The Emotional Tyranny of Whiners

[technomage]

Rachel is holding the rest of the world hostage to her doubt. She is telling everyone that if they do not act the way she wants them to, she will be likely to leave the faith.

I would have to see the entirety of the original. From the snippets you post here, your assessment of what she said does not remotely match what you quote of what she said.

ETA: I've now read her post (I had not seen the link you provided earlier). No, AP, she is most certainly NOT "holding the rest of the world hostage." She is not "telling everyone that if they do not act the way she wants them to, she will be likely to leave the faith." She is expressing fear, doubt, and bewilderment.

And you kicked her in the teeth.

Your yoke is heavy, AP. Your burden onerous.

[technomage]

If they do it in public then you should call them out on it in public.

That is, save for extreme situations, not the way we handle things. We admonish in private, and encourage them to take their apologies public. (The only situation where that would not apply is impending threat of violence, or something of that degree.)

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I would have to see the entirety of the original. From the snippets you post here, your assessment of what she said does not remotely match what you quote of what she said.

ETA: I've now read her post (I had not seen the link you provided earlier). No, AP, she is most certainly NOT "holding the rest of the world hostage." She is not "telling everyone that if they do not act the way she wants them to, she will be likely to leave the faith." She is expressing fear, doubt, and bewilderment.

And you kicked her in the teeth.

Your yoke is heavy, AP. Your burden onerous.

I disagree entirely. She is saying she was nearly apostasizing and it was because of the way Christians were acting yesterday.

I am under no obligation to not stand for my convictions just because of Rachel's insecurities. Chrawnus is right. Had she wanted to talk privately, we could have had a conversation privately. She went public so the rest of the world could know her emotional anguish and respond accordingly. That's not looking for guidance. It's holding an emotional gun to people's heads.

[technomage]

I disagree entirely.

Obviously. But as I said, if you ever experience doubt, fear, and bewilderment, may you never come across someone who reacts as you did.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Obviously. But as I said, if you ever experience doubt, fear, and bewilderment, may you never come across someone who reacts as you did.

She's not asking for help with doubt. She's blaming everyone else for hers. If she wanted help she'd ask. Instead she's expressing doubt and blaming everyone else for it. It's emotional tyranny.

[Jedidiah]

I would have to see the entirety of the original. From the snippets you post here, your assessment of what she said does not remotely match what you quote of what she said.

ETA: I've now read her post (I had not seen the link you provided earlier). No, AP, she is most certainly NOT "holding the rest of the world hostage." She is not "telling everyone that if they do not act the way she wants them to, she will be likely to leave the faith." She is expressing fear, doubt, and bewilderment.

And you kicked her in the teeth.

Your yoke is heavy, AP. Your burden onerous.

I have to disagree. AP might have stated it a bit harshly (a very little bit) but he seems to be accurate as far as I can see.

You bad Christians, she seems to say, because you are behaving in a way I don't like I may not be able to hold on to my faith. The fact is one does not need to hold on to ones faith in that sense. I never fight to believe, I believe because I am convinced of the truth of my belief. Because someone else does not act the way I think they should is no reason to doubt.

[Whag]

If I put my wife before God or she puts me before Him, our marriage will have problems. If I put my parents or friends before God, there will be problems.

There's no way you spend more time with a practically invisible being than your wife. If you did, or she did, that would indicate you both had significant issues.

If it doesn't have to do with time, than what does it mean to put God before your wife? Specifically, please.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

There's no way you spend more time with a practically invisible being than your wife. If you did, or she did, that would indicate you both had significant issues.

If it doesn't have to do with time, than what does it mean to put God before your wife? Specifically, please.

What it means is that what is important to God must be most important to me and if I can only please either my wife or God, I have to please God. He must be the first priority.

Not sure what His being invisible has to do with it.

[Rayado]

Much less "practically invisible"...as opposed to what, impractically invisible? Unhelpfully invisible?

[Whag]

What it means is that what is important to God must be most important to me and if I can only please either my wife or God, I have to please God. He must be the first priority.

Has there ever been a time when you had to choose God over her?

Not sure what His being invisible has to do with it.

I was just wondering how an invisible being conveys to you what's important to him. By what form of communication?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Has there ever been a time when you had to choose God over her?

I have to every day choose God. Am I going to go my way or the way of God. Does she want me to sometimes do something I don't think I should do? I have to choose otherwise. That's part of leadership. Those don't happen often if ever due to both of us having the same focus.

I was just wondering how an invisible being conveys to you what's important to him. By what form of communication?

Scripture. It's studying Scripture that I know His way and that's also aided by studying history, philosophy, etc.

[Whag]

I have to every day choose God. Am I going to go my way or the way of God. Does she want me to sometimes do something I don't think I should do? I have to choose otherwise.

That's what I'm getting at. If you're like any married couple, inevitably *you'll* think you should or shouldn't do something. Where does god fit into this? She's Christian, so I'm having a hard time imagining she'd encourage you to go against God or you to encourage her to sin.

Or maybe such situations have never arisen in your marriage and you just stated it as a moral standard. If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

That's part of leadership. Those don't happen often if ever due to both of us having the same focus.

Has it been your experience that you're more right than she is? Some women are more wise and moral than their husbands, in which case default-assigning leadership to the male is a bad idea. I've noticed a few of my married male christian friends are subordinate to their wives in general (but not in an abusive way), meaning they went with the flow rather than forcing it the other way.

Scripture. It's studying Scripture that I know His way and that's also aided by studying history, philosophy, etc.

Scripture seems kind of black and white on it, not taking into account differences in intelligence between some partners, romance, evolutionary biology (in terms of understanding sexual needs), and psychology.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

That's what I'm getting at. If you're like any married couple, inevitably *you'll* think you should or shouldn't do something. Where does god fit into this? She's Christian, so I'm having a hard time imagining she'd encourage you to go against God or you to encourage her to sin.

Or maybe such situations have never arisen in your marriage and you just stated it as a moral standard. If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

It's a moral standard. I can't think of a time where this has explicitly happened.

Has it been your experience that you're more right than she is? Some women are more wise and moral than their husbands, in which case default-assigning leadership to the male is a bad idea. I've noticed a few of my married male christian friends are subordinate to their wives in general (but not in an abusive way), meaning they went with the flow rather than forcing it the other way.

I believe it would be best to let other people answer how they see us in this regard. I will say my wife knows I am more studied and educated and have a few more years.

Scripture seems kind of black and white on it, not taking into account differences in intelligence between some partners, romance, evolutionary biology (in terms of understanding sexual needs), and psychology.

[/QUOTE]

How does intelligence between two people determine if an action is right or wrong?

How does wanting a romance determine if an action is right or wrong?

What would evolutionary biology have to do with it? If anything, homosexuality would be a threat to evolutionary biology.

What about psychology? What new information do we have that changes the status of a moral act?

[lilpixieofterror]

Has there ever been a time when you had to choose God over her?

When one obeys God's will, they will find themselves getting along better with their spouses.

[lilpixieofterror]

Scripture seems kind of black and white on it, not taking into account differences in intelligence between some partners, romance, evolutionary biology (in terms of understanding sexual needs), and psychology.

The Bible is only black and white, to those that have already determined it is black and white to start with.