Re: On the Lord - another try -- ExUBF's Parlor_Free wheel as far as u can from UBF

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:14:05 03/08/05 Tue
Author: Mike K.
Subject: Re: On the Lord - another try
In reply to: Anonymous 's message, "On the Lord - another try" on 17:38:03 03/08/05 Tue

-Mike, this sounds completely unreasonable. Take the above paragraph and switch "husband" for "wife." Does that sound reasonable? No. Why do you think it's reasonable when worded your way? You are saying that a wife has to submit to her husband like a dictator.

-I think a truly loving husband would appreciate his wife for the person she is and not expect her to change or fit into his will in any way.

Dear Anon,
like you said, you know little about marriage, and when I was single, I also used to think like you.
Thing is, in marriage 2 people become blended into a oneness that far surpasses all other oneness in this world.
You can NOT liken a marriage relationship to a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, you can not liken it to company coworkers (as UBF does), you can not liken it- to anything other than marriage or the relationship with Christ.

Sorry if I sound dictatorial, that's not what I mean.
You see, when you have a girlfriend, you're still free to disagree, to dissent or even to break up if things don't work out.
Your spouse, you have "for better or for worse". All of your spouse's decisions and actions affect you, and whenever your spouse just disagrees with you without a reason, it puts a slight strain on the relationship.
This is just not the same with BF/GF. Each one is their individual person, and as such, each has the right to be their own person.
In a marriage, this is only partly true, much more important than "being yourself" in a marriage is "being in harmony with your spouse". There have been liberal and feministic trends away from this rule, but I'd say that this is because it was laid down as an "iron rule" in the past millenia, whereas it should be considered a "golden rule".

You know, this issue boils down to the difference between law and grace once again: is it a law that you must be one with your spouse? No. But it is grace that you can actually be!
To disagree without reason is unreasonable in marriage (just think, not giving reasons is reasonable? Paradox, isn't it?)

I want to add that one can disagree with their partners in a marriage, but this aspect I would liken to politics: if 50% of senators hold one opinion and 50% hold another, and 66% are needed to pass a law, then nothing will get done if both sides just say "No, I disagree with your position". What must happen is that both sides present in an open (and best non-aggressive) fashion their point of view in order to convince the other side at least in part, so that something can be accomplished.

You know, in gaming theory, there's a thing called "Battle of the Sexes", it's a simple game, I'll explain it to you:

Husband wants to go baseball. If he can, his use of the day is 1.
Wife wants to go shopping. If she can, her use of the day is 1.
Husband wants to spend time with wife, if he can, his use is another 1.
Wife wants to spend time with husband, if she can, her use is another 1.

If you make the table on actions and "rewards", you'll see that either the husband or the wife are better off if one party does the other's will, rather than go separate ways for the day. If the husband goes shopping, his use of the day is as much as that of the wife, but her use is higher, likewise the other way around if they go baseball together.

Now, this is where the part about "giving reasons" comes in.
Why should the husband go shopping instead of baseball? His use is the same. He'd need a reason to.
Likewise, the wife: why should she go baseball instead of shopping, since she gains no additional benefit. She needs a reason to.

You would suggest they do what they prefer: this game assumes they're indifferent between actions, and as such, to change preference, something is needed to make a cooperation worthwhile. And the easiest factor would be a good reason to do one thing instead of another.

Just like I said, if the wife is okay with the husband's decision, fine. But if she isn't (i.e. her benefit of doing the husband's will is lower than not doing it), then she better make it clear for her husband why.

In the BoS scenario, you'd usually cause people to hang out both shopping and baseball, giving the couple a total day utility of 2, but I'd advise using reasonings to make sure we get into the common-action scenarios with utility of 3: the individual does not benefit from choosing to do their partner's will, but the partner does, as such, increasing the value of being together over being single.

While you may sound like I want to make the couple go baseball every day, this is not the case, but the wife needs to give the husband reason to go shopping if he just always wants to go baseball. A reasonable husband, having the greater good for the family in mind, would, to create balance as well as mutual edification, decide to go baseball today and shopping tomorrow or vice versa.
Now, the wife may want to go shopping both days - and she better have a reason for being so selfish!

In Christ,
Mike K.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: On the Lord - another try -- Anonymous, 17:02:15 03/11/05 Fri
- Word games -- Mike K., 23:26:31 03/11/05 Fri
  - Satisfied with your response -- Anonymous, 09:36:13 03/12/05 Sat