Jeaniam

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.

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.

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).

In our marriage there have been some occasions in which John (in his role of 'tiebreaker') has decided the issue to stick with his original position, and I have lost the argument, and other occasions in which after reflection he has seen the logic of my argument and decided the issue to agree with my position. I don't consider that a dictatorship; in both cases, my point of view is given a full and fair hearing. Sorry you don't get it, Bolshevik, but it works for us.

True. I wasn't trying to allocate blame there, just trying to make the point that husbands and wives were equals (heirs together of the grace of life).

It still seems like a remarkably cynical remark. There were many men who came from that background (including my father) and I can't remember ever hearing him voice a comment like that. Indeed, he always treated my mother with the greatest respect and consideration. I can't help wondering what experiences in his life led to him having such a warped view of women.

A valid point. John uses his position as head of the house to act as a tiebreaker (when there is a situation and we are vehemently opposed to each other) not as a tyrant who treats me like a five year old child. 1 Peter 3:7 exhorts husbands to 'Dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.' I have heard teachings that 'giving honour to the wife, as unto the weaker vessel' means to treat her as a piece of fine china or rare crystal in value, not to denigrate her as a second-class citizen. The phrase 'heirs together' is the same word that is used of a believer's position as a 'joint heir' with Jesus Christ. Christ is the head of the body but believers enjoy all the same privileges as Jesus Christ and no where (as far as I know) does the Bible refer to believers as second-class citizens. Indeed, that verse seems to imply that if men degrade their wives, their access to God may be limited (prayers be hindered).

Well, only one of them. Most of them are very good people. I agree. We ran into one interesting situation during our last ROA. Some of the Corps women arranged their work schedules so they could watch each other's children instead of leaving them with their fathers. These same women (and men) held John in contempt because he watched his own children and was so p#$$&-whipped that he was willing to change poopy diapers. I think that's ridiculous.

I notice you don't live terribly far away.

Works for me, although John is very good at doing more than his share of housework (we're going through one of those phases in our marriage when we both have jobs). Thanks for your support.

Quote: "Then a woman came over to me, and said, 'I think God sent a man here to meet your need. Meet me at 9am.' I thought, 'Women never tell the truth.' " End quote. Without trying to justify his behavior (which I admit is extreme), I wonder what in his dealings with women led to the conclusion of 'Women never tell the truth'.

Quote: Well, thanks, I guess. But why are you trying to convince anyone? You're the one who lives with him, not us. I was under the impression that you didn't care what any of us thought, and had explained away phrases like "clock her like she deserves". My mistake. My apologies. End quote. I don't particularly. I mention a facet of his character that most of you who THINK you know him are unaware of. And BTW, I'm sure you don't want to be married to him. Very funny, lol. BTW, don't start me thinking about human sacrifices again.

QUOTE Oldies, do you think the above examples represent a man loving his wife as Christ loved the church? QUOTE absolutely Mr. Hammeroni, I think you may have misunderstood Oldies posts. I posted between there and I think the word 'absolutely' referred to my post, not yours.

There was a time when that was true, but John was usually quick to tell anyone who offered unasked for advice to mind their own business.

Congratulations, and may you have many years of happiness. John & Jean we are

I agree with most of your points (especially the last one) but I will point out that the Bible exhorts wives to be subject to her 'own' husband, not every man who comes along.

And, for anyone who thinks being married to John is a fate worse than death (but not totally off topic) I had a situation recently in which the believer I had asked to housesit for us tried to 'reprove' me with the Word on the subject of what it meant to be 'the keeper of the home'. Before he got three sentences into his tirade, John shut him up with, 'Jean works very hard to keep the house as clean as she can, and if you don't like it, feel free not to come here again'. The gentleman stamped out with a very red face and has since sent me a very nice letter of apology. I just thought I would throw that out there for anyone who might think that John degrades women.

It seems like all he really had to say was 'I don't know'.

That's an accurate summation of what we established on the thread. It was great to get various people's viewpoints on the subject. I, at least, learned a lot. We had a good vacation, thanks for asking. We saw most of the tourist attractions in Washington (Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, etc.). We saw the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers (very moving). We also had the privilege of going on a staff-led tour of the Capitol building. We missed out on the White House (which now takes up to four months to arrange through your Congressperson), but all in all, we had a very good time.

Off topic; Deleted by Pawtucket

One more time, I'm a little tired of Rascal continuing to complain that John and myself don't understand her posts, when she refuses to make the effort to make sure they're clear. As Oakspear said on a different thread, 'If someone WANTS to communicate badly, why bother to communicate at all?'

It is apparent that you and other posters still don't get the point I was trying to make (or don't want to get it). Whatever....shrug.

No, obviously I don't critique every 'tiny little thing'. I didn't mention her spelling or her punctuation until it became clear that it was habitual, rather than a momentary lapse or inadvertently touching the wrong key. And, BTW, I hold myself to the same standard. I make plenty of mistakes in typing, but I take the time to proofread my posts and correct them. In this post alone I probably made 10-15 spelling or punctuation mistakes. And I am only asking that Rascal be willing to earn my respect by her postings, not her emotional outbursts.

Whether he said it or not, there have been many times over the years when he has prayed for the people on greasespot. I know this because that is the kind of man he is. And he manages his life just fine.

Actually, from my point of view, Rascal was given reproof that she (and you) chose to diregard because she (and you) think the way it was phrased was rude. No one has claimed that anything I said was untrue.