Jeaniam

Happy fiftieth. Hope you have a great year.

The contrast (contradictions?) between him and Jesus are profound; Jesus freed the people from the law, and Paul pushed religion and legality. Jesus was inclusive of everyone, while Paul was exclusive (Paul invented "mark and avoid"). There's a lot more here, but you get the idea.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Paul pushed religion and legality, since so many of his writings were on the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free (notably Galatians, among others). Saul's namechange to Paul is covered in Acts 13:1-10, but there is not a great deal of detail about the reason why.

I was starting to percolate a theory based on what you posted on the Mirror thread, that possibly in the gospels we are told to be followers (akoloutheo) of Jesus Christ because he was still present in the flesh and Pentecost had not happened yet. In the epistles we are encouraged to be followers (mimetes) of Christ because it was after the day of Pentecost, and the new birth and the gift of holy spirit were available. This is just a thought on my part and I have very little at this point to back it up; also this is not an attempt to de-rail this thread, just following up on something you posted elsewhere.

Hi, and welcome back, Larry. I hope you had a good vacation.

We are talking about the respect due between husbands and wives in this thread --that is the topic.

I thought the topic was degrading women, both married or single; which possibly could be expanded to degrading people of either gender, as I tried to point out in one post. Both men and women are very capable of abuse, sexual or otherwise.

John and Jean

Please don't take this personally, but I really couldn't give a rat's rear end about the marital relationship that exists between you two.

This thread is about how women in TWI were subjected to degrading policies and behavior.

It is broad in scope and not focused on any one particular individual or couple.

Anecdotal recountings may help the discussion but should not become the focal point.

At least that's my opinion.

I tend to agree that it should not become focussed on any one particular couple, but I do not agree with the idea that we have tried to focus it on ourselves. I posted an anecdote, someone said they didn't understand, I posted a further anecdote to illustrate what I said, and then various other posters saw fit to bring up ancient history in the form of old posts by John which have already been talked to death.

Jean:

John has posted that he believes that in some situations it is acceptable to strike a woman as a response to words. In the several times that this has come up he has stuck to that position. He has made it clear that he was not misunderstood. He has not back pedalled or tried to weasel out of his stance. Many of us here have a hard time reconciling those words with the image of him that you paint. I personally have not pitied you, traeted you like a child or anything like that, I see the situation as one of several possibilities:

1. John is a great husband and father in all categories and what he has posted is just talk - he would never do it himself

2. John is a great husband and father in all categories and what he has posted is an attempt to stir up a hornets nest.

3. John is a potential abuser who talks big but is held back from acting on the potential due to morality or fear of arrest

4. John is an active abuser and you are an enabler and a victim.

5. John is a potential abuser but is afraid of you!

6. John has abused others and you don't know about.

The fact that there are 4 choices that make him a bad guy and 2 that make him a good guy doesn't indicate my opinion of the likelihood of abuse. Notice that none of the choices are:

John is a great husband and father in all categories and doesn't believe that violence is a possible proper response to words.

1. This is the closest to the truth, although I think that there are certain extreme situations when he wouldn't hesitate to strike a woman; and I am not going to go into detail on this thread.

2. Partially true. John has an odd sense of humor.

3. Wrong.

4. Wrong.

5. Wrong.

6. Highly unlikely.

Good point.

I was speaking for myself.

:)

You don't expect respect?

Jeaniam

When I name names it is because the posters I name have already posted the situation on a public forum.

You are upset it appears because myself and other posters have commented on what we have "heard" from YOUR POSTS!!!

No one here EVER asked to be privy to the inside workings of your marriage!! YOU POSTED THEM!!!

Sorry if the discussion offends you, I really mean that-- I don't go around thinking of ways to deliberately hurt people--it's not my nature.

My hope is that maybe, just maybe, instead of you and johniam feeling that you are being forced in a corner where you have to defend yourselves, that you "hear" the concern and love behind some of these posts.

My sense is that you and johniam have had an "us against the world" mentality for a very long time, probably at some point it was a very real and necessary survival skill. I don't know why--not asking to know-- but it is apparent to those of us who really "listen" when we read.

GSC, and Waydale before it, has a healing power for many. Here at GSC we fight, we squabble we kiss and make up, but above all there is a real and genuine concern about each other. A concern that transcends our personal differences.

Just check out the prayer threads when someone is ill. I have received words of encouragement form people that I disagree with on practically everything--but they have been there rooting for me every step of the way during my recovery.

Maybe, it's time for you and your hubby to start coming out from behind your wall, stop feeling you have to justify what you believe, stop feeling you have to keep believing and keep doing things the way you always have.

There is room for change in all of us.

Heavenly Father loves ALL his children, you and johniam are my spiritual brothers and sisters. What ever I feel about some of the things you have posted- I embrace you as another member of the GSC family and as such wish you only the best.

What angers me about your (and other's) posts is that no how many times I have said that John has never struck me or any other woman, and is a wonderful husband and father, you persist in believing the exact opposite, and treating me as a child or someone who deserves to be pitied for the misfortune of being married to John. John, at least, treats me as an adult woman with her own mind, who is capable of thinking rationally. Some of you on GSC don't accord me that courtesy.

If there is room for change in all of us, maybe it should begin with you.

One thing about respect.. if you don't expect it, you can't be disappointed..

I thought the whole point of this thread was respect.

What I wonder.. when God looks at us, is he looking in His mirror?

:)

Well, we were taught that he is looking at us through what Jesus Christ accomplished on our behalf.

There's a huge difference between bowing down to Susan B. Anthony and seeking to "catch a break" for men in the workplace.

I am aware that there are some women who are full of hate, bitterness and are "militant" in their views...but they are a minority and for you to point out the "chauvenism of women" to justify your position is faulty at best...you are rationalizing your position.

The fact remains, men do not need to "catch a break" in the workplace.

Possibly, some of them do. Some women can be just as abusive as any man, and respect in the workplace should cut both ways.

On the subject of abuse (not in the workplace, but in the schoolyard), we were confronted recently with a situation involving a woman teacher and several teenage male students in which the female teacher was accused of sexually abusing several students (these accustions included sodomy). She recently pled guilty and now faces a sentence of up to 150 years in prison. I bring this up to reinforce a point that 'respect' in any situation should protect both gender's rights not just one.

Obviously, you are taking my words PERSONALLY...I never mentioned your names in my post (that you quoted)...I responded in a generic way with principles that apply to ALL marriages...the subject was dealing with the idea of the man being the "head" of the household versus equal authority...First you state your opinion and use yourself as an example...and then you get upset when someone disagrees with you...I have no interest in sticking my nose in your marriage and I would suggest that in the future, if you do not want opposing views, then refrain from stating your own.

I don't know how to get multiple quotes in the same post and I was trying to disagree with several people (not only you). Possibly I should have quoted temple lady since she was the poster who named names. Mea culpa.

BTW, I am not sure your 'generic' principles really do apply to ALL marriages.

??? Wasn't the 'trial' period a compromise? Sure looked like it to me. Both of you had to give a little, right? To do the trial period? What's not a compromise about that?

I said that the decision John came up with was a compromise and the ONLY compromise I could think of. Please try to read my entire post before you respond.

I agree with Oak...to use the term "tie breaker" implies that that the two people refused to compromise and come to a mutual agreement...I think it works better when two people can negotiate and agree than it does when one person rules over the other...

Right now, I'm wondering what the difference between TWI and GSC is. We had problems with TWI because they wanted to stick their noses in our marriage, and decide that there was something wrong with it because I knew what size tires went on the car and John was capable of changing a poopy diaper and watching his own children. Some of you in GSC take it upon yourself to decide there must be something wrong with our marriage (and I need people to feel sorry for me) because I use the term 'tiebreaker'. As one poster pointed out, since John and I don't think our marriage is broken, why are y'all trying to fix it. In the situation I described (which was the most serious that has confronted us), there really wasn't a compromise position possible (other than the one John decided on); either his mother came to live with us, or she didn't.

During my 13 years with twi, I traveled to numerous states and experienced numerous twi leaders...Women were ALWAYS treated like second class citizens...If there seemed to be any "courtesy" extended, it was always under the guise of "keep your mouth shut and do what your husband tells you to do"...some twi leaders were nicer in how they said it...that's the only difference.

I believe that there are still many ex twi women (some of them post here), who still believe in their "Gog given" subservient role...no thanks, I'm not interested in women who bow down to me...did it ever occur to anyone that Paul's "letters" were his own opinions based on his cultural prejudices?...

OH!...but Groucho, Dr. Wormwood assured us that every verse in the bible is God's will!...Hogwash!...Paul of Tarsus was a pyschotic Christian killer who bought into the strict thinking of the pharisees (before he converted)...and all this was 2000 years ago! He wrote these letters to people who had a TOTALLY different culture and way of thinking than we do today....and you're going to hang your hat on THAT?

In the areas where I was (admittedly not as numerous as you) I never saw any bruises, black eyes, broken bones, etc. In the 90's more and more frequently women (even single women) were treated like second class citizens, but in the early days many men treated their wives (and single women) with courtesy. Once again I don't want these men, many of whom are still good friends of mine to be lumped in with the ones who were jerks.

jeannyam, what are you trying to say ?

Roy understood me very well. I was remembering a teaching I once heard on the subject of the uniqueness of everyone's gift of holy spirit, along the lines of my gift of holy spirit was uniquely suited to me and wouldn't work for you or any other believer, and the same for yours. I know there are verses that call upon us to be imitators of Christ, and also of Paul, but I don't think that means that we should try to be clones of each other. As Roy said, we should try to imitate their love, but in our own way, and being ourselves doing it.

BTW, thanks for the poem. I really enjoyed it.

um jean, do you think your husband really believes 90% or whatev domestic abuse is initiated by the woman ?

okay i'm sorry

i'll let him speak for himself

John has never struck me, no matter how loud I've gotten on occasion; and I have a tendency to be a screamer, so I think my answer to that question has to be 'No'. I think he exaggerated to get his point across. Beyond that I'll let him speak for himself.

I didn't see any physical or sexual abuse of women in the areas where I was. As far as I'm aware, women were treated with courtesy in the areas where I was. There did seem to be more and more rules about the roles of men and women that seemed silly. I remember one situation in which John and I were having our house exterminated and needed a place to sleep for the night. I thought of the BC's house (because they were going on vacation) and I went to the BC's wife and asked her if we could borrow it. She agreed and we slept there for two nights. The BC didn't have a problem with us staying there but he 'reproved' me for not going to John with my request so that John could go to the BC and ask the question and the BC could decide. Oh, please. I thought the shortest distance between two points was a straight line.

There was also a spring of water at the top of mount Sinai in Moses' day.

To me this spring of water signified the holy spirit occupying the mountain.

Does that sound possible?

Malachi 3:10

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

May I inquire into the relevance of Malachi to this post?

Hi, just wanted to wave in passing and thank you for having given me much food for thought. I am trying to catch up with the thread since returning from our vacation. I never thought of 1&2 Timothy in that light. I'll be back as soon as I have something relevant to say.

I have seen people who imitated VPW and other leaders slavishly in an apparent effort to become a VPW or LCM clone, and I've said before that I don't think the purpose of Christ in me is for me to become a clone of anyone. I think the purpose of Christ in me is to magnify the good aspects of MY personality, and allow me to fulfill that unique role that I have in the body of Christ. I have seen people who imitate VPW to the point of imitating his jokes about India paper and drinking Drambouie, but I think that the point of Christ in a particular person is to allow that person to be able to teach the Bible in his or her own particular style and with his or her own particular viewpoint. I happen to enjoy Drambouie and really filthy jokes, but I did those things before my involvement with TWI and I still do them now that my involvement with TWI has ended. I think each person's role in the body is unique and any effort to imitate each other actually diminishes the Body of Christ rather than enhancing it. We don't need multiple Jeaniams running around, it is sufficient (some would say more than sufficient) that we have one; and, if I can say this without causing an uproar and a huge misunderstanding, we don't really need multiple clones of Jesus Christ running around, we had one and he has fulfilled his role in the Body. Now what we need to do is add his good qualities in our hearts so we can fulfill our own unique roles in the Body, IMHO. Yes, I know the Bible tells us to be imitators of Christ, that's not precisely what I was trying to say.

I try to stay out of controversy, but I gotta say this: It sounds to me like Jeaniam and JohnIam are very happy with each other. They understand their relationship and what makes it work. So if THEY don't think it's broke, why are Y'ALL trying to fix it?

Everybody is unique. If I shared about my relationship with my husband and how we work things out, some of you would probably disapprove, some of you would think us a shining example of matrimonial bliss. But I don't share, case it's none ya business.

WG

Thank you very much, WG, and Bramble, for your comments and your support. I never meant to say, or imply, by the tie-breaker comment that John's plan is always the one that prevails.

Hmmm...Has anybody ever met these people?...I suspect that it's just one person posting under two names...split personality?

Yes, there are people who regularly post on greasespot who have met us, and know very well that we are two people, not just one person posting under two different names. If you check our profiles, you will see that John was born in May, 1954; and I was born in October, 1957, among other differences.

We don't do the tie breaker, husband has two votes thing like in TWI. We work it out until we are in agreement. That way the big decisions are "ours" together for good or bad. Neither of us has to "give in." I can absolutely refuse to do some course of action, so can he--then it's back to the discussion.

Lots of times there are no obviously right or wrong decisions...and neither of us can predict the future. We just try to think things through. Or there is just one course of action--replace that water heater, we can spend $xxx.

The big decisions we've made since leaving TWI( buying a house etc) have turned out well.

I'll add that it probably helps that neither one of us is a control freak or has anger management issues, and we like to do things that make the other happy.

You make a number of very good points. I was thinking of one particular situation when I used the tie breaker analogy. We were confronted with his mother developing Alzheimer's and being evicted from her condominium. We needed to decide where she should live. John wanted her to live with us. I didn't. A long (and somewhat acrimonious) discussion ensued. At the end of it, we were still deadlocked. John decided that we should try it for six weeks and re-evaluate and the end of that time. After six weeks, it was obvious that she needed more professional care than we could give her, and she moved to a nursing home. In retrospect, I am glad we at least tried.

I'm sure someone will cut and paste his post like he

said it. yes he did.

To beat all Jean came back and said oh he just was mistaken when he said

it.

Mean while if I was Jean I would have the protected hat.

Are we really going to start this nonsense again? John has never struck me or any other women in his life, as I have said repeatedly. If he ever did HE would need the protected hat. I think Mr. Hammeroni hit the nail on the head when he said this might be a poor choice of words on John's part, and what he meant is everyone hurts others. The question is intent.

That makes some sense. In der vey I think it was the beginning of a long downwrd spiral for some. A lot of times, it was the woman who was attacked as being the cause of lack of results for the most trivial reasons.

Really bad things happen.. she was often targeted with blame for causing embarassment or shame. Well, that didn't last long I guess, pretty soon everybody was under the microscope.

Upon further consideration, it seems to me significant that 1 Peter 3:7 (although in a passage dealing with the duties of both husbands and wives) is specifically addressed to husbands and the comment 'that your prayers be not hindered' is in a verse addressed specifically to husbands as if it is their duty to take whatever steps are necessary to make sure their prayers are not hindered (and by this I do not mean to embarass or shame his wife).