MEN ARE FROM MARS, WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS? After that book I wanted to be a lesbian, thought my life would be so much easier. I'm getting better at dealing with men but I think it's because I'm old and just not that willing to make EVERYTHING a hill to die on. Case in point, this house is being re-done to DFs taste. I think everything he has picked out is hideous. I let it slide because he likes it more than I hate it. But, let me tell you, our place in Florida is so going to be to MY taste because HE OWES ME! Heh heh! ;D
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Jul 5, 2012 15:14:42 GMT -5
Page 16: still on obey, but moving past it somewhat...
...:::"I say there should be a law against regressing after marriage!":::...
I know this will start a tangent, but the smoking example has another angle: the person who smoked before and during, but hate it and constantly tries to quit. Sometimes succeeding, sometimes regressing, sometimes cutting back, and sometimes failing; but ALWAYS showing and voicing desire to quit. Fun...
...:::"Did I want to? No, but it had to get done and I did it. I could have refused, but that would have made a 2 day job a 5 day job and made DH really miserable. I did what needed to be done and didn't bitch about it (much) out of respect for our marriage and him.":::...
Swamp gets it. A perfect example. Sometimes these things come up. As she said, turning it into a struggle just to "win" or "avoid being controlled" hurts everyone.
...:::"I am thinking/hoping that WWBG meant something along these lines.":::...
I know this is p16 and I clarified on p18. I'm sorry you hate "obey" so much. As I clarified, we are talking about life threatening situations (fire, boiling water) or extreme situations (nuclear family funerals). Those are the situations in which I'd exercise such blatant authoritarian commands, and I firmly believe the situation warrants them.
...:::"Now, if you marry a cigarette smoker, and a year into the marriage they turn to smoking meth/crack - obviously that's an escalation that should be addressed. Same thing if you marry a social smoker and they turn into a two-pack-a-day smoker.":::...
Yes, very true! And as has been discussed several times in this thread, where IS that line? I was called an extremist for a similar analogy (drinks on super sunday becomes drinks every week) but its very true. The alternative, I suppose, is to assume that anyone who displays the remotest "bad" habit is GOING to get worse over time. But that probably means that nobody, anywhere, ever, could marry.
...:::"Do you even like/love your wife?":::...
Extremely.
...:::"The question I have, WWBG (and I think the question that your anecdotes provoke from some other posters) is "why does everything have to be a battle?"":::...
When you find an answer to this question, let me know. I'd like to think that not everything SHOULD be a battle, so I get really mad when things that shouldn't be (accompany me to a family event I say I need you at) ARE.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 5, 2012 15:15:51 GMT -5
Anyone ever read MEN ARE FROM MARS, WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS? After that book I wanted to be a lesbian, thought my life would be so much easier. I'm getting better at dealing with men but I think it's because I'm old and just not that willing to make EVERYTHING a hill to die on. Case in point, this house is being re-done to DFs taste. I think everything he has picked out is hideous. I let it slide because he likes it more than I hate it. But, let me tell you, our place in Florida is so going to be to MY taste because HE OWES ME! Heh heh! ;D I hated that book. I wanted to throw it against the wall quite a few times.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:42:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2012 15:17:02 GMT -5
She is not a smoker. She is not a smoker. She is not a smoker. She has never been a smoker.. Do not let hypothetical examples become "fact". ...:::"I was going to dissect some of his more offensive statements but the thing that sprang to mind was this: say your DF has been a smoker the entire time you dated her. You knew she smoked when you met her and you continued to see her in spite of that. At some point YOU decide that you want her to quit. However, she's still OK with smoking.":::... So "smoking" in this case represents an attitude. OK, what a great analogy! Because there are places where it is 100% inappropriate to smoke, and if the smoker is stupid enough to light up, he/she is going to be eating that cigarette. Continuing your analogy, my "STFU and obey" would be represented by locations like an airport, or a hospital. So thank you for strengthening my point. ............Did I mention that DW IS NOT A SMOKER? ZIB!!!!!! I told you all this would happen.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 5, 2012 15:19:32 GMT -5
Funny enough, I always thought David and Jonathon were gay. Remember the part that says his love was greater than what women gave him?
There is actually some textual evidence for this. It's been awhile since I've read a critical interpretation of the specific verses but there is more than one verse stating that they kiss, and I believe there's one basically implying that they're in bed together.
As I said, you may not believe me and think I support it because I happen to be favored by it, but that's not the case. In fact, I'm pretty laid back and prefer someone else take charge, and the fact that I'm told I need to be a leader and "obeyed" actually cuases me stress.
I understand, and that makes sense to me too. But it also makes it just a little more strange that you don't consider it appropriate to adjust the roles in your marriage accordingly, because of what the Bible says. Presumably you wouldn't stone your daughter if she came home pregnant and presumably you no longer sacrifice animals - so why can't you treat this "wife must obey her husband" business in the same vein?
So I find it confusing why so many christians make such a big deal of it when we're specifically told not to.
You and me both!
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 5, 2012 15:21:07 GMT -5
Parts of it make sense but still, I remember at the time, I felt that me being gay would be so much easier on me.
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Jul 5, 2012 15:22:00 GMT -5
OK, p17 we seem to be at a point where the scathing nature of obey is finally being appreciated when juxtaposed with the context of an immediate relative's funeral.
Point taken that nobody liked the use of the word. I can see the logic that nobody likes to be "told" to obey, even if they were actually going to obey, but now they feel the need to resist just out of spite for being told to obey. We've had that discussion before in different contexts.
As far as "brought it on herself"... I'm sorry you don't like that one either. If you have to attend the funeral of a parent or sibling (assuming you actually cared about them) and your spouse knew how devastated you were and how much you wanted the support, and for whatever reason, that spouse still chose to be difficult, p-a, obstructionist... then yeah that spouse is bringing on whatever comes their way.
Really the crux of this is that there are times you just defer 100% to the other person because its the right thing to do. There may not be MANY of those times, but they exist. You can call it by whatever term you want, whether its PC and candy-coated, or harsh and blunt.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 5, 2012 15:22:29 GMT -5
Sorry, Beer, so my fault for not realizing it was an example.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 5, 2012 15:23:05 GMT -5
I know this is p16 and I clarified on p18. I'm sorry you hate "obey" so much. As I clarified, we are talking about life threatening situations (fire, boiling water) or extreme situations (nuclear family funerals). Those are the situations in which I'd exercise such blatant authoritarian commands, and I firmly believe the situation warrants them.
WWBG, you were the one who said that adjusting your language so that it's not as argumentative is half the battle sometimes. I think that most women DO react quite badly to the word "obey," so the point that everyone is trying to make is that if you need to use a word like that, you've probably already lost.
In a situation where you NEED her to "obey" you, that word should never be necessary.
When you find an answer to this question, let me know. I'd like to think that not everything SHOULD be a battle, so I get really mad when things that shouldn't be (accompany me to a family event I say I need you at) ARE.
And that, my friend, is why I worry about you. Seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:42:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2012 15:24:40 GMT -5
It's OK. I've read one too many Doxie threads apparently, because I knew it was coming the minute I read your post. ;D
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 5, 2012 15:26:56 GMT -5
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 5, 2012 15:29:09 GMT -5
As far as "brought it on herself"... I'm sorry you don't like that one either. If you have to attend the funeral of a parent or sibling (assuming you actually cared about them) and your spouse knew how devastated you were and how much you wanted the support, and for whatever reason, that spouse still chose to be difficult, p-a, obstructionist... then yeah that spouse is bringing on whatever comes their way.
Again, I feel like this is just a language choice issue. "She brought it on herself" is a statement that carries a whole RAFT of negative implications for me (and you know why because I've talked about it ad nauseum before, so I will not resurrect it here). Yes, I agree that if you aren't there for your spouse when they really need you then things are going to get ugly and it's your responsibility.
But that particular phrase is a very violent way to convey that. You can't just make a statement like that and have it be completely divorced from its historical meaning and context. It's sort of like saying "I don't like seeing the tea party in my backyard" when you're referring to an actual, literal tea party your kindergartner is holding in your backyard and ignoring the obvious political meaning inherent in that statement.
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Jul 5, 2012 15:30:24 GMT -5
p18, more about the issue itself.
...:::"What I was saying is I'm sorry she didn't insist upon going anyway. I'm sorry she accepted your "out."":::...
Thank you for your clarification. There is NOTHING to be sorry for, because the offer of an out was genuine. It was not a "test". I told her she didn't have to come, because I genuinely felt she didn't have to come. Its kooky, I know...
...:::"I'm going to ignore the fact that you were so condescending about my reading comprehension skills because you are grieving.":::...
I don't need a free pass (though it is appreciated). I am not always nice. I'm not citing grief as an excuse. I've not done so once in this thread. I'd not have even mentioned the event were it not for the similar anecdote. I reacted the way I did to you because your words "sorry your grief has become a bargaining chip" implied that I had to bargain with DW for attendance or not. I did not, and I sure expect not to in the future.
...:::"...does anyone actually like going to funerals?":::...
What a superb question in this context. I'd say funerals fall into that category of things that aren't popular but that still need to be dealt with.
...:::"This is sort of the opposite of what you stated in an earlier post.":::...
As the piece you quoted explains, I cited this example as proof of a time I did exactly what I'm preaching she should do, thereby also supporting my assertion that I am doing as I say, not just saying it.
Ick... there's a p19 now...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:42:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2012 15:38:38 GMT -5
I wasn't trying to suggest you were testing her - that seems like a pretty shitty thing to do. Just that taking the out also sounds like a pretty shitty thing to do. But I gather this was not a close relative.
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Jul 5, 2012 15:38:55 GMT -5
...:::"WWBG, you were the one who said that adjusting your language so that it's not as argumentative is half the battle sometimes.":::...
We are in agreement that if I actually TOLD DW what I thought she needed to do in the language that best described it, I'd have a bigger battle. I can see how I'd be making things harder on myself in what would already be a difficult situation.
As to your individual experience: I thought we'd agreed to disagree. This situation is very similar, so the same accord should apply.
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Jul 5, 2012 15:42:21 GMT -5
...:::"Just that taking the out also sounds like a pretty shitty thing to do.":::...
No, it wasn't! It was a GENUINE offer. I would not have offered if it wasn't genuine. There is no reason for anyone to be upset at her for not going because *I* offered her the chance not to come, and I offered it to her because I wanted her to have the option.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 5, 2012 15:51:10 GMT -5
As to your individual experience: I thought we'd agreed to disagree. This situation is very similar, so the same accord should apply.
If you're talking about why I find "she brought it on herself" problematic, that's not just me... I think it's actually fairly common for women to react badly to that particular statement.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 5, 2012 15:57:52 GMT -5
No. There isn't. There are simply verses that can be twisted by someone trying to say that God blessed a homosexual union. David and Johathan were friends and loved one another very much. The same way that I love my bff.
This is true. They did kiss one another when it was decided it was unsafe for David to come in out of the wilderness because of Saul's jealousy. That makes them no more homosexual than it makes me a lesbian for kissing my female friends goodbye. The reference says nothing about kissing on the mouth of slipping one another some tongue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:42:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2012 15:59:46 GMT -5
I usually base my "how a marriage should work" views on my parents' marriage, but I only had one great-grandparent die in my lifetime. I do know my mom went to that funeral with my dad.
So, I have to look at the deaths of my grandparents. Every spouse or significant other for every adult grandchild has always showed up at those funerals. I guess I assumed that was just what people that loved each other did. These things seemed to occur without any discussion - no one needed to be asked to attend, and no one had to offer to attend, they just did.
But if there is a different protocol that works for your family, then good on ya.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 5, 2012 16:03:30 GMT -5
No. There isn't. There are simply verses that can be twisted by someone trying to say that God blessed a homosexual union. David and Johathan were friends and loved one another very much. The same way that I love my bff.
I didn't say there was evidence that God blessed the union, only that there was evidence that it happened. God didn't bless David's choice to go out and sleep with someone else's wife and then kill him either.
But as I said, I'm not an expert on this. I just know there's contextual support for the idea. I read a critique on the relevant verses but it was several years ago, so I can't remember the specifics.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 5, 2012 16:08:55 GMT -5
Not going to your loved ones grandmothers funeral is a shitty thing to do, period. You shouldn't even have to ask someone. It should just be expected that you'd go. I can't even imagine having a discussion about it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:42:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2012 16:10:28 GMT -5
No. There isn't. There are simply verses that can be twisted by someone trying to say that God blessed a homosexual union. David and Johathan were friends and loved one another very much. The same way that I love my bff. This is true. They did kiss one another when it was decided it was unsafe for David to come in out of the wilderness because of Saul's jealousy. That makes them no more homosexual than it makes me a lesbian for kissing my female friends goodbye. Do you use tongue? GEL, what you are posting are your interpretations of the text. Which is, in fact, a very old text. Many believers understand the Bible to be the literal word of God. But even then, it was the literal word of God written down a long time ago, in another language, often after having been preserved in the oral tradition for a while before it was recorded, by a whole bunch of different people. They took some bits out and added in other bits. It has since been translated and retranslated and retranslated and interpretted by men and women. Everybody believes that their understanding of the Bible is Truth, but everybody understands it differently. That's why we can't talk about religion around here, because I'll be forced to point out how awful things like "homosexuals are okay, it is just homosexual acts that are sinful" are. And then I'm going to share my interpretation of Christianity, and then someone will have a different understanding, and then someone will share a different faith. And then I'll start typing with the caps lock on, and the whole thing will turn ugly and the mods will lock the thread and we'll never understand the mysteries of WWBG's marriage. It's all subjective. If my understanding of Truth is wrong, I promise to endure 20 minutes of "neener neenering" from whoever got it right before we move on to the hereafter. Unless the atheists were right, in which case, I'll just let the worms play pinochle in my snout with the them.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 5, 2012 16:13:08 GMT -5
THAT.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 5, 2012 16:13:24 GMT -5
I know, Firebird. I wasn't saying YOU did that. While I disagree with most of what you say, you say it in a mostly respectful way and I appreciate and respect that. I was simply saying it's an argument some use. Said argument is used for that very reason - to support the fallacy that God blessed a homosexual union. Again, there is NOT contextual support for the idea. None whatsoever. Some people (not you) use those passages to say that God is being contradictory. There's simply no basis for this.
That being said, true Christians do not condemn homosexuals OR homosexuality. We know that is not our place. So, it wouldn't matter to me one way or another.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 5, 2012 16:18:03 GMT -5
Just to provide SOME support for WWBG's position, I didn't go to DH's grandfather's funeral. We'd been together about 4 years at the time. We lived 800 miles away and couldn't afford 2 plane tickets back - so DH went and I stayed. We went on to get married, and our marriage hasn't imploded, and DH doesn't think I "owe him", so I guess it all worked out.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 5, 2012 16:18:28 GMT -5
Not with my girlfriends, no. In fact, not with anybody for a very long time!
This is very true, Sarah, and normally, I wouldn't comment on another's interpretation unless it is so completely misguided as is this subject.
I agree. I have no wish to see this thread locked and absolutely do not wish to violate the CoC as it pertains to religions discussion. However, I thought that since the opinion was posed without a scolding, I could rebut without one. I do not share the opinion that anti-Christian postings are fine, but rebuttal of same is not.
Agreed, Sarah. I shall cease and desist gladly as I'm very interested in WWBG's postings. As long as, of course, that goes both ways.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 5, 2012 16:18:38 GMT -5
Everybody believes that their understanding of the Bible is Truth, but everybody understands it differently. That's why we can't talk about religion around here, because I'll be forced to point out how awful things like "homosexuals are okay, it is just homosexual acts that are sinful" are. And then I'm going to share my interpretation of Christianity, and then someone will have a different understanding, and then someone will share a different faith. And then I'll start typing with the caps lock on, and the whole thing will turn ugly and the mods will lock the thread and we'll never understand the mysteries of WWBG's marriage. Karma for craftysarah. I love it when people can acknowledge that their individual interpretation of the Bible might not necessarily be the THE ONE TRUTH THAT IS TRULY TRUE. It amuses and/or irks me (depending on the context) when people tell me, " I don't think [X] is bad/evil/wrong/sinful, GOD thinks it's bad/evil/wrong/sinful. How do I know that? It says so right here in the Bible." Yeah, well, the Bible is a very tenuous document. It's been through an awful lot in its long history - countless revisions, countless interpretations. You might believe that God remained sovereign throughout this process, that Matthew is the first book in the Gospel because God wanted it that way, but that's hardly objective fact. For my money, here is the most important verse in the Bible even if it HAS been revised and reiterated and rewritten a billion times: "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 5, 2012 16:21:54 GMT -5
I know, Firebird. I wasn't saying YOU did that. While I disagree with most of what you say, you say it in a mostly respectful way and I appreciate and respect that. I was simply saying it's an argument some use. Said argument is used for that very reason - to support the fallacy that God blessed a homosexual union.Got it. And thank you - I do try to be respectful for the most part Just to provide SOME support for WWBG's position, I didn't go to DH's grandfather's funeral. We'd been together about 4 years at the time. We lived 800 miles away and couldn't afford 2 plane tickets back - so DH went and I stayed. DH didn't go with me to my grandmother's funeral either. It was less than two months after he'd lost his mother, and I didn't want to subject him to another funeral so soon. Selfishly, I also wanted to be free to grieve without worrying about the effect it would have on him.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 5, 2012 16:24:24 GMT -5
I do not share the opinion that anti-Christian postings are fine, but rebuttal of same is not.
By the same token, I don't think it's okay to bash atheists without giving them the opportunity to take issue with it. (Not that you were doing so - I'm specifically referring to Virgil's remark to Mid the other day, and I'll admit that.)
Basically - you want to go, let's go! Debate is almost always okay by me; what's not okay is attacking someone without giving them the opportunity to respond.
Incidentally, that's why I hate it when threads get locked.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 5, 2012 16:25:35 GMT -5
By the way, does this thread strike anyone else as... weird?
|
|