Arguments

The man can get alimony if they were both working depending on the combined income and she cheats on him. That would be a penalty. The court looks at it as being in the wrong in the contractual agreement. Jail would not do the injured party any good. Alimony would in theory keep his finances from shipwreck as he makes adjustments to compensate for loss of income. I am not saying any of that is consolation to a broken heart but that our laws do not ignore the injury caused by adultery.

Indeed, people forget that as Christians, we love God and everyone first as per Christ's commandments, and argue second only in light of our love for sharing good knowledge or coming to a common understanding with others. Anything else is not Christian and comes from outside of Christianity through unconscious behavior, unconscious influences by non-Christians, doing only what's convenient, lack of discipline, or lack of intentional effort to love everyone without exception.

Godspeed.

But Dale Carnegie was very thorough in explaining that this is not something you can do without sincerity. People can always detect sincerity. You ask people about themselves because you genuinely care about them. If you do it because you are trying get people to like you so that you can control them or manipulate them or get something out of them they can tell and your efforts seem fake because they are. When it is sincere you are going to have an audience with them and that is different than having control over them.

I have noticed through the years that without training most people who are trying to learn to be more sociable in the Church fellowship context will talk too much about themselves and it always comes across as NOT being that interested in the other person even when this is not really the case. They just need to know that what comes naturally "talking about ourselves and our own experiences" is not the best way to relate to people and show that we are sincerely interested in what they are talking about. We think it shows interest because we are talking about the subject they brought up, but it is not really showing interest at all. It is received almost the same way as an interruption would be. And most people don't even recognize it. They just keep jabbering and jabbering while others wait patiently for them to finish so that the conversation can continue.

I need to read that book again. I may have fallen out of practice and started resorting back to what comes naturally.

Oh dear. I think I do the same thing. Hope or dumb... yeah, I'm not sure which it is.

Work place: "Well then, it would appear that we're in violent agreement!"
Random Rude People: "I'm sorry, you must be having a bad day, I will pray for you."
Family: "Bygones - I'm happy to say Uncle - if you promise to tell me that you still love me."

Last word banter:
Me: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion...
them: 'rant' me: 'I'm sorry'...
them: 'rant' me: I forgive you...
them: 'rant' me: I will pray for you...
them: 'rant' me: love you...
them: 'love you too' me: 'love you more'

I'm going to actually use that when the need should arise.

Sometimes Lanolin has a keen observation. I have also noticed this.

Add the current Britain Prime Minister to the list.

The CC ignore button. I've seen many a argument end with someone announcing that they are going to put the other person on ignore.

"Consider yourself ignored"

"I'm going to put you on ignore now"

"Welcome to my ignore list"

I dont think we even have alimony in nz. Or maybe its called something else. I know in defactos, they have settlement costs (something to do with division of property) but after that and people move in with someone else, you dont have to pay anything.
we have child support payments. But some people are slack in paying that. I dont know how it works (or maybe it doesn't) .

why would the woman have to pay the man? most women earn less than men! Most of the women I know that are divorced its the men who have cheated. But some just split cos they werent even married in the first place.

a lot of couples are separated and arent actually divorced, cos it costs too much to divorce. Its like, kids, your mum and dad cant be in the same room alone together. Its dangerous, there either needs to be a big pillow in the room or we sit 2 metres apart. Dont let them talk to each other. It can only be done through a third party.

sounds like hell

Simply follow Paul's advice in his second letter to Timothy.

[23] But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. [24] The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, [25] with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, [26] and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

The basic premise of arguments mentioned in my last post was summarized in two goals:
- love for sharing good knowledge with others
- coming to a common understanding with others

Starting from that premise, I always evaluate at the back of my mind how an argument is going to see if it is moving forward towards either of these goals. I then course-correct accordingly to ensure meeting one of these goals or both.

I just wonder if all of them are REALLY ignored... The person allegedly ignored can't check if he's really on ignore. That could be a good way to end an argument, by just making people think you can't see what they say any more.

Nah, that would be more trouble than it was worth. If I just claimed to ignore people I'd have to remember which ones I allegedly ignored so I wouldn't accidentally reply to things they said.

All I know is, the more people ignore, the more ignor-ant they are.

The wife gets the last word in any argument and anything the husband says after that is the beginning of a new argument.

Correct me if I am wrong ladies, but wouldn't That be the definition of emotional abuse? I am referring to the cartoon.

M y friend and a friend of his stopped by my house a while back. The kid wasnt so bad, just highly
annoying.
I couldmt take it any more, so I calmly explained how he seemed like a nice guy yadayadayada
and politely said "youre dismissed"
He stood up, about-faced and walked out the door.

Well you have a choice, its either that or live on top of your roof. Choose wisely. Proverbs 21:9 Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

Nah, too hot up there on the roof. I just didn't marry any of them.

I w*rk with a few of them contentious ones though. They sure do make me glad to be single.

It may be funny in some modern context, but it is very unbiblical.

It might be called that in some modern context, with everything-under-the-sun being labeled as 'abuse' these days.

You are using this verse of scripture out of context.

While it is true that the verse illustrates the wisdom of not pushing your wife into contention, in no way is it saying that God commands men to "obey" every whim their wife may have.

A woman who is contentious, as illustrated in that verse, will have her time on Judgment Day if she crosses the line whereby she does not respect/reverence and obey her husband. (She has a choice, too. And, she should choose wisely.)

The verse is not giving women a "free ticket" to make "or else" demands of her husband. God will judge her is she does.

The verse is not giving women 'license' to be contentious; rather, it is saying that it is to be avoided.

The attitude that you are illustrating in your post that I quoted above is not Biblical.

Maybe this is some of the trouble in the flesh Paul was warning them about?