Prayer request Needing Prayer

[The Revolting Man]

Alexa is a Marine, daughter of a Sailor. Marine's don't cry. They get even.

Marines accomplish the mission and produce new Marines. They are also highly attuned to expressions of force, anger and violence. You can’t bluff or buffalo or ram rod a Marine.
One of the rings civilians understand the least about the military is the mutual respect that flows up and down the hierarchy and how it is expressed. A Marine Corps leader expresses respect for his subordinates by maintaining a high standard for them and himself. He pushes them to be worthy of following him while he strives to be worthy of leading them. Despite what everyone sees in Full Metal Jacket, which depicts an accurate but very small glimpse of what it’s like to be a Marine, we don’t go around insulting each other or expressing anger, it is very rare that a Marine would ever speak to another Marine in anger but rather a challenging tone that comes from a place of respect and even tenderness, although I could never explain to you how that factors in. The point is that that Marine you’re speaking to, even if they’re not living up to the title in any give moment, is incredibly valuable; an indispensable part of accomplishing your mission and keeping those around both of you from getting killed.

I have interacted with a lot of people who thought they could influence me by adopting a caricature of an angry drill instructor. Some people thought it was funny, some thought it would be an effective way to modify my behavior but it always comes across as ridiculous and insulting.
The thing is that if you’re not a Marine and I’m almost positive you’re not since you referenced her father being a sailor as a sign of toughness, classic civvie mistake, you can’t “talk tough” to her. You just don’t know how. It sounds silly coming out of your mouth. Most likely you mistake anger for authority or a threat. You probably try to talk louder or over her. Your body language and tone express not strength but rather frustration and even that you’re scared of the moment.
If you want to try and treat her like a Marine you have to be a Marine. You have to have the bearing, the inflection and the style of communication that is as nuanced and specific as any language. You can only learn this style of communication in the Corps. Even the Navy, which the Corps is technically part of, and the Army, which is technically an infantry force, can’t communicate on that level with Marines. So you shouldn’t try. You will fail.
Here are some things that Marines respond well to. We like a clearly defined mission. We like a clearly defined hierarchy and to know our place in it. We like camaraderie, a shared sense of pride in what we are together, public praise and private correction are very important. We have to have the respect of the collective. We will whither and die if we think our comrades don’t respect us. This can be a powerful motivator but it requires a very deft touch. We need the strandards to

 

[Tesfalcon]

I don't think that getting even with your commanding officer, follows the motto "Semper Fi". I did a little Army Reserve time back in '89, and was "bludgeoned" quite a bit by the Drill Sergeants, time and time again. I didn't have the choice to leave either. Sounds like she could go the route of "Sir, Yes Sir", or she can choose to be more vulnerable with you as her head. When I was in the military, there was no toleration for a soldier who kept his bunk as a pig-pen either.

As I described before, her entire Marine experience consists of JrROTC before she turned 18. She got hurt on maneuvers and became ineligible for active service. I was 4 yrs USAF so I had a taste of the real military. Alexa's attitude is more mystique than reality. Her Dad was Navy, but it sounds like he was a poor example as a husband, father or sailor.

 

[Tesfalcon]

This verse is about underscoring the grave importance of speaking truthfully, not about expecting that your audience receives your words as if they were inerrant.

Interesting take, that.
Growing up, I was taught to let the Scriptures speak for you. Thus quoting Scripture is speaking the oracles of God rather than depending on man's wisdom in the matter. I could say many things, but the ones in line w Scripture matters. The rest is my opinion which is negotiable.

 

[Tesfalcon]

One of the things civilians understand the least about the military is the mutual respect that flows up and down the hierarchy and how it is expressed.
...
The thing is that if you’re not a Marine and I’m almost positive you’re not since you referenced her father being a sailor as a sign of toughness, classic civvie mistake, you can’t “talk tough” to her.

I have Marine friends, relatives, and former coworkers. Whether they were fresh from boot or 70, "once a Marine, always a Marine".

Her dad was Navy. Hence the sailor reference, not tough talk. Her beliefs are from dreaming about it but not living it.

I'm not a Marine. I was USAF. I recognize Corps values, but I don't always share or understand them. I'd rather be in God's Army than in the US's, esp now.

 

[FollowingHim]

Interesting take, that.
Growing up, I was taught to let the Scriptures speak for you. Thus quoting Scripture is speaking the oracles of God rather than depending on man's wisdom in the matter. I could say many things, but the ones in line w Scripture matters. The rest is my opinion which is negotiable.

The fact that @Daniel DeLuca took that verse quite differently than you did illustrates a very important point about "letting the Scriptures speak for you". It often doesn't work. This is because scripture is so powerful, deep and nuanced, that there are many things we can learn from every verse. That's why we can read the Bible all our lives, and in our old age still learn new things from it, by seeing the same verses we've already read before in a fresh light, and learning a new message from the same old words. Because God has so much to say in those words, when you quote the words you may be meaning to convey one thing, but the hearer may hear something quite different. Both things that you have each taken from the scripture may be 100% correct and from God - but you haven't communicated the point you were trying to make.

This is why scripture must frequently, or even usually, be accompanied by an exposition of how you believe it applies to the present situation.

For example, the book of Hebrews is not Paul just quoting scripture. It is Paul explaining the meaning of scripture from the perspective he has been given. If it was just a string of quotes from the Old Testament, he would not convey the meaning he is taking from those scriptures.

The rest is my opinion which is negotiable.

But you are trying to convey your opinion. In this case, by quoting that scripture, you were trying to convey "let the Scriptures speak for you ... quoting Scripture is speaking the oracles of God". That is your opinion on what that verse means to you. However, you did not effectively convey that meaning. I had no idea what you were trying to say in the context of this discussion, so didn't comment on it at all. While Daniel took it to mean something completely unrelated to what you intended.

So this is an example of extremely ineffective communication, with one person completely missing your point and the other hearing a quite different point.

Effective communication would be something like:
"Peter said, 'If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God'. I could say many of my own opinions, and they could be wrong. However, if I quote scripture, I know I am only saying what is true - I am speaking the oracles of God. By quoting scripture I am trying to ensure that we follow the instructions of God, not my own instructions."
Or slightly different wording of course if I haven't conveyed your meaning properly.

My point is that I strongly feel this is an area you need to work on. You are communicating very ineffectively with @AlexaH - she feels bludgeoned by scripture not spoken to reasonably by her husband. Part of the problem may be that she is sometimes hearing completely different things to what you mean, or not understanding your meaning at all. I'm serious about this.

Don't stop quoting scripture. But I would strongly encourage you to accompany it with an explanation of the point you are trying to make by using that passage. I think this would immensely help your communication not only with @AlexaH, but also with others such as the men here.

 

[rockfox]

There is some scriptural precedent for that,

which is? not looking for debate, just the reference for learning.

but as a question of "are you going to leave over this as you keep threatening to?" (my paraphrase). That means that @AlexaH can genuinely say 'he suggested I should leave first' and @Tesfalcon can genuinely say 'it was her decision'.

But it does appear that @AlexaH's claim that she was booted out and is now forced to live in her car is highly suspect. At no time in this conversation does @Tesfalcon actually tell her to leave. Rather, it is @AlexaH who is discussing plans to leave, arranging how to get car keys etc. She appears to be planning and arranging this while at home with the first wife, with @Tesfalcon not even there but talking to him by text message.

It is common in contentious relationships for the wife to repeatedly threaten to leave, threaten the D. These are nothing more than rebellious efforts to force the husband's capitulation, to get him to submit to her.

The only way I've seen to successfully deal with these situations once they get started is to tell her to put up or shut up and make it clear such threats are off limits. Fish or cut bait.

To do this is NOT kicking her out nor is it divorcing her nor is it justification for a woman to claim she's been put away and free to remarry per 1 Cor 7.

It is simply putting the onus on her to choose once and for all between staying in submission or leaving; to make it clear she's not going to get to have her cake and eat it too. It is ending the contention.

I've seen this approach save many marriage. I've also seen some fail. Many times a woman bound and determined to rule herself will not stay in such a situation where she cannot lord over the man.

It is possible there is a better solution to this situation that works with certain female personalities or situations. I haven't heard of one yet. Avoiding the put up or shut up confrontation doesn't work because avoidance or capitulation only makes the problem worse and they end up leaving eventually (if for no other reason than they can't respect a man they've conquered).

There are many good ways for a woman to handle conflict and disagreement. But threatening to leave is not one of them. Marriage is for life, whether to stay in the relationship or leave should never be a question. Rather she should be asking herself, "what can I do to make this work?" Where there is a will there is a way.

 

[Tesfalcon]

"There is scriptural precedent for that."

which is? not looking for debate, just the reference for learning.

In the context, he seems to be referring to sending a wife away temporarily and bringing her back to an improved state of relationship. It was what I described doing w Sandra back in 2015. The rest of his comments expressed interest in learning of this success since other stories attempting similarly weren't.

 

[Tesfalcon]

The fact that @Daniel DeLuca took that verse quite differently than you did illustrates a very important point about "letting the Scriptures speak for you". It often doesn't work. This is because scripture is so powerful, deep and nuanced, that there are many things we can learn from every verse.

There're also a ton of poor students, bad theology, failure to follow proper hermeneutics, inconsistent logic, and outright lies that get promulgated in introgetical pulpit pounding. My serious look at Scripture & marriage in 2006 began from my disgust at the severe lack of foundational understanding in these matters. Sandra & I were presented w a moral dilemna, but we could only quote preachers, not actually understanding what the Bible said to arrive at their conclusions.

Because God has so much to say in those words, when you quote the words you may be meaning to convey one thing, but the hearer may hear something quite different.

2 Peter 1:20
"knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation."

There's what the Scripture MEANS; there is NO "what it means to me". God said it. What did HE mean by it.

Both things that you have each taken from the scripture may be 100% correct and from God - but you haven't communicated the point you were trying to make.

So instance 1: I quote a section on divorce & spouse walking away which has NO context, reference or insinuation of their return to be misunderstood as implying that she would be welcomed back. WHAT?! U can't get return of spouse out of that passage (exegesis) unless you put the belief into it (intragesis).

Instance 2:
Again, nowhere in the verse or context is there any command, example or even inference of truth & integrity or in how the audience receives the statement inerrantly or not. This misunderstanding does not come from the verse but inserting a belief into it.

This is why scripture must frequently, or even usually, be accompanied by an exposition of how you believe it applies to the present situation.

For example, the book of Hebrews is not Paul just quoting scripture. It is Paul explaining the meaning of scripture from the perspective he has been given. If it was just a string of quotes from the Old Testament, he would not convey the meaning he is taking from those scriptures.

The Hebrew writer was explaining a DIFFERENT interpretation in comparison to what had been commonly belief or historically shared by his audience. When explaining poly to someone, we do this: verse, explanation, verse, explanation, etc. We stack verse upon verse in context and volume until the sheer precedent reveals the truth and forces a conclusion from the opposed as to whether monogamy-only is defensible Scripturally or not.

Scripture is pointilism. Rarely does one verse make a doctrine. (Isaiah 28:10) "For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.” As you add the precepts, the points, & the littles together you can see the picture. One brick does not build a house but row after row of small bricks makes a wall. Wall after wall makes an enclosure. Add a roof and you have shelter.

W bad pointilism, I can make a case for incest. Abraham married his half-sister. Lot had children by his daughters so a man should marry his sisters or daughters. But that throws out so many other verses opposing it.

Or even suicide: Judas went out and hung himself. Go and do likewise. Whatever you do, do quickly. But, again, that ignores other verses opposing it or the context and high value of life, etc.

Bad interpretations are individual, but that doesn't make them less bad.

My MIL & FIL were discussing drinking alcohol from Scripture. Their church was embroiled in controversy since the elders said, "Drunkenness is sin. One drink isn't." FIL agreed. MIL staunchly disagreed. He had the Bible open. She had her arms crossed. Finally, she said, "I don't care what that book says. My father taught me that one drink is a sin. If they disagree, they're wrong."

While there is Scriptural precedent to respect such devotion to a father's teaching, to give his opinion greater weight over God's opinion in public discussion is idolatrous.

So this is an example of extremely ineffective communication, with one person completely missing your point and the other hearing a quite different point.

Apparently God has this same problem w so many people reading the same book or even the same verse and believing so many opposite things. Even prophets and apostles have failed to clarify the situation over the millenia.

My point is that I strongly feel this is an area you need to work on. You are communicating very ineffectively with @AlexaH - she feels bludgeoned by scripture not spoken to reasonably by her husband. Part of the problem may be that she is sometimes hearing completely different things to what you mean, or not understanding your meaning at all. I'm serious about this.

As we spend time w another person, we learn them and grow our history w them and thus improve our communication. I have never met any of you IRL except Alexa. I had never heard of or interacted w any of you until this week. We are strangers pretending to be friends.

In our reconciliatory discussion, we have noted the severe lack of 1-on-1 face-to-face interaction time between Alexa & I. From Sep 2019 to Sep 2020, I was home ~100 days. 1-on-1 time can be measured in hours in a full year of "marriage". The same can be stated w Sandra except we have many years worth of interaction time foundation built up over our 27 year history. We communicate much w few words, even none. Conversely, Alexa spent all day, every day w Sandra except for those scant hours Alexa & I were alone together. The 3 of us spent VASTLY more time together as a trio than either of us as 2 couples.

 

[Tesfalcon]

Earlier in this discussion, y'all were discussing female pastor, strength of pastors' wives, etc. This again is in strong defiance to numerous verses listing male in qualifications lists and direct commands against female church leaders. Did God not communicate right or do some people not care what God wants or is trying to say?

Children do this. "Don't hit your sister."
(5 seconds later) "Why did u hit your sister?"
Was this ineffective communication?

W kids, there are 3 questions in communication:
"What do you want?"
"Do you mean it?"
"Do you love me?"

Most parenting problems fail in the 2nd question. They said don't do x, but when the child did x, nothing happened. Obviously, the parents didn't mean it.

2Pe 3:3,4,8,9
knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”
...
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

And again,
Romans 2:4
"Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?"

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Isaiah 28:10 is a prophecy concerning how the Jewish people would be subjugated by their own leaders, in particular, the Pharisees, who would stack a bunch of rules onto the people, one precept after another.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

It is common in contentious relationships for the wife to repeatedly threaten to leave, threaten the D. These are nothing more than rebellious efforts to force the husband's capitulation, to get him to submit to her.

Quite true.

The only way I've seen to successfully deal with these situations once they get started is to tell her to put up or shut up and make it clear such threats are off limits. Fish or cut bait.

There are other ways, and as you point out here:

I've seen this approach save many marriage. I've also seen some fail. Many times a woman bound and determined to rule herself will not stay in such a situation where she cannot lord over the man.

I would correct that by inserting the words "want to", as in "will not want to stay".

It is possible there is a better solution to this situation that works with certain female personalities or situations. I haven't heard of one yet.

There is, and as you say here, it DOES depend on the woman you are dealing with.

Avoiding the put up or shut up confrontation doesn't work because avoidance or capitulation only makes the problem worse and they end up leaving eventually (if for no other reason than they can't respect a man they've conquered).

I am reminded of those who claim that helping homosexuals escape the trappings of that lifestyle, doesn't work, because eventually....some time down the road....even though it hasn't happened yet, they will revert to the homosexual lifestyle. This is a Logical Fallacy known as Argument from the Future.

There are many good ways for a woman to handle conflict and disagreement. But threatening to leave is not one of them.

I think that we can all agree on that, and I hope @AlexaH has come to understand this. As you say here:

Marriage is for life, whether to stay in the relationship or leave should never be a question. Rather she should be asking herself, "what can I do to make this work?" Where there is a will there is a way.

...and for the husband, that way may be telling her to "put up or shut up", or it may be just telling her to "shut up and stop talking like that." OK, maybe not use the words "shut up", but realize that the enemy of our souls is at work here, and help her to realize that she is under attack from that enemy, and that those thoughts that she is expressing, are coming from the pit of hell.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

As I described before, her entire Marine experience consists of JrROTC before she turned 18. She got hurt on maneuvers and became ineligible for active service. I was 4 yrs USAF so I had a taste of the real military. Alexa's attitude is more mystique than reality. Her Dad was Navy, but it sounds like he was a poor example as a husband, father or sailor.

@AlexaH needs to realize that she is in a new role here; that the combat zone is outside the walls of your home, wherever that home may be. Paul says that the wife is the body and the husband is the head. I am not always right. I try to make the right decisions, but I do receive input from my wife. Of the two possible ways that she might resort to, yelling and screaming at me, may accomplish what she is hoping to get, but it comes with nasty side effects, and for me, as her husband, it has become a skill to let her know that doing so, is unacceptable. OTOH, if she breaks down in tears, I feel like dirt for the way in which I hurt her. So I am not always right. I make the decisions nonetheless, because I am the head. She, as the body, responds accordingly by sending messages, as your hand might let you know that the stove is hot. There is a place for that. The manner in which she does so though, CANNOT be a manner of usurpation of your authority. She may let you know when something hurts, even if it doesn't bring her to tears, but ultimately, you have to decide if her concerns are valid, and whether to adjust your thinking accordingly.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

In our reconciliatory discussion, we have noted the severe lack of 1-on-1 face-to-face interaction time between Alexa & I. From Sep 2019 to Sep 2020, I was home ~100 days. 1-on-1 time can be measured in hours in a full year of "marriage". The same can be stated w Sandra except we have many years worth of interaction time foundation built up over our 27 year history. We communicate much w few words, even none. Conversely, Alexa spent all day, every day w Sandra except for those scant hours Alexa & I were alone together. The 3 of us spent VASTLY more time together as a trio than either of us as 2 couples.

Do you think that Sandra might be willing to sacrifice a bit more of the one on one time and "trio time" that she has, in order that you might be able to have more time, for the time being, just to get to know @AlexaH better?

 

[rockfox]

I am reminded of those who claim that helping homosexuals escape the trappings of that lifestyle, doesn't work, because eventually....some time down the road....even though it hasn't happened yet, they will revert to the homosexual lifestyle. This is a Logical Fallacy known as Argument from the Future.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Please allow me to clarify what I'm getting at. The husband who allows the wife to jerk him around using threats of leaving is submitting himself to his wife. This is an unstable situation because it is not natural for a woman to be the head of the house. The relationship ends up being ruled by the chaotic winds of emotion.

Sometimes his submission "works" (as in they stay together, miserably so with the man in a state of Stockholm Syndrome ), but it is still contrary to God plan and very often she ends up leaving him because a) it's against nature and b) it's a part of relationship breakdown.

Whatever method one uses to end the threats of leaving, they must end for there to be a healthy relationship.

There is, and as you say here, it DOES depend on the woman you are dealing with.

Please enlighten us.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I have Marine friends, relatives, and former coworkers. Whether they were fresh from boot or 70, "once a Marine, always a Marine".

Her dad was Navy. Hence the sailor reference, not tough talk. Her beliefs are from dreaming about it but not living it.

I'm not a Marine. I was USAF. I recognize Corps values, but I don't always share or understand them. I'd rather be in God's Army than in the US's, esp now.

She’s not a Marine. You can only become one in one of three places and only one way.

 

[FollowingHim]

There're also a ton of poor students, bad theology, failure to follow proper hermeneutics, inconsistent logic, and outright lies that get promulgated in introgetical pulpit pounding. My serious look at Scripture & marriage in 2006 began from my disgust at the severe lack of foundational understanding in these matters. Sandra & I were presented w a moral dilemna, but we could only quote preachers, not actually understanding what the Bible said to arrive at their conclusions.

You and Sandra failed to understand scripture properly, and had to embark on a serious study of it in order to correctly understand it.

Rarely does one verse make a doctrine. ... As you add the precepts, the points, & the littles together you can see the picture.

So we agree it is possible to misunderstand scripture, particularly if you don't have all the relevant context in mind. This includes when somebody quotes a verse to you, considering it in context themselves, but the hearer fails to appreciate the context that is implied but not stated.

Bad interpretations are individual, but that doesn't make them less bad.

But it does mean bad interpretations exist. If you quote a scripture to somebody, they may interpret it wrong. How do you ensure they interpret it as you intend? By explaining it.

Apparently God has this same problem w so many people reading the same book or even the same verse and believing so many opposite things. Even prophets and apostles have failed to clarify the situation over the millenia.

Yes. Absolutely agree. Which is, once again, why you must explain what you mean.

So we're fundamentally saying the same thing. However, I'm saying there's something here for you to learn from and apply to your communication, and you're not yet getting the point of how this applies to your own life. I hope this makes it clearer.

 

[FollowingHim]

which is? not looking for debate, just the reference for learning.

he seems to be referring to sending a wife away temporarily and bringing her back to an improved state of relationship

Exactly. I was referring to 1 Corinthians 7:5. I also qualified it by saying "some" scriptural precedent, because this is not a direct application of that verse (as the verse is about temporary separation by mutual consent, not by the husband's edict), but has strong similarities to the situation described in this verse.

 

[Tesfalcon]

Isaiah 28:10 is a prophecy concerning how the Jewish people would be subjugated by their own leaders, in particular, the Pharisees, who would stack a bunch of rules onto the people, one precept after another.

1) Some argue that God did that already in Exodus - Deuteronomy.
2) While it may or may not be as you say (I don't recall that aspect specifically), is the brick wall analogy wrong?

 

[Tesfalcon]

Do you think that Sandra might be willing to sacrifice a bit more of the one on one time and "trio time" that she has, in order that you might be able to have more time, for the time being, just to get to know @AlexaH better?

At this point, that's outside the scope. Sandra is reluctant to agree to her return. Healing has to happen first.

I'm home daily now, but I work 11 hr shifts 6 days a week. Not much time free for anyone, even myself. It should slow down in March(?) & return to 5 day work weeks.

 

[Tesfalcon]

Exactly. I was referring to 1 Corinthians 7:5. I also qualified it by saying "some" scriptural precedent, because this is not a direct application of that verse (as the verse is about temporary separation by mutual consent, not by the husband's edict), but has strong similarities to the situation described in this verse.

A more direct precedent is God sending Judah into captivity.
Jer 24:5 — 7
Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for their good. For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up. And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.