Living separately and living together are different? Agreed. Good relationship does not automatically mean living together will be easy? Agreed. The way you are at home is different from how you are when on a date? Agreed.Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds wrote:If nothing else, I think the "trial run" is a bit off, there. You're trialling if day-to-day living and behaviours are compatible, not if your relationship is up to snuff. And trust me, if you've never encountered someone who you can spend all your time with, only to discover staying in the same house as them drives you insane, then you are some kind of rare case (or never stay with people, which is just as likely). No matter how good you are together as a regular couple, that does NOT instantly carry over to living together. The way you live is different, the way you are at home, how you handle your "down time" now being shared with this other person. It's got nothing to do with whether your relationship is awesome, and everything to do with the honest fact that people are different in a home setting, and sometimes that is a wedge that will drive even a strong couple apart if it's just an uncompromisable situation.
So some people prefer to see if that's going to come up before they go to the trouble (and cost) of the wedding.
The solution to this is to test it by moving in together? That is where I disagree. If you have a solid relationship, then making compromises and dealing with issues that may arise should be something you have already practiced, and both spouses should understand this going into it and be ready to adjust.
But again, that is based on my beliefs more than the practical applications I listed.
And yes, you're right, I am a rare case. Even after our first year of dating, we had still not yet had a single argument.
Dowdy Kitchen Man]I get that assumptions are wrong wrote:
I agree completely.
As for the whole "other people's assumptions" thing... well, I have my own take on that as well.
I am assuming you are basing this off of the Bible, in a couple of key verses and examples (I.E. I Corinthians 8, Galatians 2, Acts 11, I Thessalonians 5, Romans 14, etc.). The problem is, other people's impressions are never the factor which is addressed. The issue always lies in our own actions, not other people's responses. According to the Bible, we are not to take actions which would cause others to stumble or doubt.
By comparison, look at the simple differences between imply and infer. I assume you mostly all familiar with these, but for sake of ilustration: If I imply something, that means I am intentionally giving off a certain meaning without outright saying it. If someone else infers something, that means they are drawing their own meaning out of what I said, whether I meant it or not. This makes a perfect parallel for understanding Paul's instructions.
Simply, do not give false implications. You cannot help what other people infer; SD's previous post covered this already. People will infer whatever they want, and there is nothing you can do to stop them. But, from a Christian perspective, we should not undertake any activities which would inherently give an implication of wrongdoing.
So what am I getting at, exactly? It is okay to have greenhouse. If people are going to assume that you are a druggie, that is their own fault for making an unfounded accusation, inferring something that the evidence simply does not support. What I am saying is, it is NOT okay to have a stash of crack cocaine in the house (legal issues aside). Does having it mean you are taking it? No. But by possessing it you imply that you are using it. This is not something other people arbitrarily infer, it is a logical implication. If you have it, chances are you use it, end of story.
That is what Paul was saying. Make sure your actions do not give a blatant implication that you are doing something sinful. He is certainly not telling us to spend our lives fretting over what people might possibly think of our actions. That would be akin to trying to please everyone, and both the Book of Matthew and good old common sense tell us that that is impossible. So, I highly doubt that Paul is backpedaling here and telling us to worry about what everyone else thinks. He is saying to be responsible, and don't do anything that would give others good reason to question you. I don't stop to worry what others may think of my actions, but I do stop and consider what kind of message I am sending them.
This simply generates another question: Is it fair to assume a couple living together is sexually involved? I think so in most cases, but others may disagree, and your answer to that question will determine how Paul's philosophy equates to the discussion at hand.
Now I have to run to work, bye. :)
