Where is the science to back up your idea that she could stop growing before she could encompass an idea?
I didn't say it was science. But she has a peculiar notion of a thing she obviously hasn't encompassed from her own perspective. I suspect it has to do with her becoming involved seriously with you before she could, when she considered you a need and was almost physically ill because she hadn't learned to be singular and comfortable with it.
What you wrote did read cold, and I'm sure a majority of people polled on the street would agree it read cold.
You only speak for you, elo. And it didn't/shouldn't have within the context of a full answer. Here it is again:
I think you think that because you never grew out of it and into something else, didn't give yourself a chance to experience that...I didn't "need" my wife. I wanted her. Different thing. I appreciated her, desired her, but I didn't need her to complete me. Life was good before her. It's better with her. Life was good with her. It's better with Jack.
Nothing cold in desiring or appreciating or finding life better with her. Nothing cold in not considering my life empty before her, in not having physical ailments because I'm not in a relationship.
All that's missing is the notion that I'm broken and in need of mending without her. Sorry, but I think that's emotionally unhealthy and young, in her or in you, though it might have worked for the both of you, sharing that and it makes your otherwise unusual/unconventional union more understandable.
Then you need her. She completes you. Ask her if she agrees with me? Genesis 2:18-2:24 agrees with me.
I think you're over reading that. Paul thought so too. I even noted that your wife really doesn't believe her own advance against my position, unless she believes her children to be emotionally superfluous. If not, they made her happy union happier and not her broken, needsome union complete.
You need Jack, and needed Jack before you had Jack. Without him you have no lineage, and a diminished impact on the future, if any.
You can project that unhealthy bit but it still isn't true. I wanted him, was happy to have him come and am happier still to watch him grow. I didn't have him out of need. He came as an expression of love and plenty and multiplied it.
You needed to be married and needed a wife because you needed to have children. Can you refute that claim?
Sure. I wanted to be married because I loved my wife. I've answered on Jack, supra.
She has a need to deal with her need to need and be needed? Interesting. How do you suggest she deal with her need for me?
Now let's look at what she actually said and how I actually answered:
She said, "Don't marry a person unless you really need them."
I responded, far from your attempt to infer the convoluted:
Never marry a person from need. That's something in you that you need to deal with. Marry from love, which is a desire to give. It's an abundance, not a need.
She needs to deal with the idea that she needs another person. And I haven't been unclear about what I believe is a healthier approach or why.
If there is a giver, there is a receiver.
In a loving relation there should be two of each.
You need to be needed, need to be loved. Why deny what is obvious?
Mostly because I don't believe that it's true. You just asserted the need. I reject it for the reasons given prior.
I'm really interested in the seeing the science to support this idea you've brought up a couple of times now. How is she "patterned" and how is the learning curve "truncated" exactly?
I haven't asserted it as science. It's only speculation and observation. It fits. The only science I need to make the point I entered on is still standing without empirical refutation.
You see this patterning and truncating a symptom of having married me when she was eighteen? I'm skeptical.
Of course you are. She's already said that she needed you, that she was suffering physical symptoms from the stress of being alone. She met you and BAM, symptoms relieved. Meaning that she used you to deal with her inability to be alone. I don't think that's particularly healthy, though it's not the end of the world.
Why not throw a jab in at the mother-in-law. :chuckle:
It's not a jab. I love my in-laws and get along with both of them. We go out together and have always spent a good deal of time together. But it's the truth. Her daughter and her son would tell you.
It is necessarily so because God opens and closes the womb, according to scripture.
I'm not going to argue with you about it or get into your exegesis and how you apply it. I don't see the point.
God gave her seven children and a happy marriage. I think God knew what He was doing.
No one is arguing with God.
Listen, young man, she is a grown woman in her thirties raising seven children and doing an excellent job.
Who said she isn't? Not I, to be sure.
People go out of their way to compliment her on her child-rearing because they can see the results.
I think that's terrific, though I haven't said a thing against her on the point.
She far surpasses you in child-birthing and child-rearing experience and knowledge.
I suppose. I would hope so. I was the birthing coach for my Jack, so I'm fairly sure I have that part down pat. I seem to be doing a decent job with my son on the rest of it, but we've only been at it for four years. So far, so good.
You couldn't do her job ever
I really could. I'm actually doing it. Unless you mean the birthing part, but that's just biology.
lain:
