Student: Stanley

This assignment is comprised of 3 short different assignments.

DB #3 RESPONSE #1 (250 WORDS MINIMUM) In your reply, you will want to drop a good "additional idea or thought". R Reyes Marry for Love? ABSOLUTELY!! After combing through numerous perspectives from Roosh V (not recommended) to Dr Phil, it would appear Western society had been hoodwinked. After twenty-six years of marriage under his belt, Dr Phil perceptively shared, “in the real world, being in love is not like falling in love. Falling in love is only the first stage of love. It's impossible to remain in that stage”.[1] As an aside, it is striking to consider the demand for psychologists, therapists, and even talk show hosts to address the rising number of broken marriages. It is merely conjecture, but curious to think how many failed marriages were built upon the same premise that brought success to Walt Disney romance films. A cursory scan of related articles indicates that despite the persuasions of Cinderella or Beauty and the Beast, more professionals are growing convinced that “love” is not enough. On the other hand, marriage guru Stephanie Coontz argues, “For most of history it was inconceivable that people would choose their mates on the basis of something as fragile and irrational as love”.[2] Western society is now clamoring to escape the farce of “love” as an adequate primer to marriage. Ironically, the professionals suggest it was the West that had introduced it in the first place. Professionals like Coontz are raising their voices, demanding a fresh perspective on the ties between love and marriage. Coontz sees love as more of an anomaly, potentially a marital ‘bonus’, as opposed to a necessity.[3] This begs inquiry to the robustness of “love” in the marriage relationship. Moreover, another emerging proposition is the displacement of marriage all together, in favor of cohabitation. Coontz argues elsewhere, “Jesus was not very keen on having them [disciples] marry in the first place, holding that it was better to abandon worldly ties and dedicate oneself to building the faith”.[4] Despite Coontz’ scriptural misunderstanding, Jesus was not about celibacy. Moreover, the question Coontz and her peers raise seems a bit misplaced. Is it true that marriages built on “love” are statistically vulnerable? Or is it that authentic “love” has yet to be considered in the marital equation? Not totally unrelated, Tim Keller suggests there are “two basic ways people try to find happiness and fulfillment: the way of moral conformity and the way of self-discovery”.[5] Arguably, the latter is most acclaimed in modern society. Then again, this does not validate moral conformity as the “right” answer either. Exploring the fundamentals of these two value propositions, it seems those who prize morality above all else may view love as weak, even abhorrent. By the same token, those infatuated with self-discovery, may lack the intuitiveness required to comprehend authentic love. Alternatively, it is a selfless, authentic love that is most capable of receiving and embracing the love of a spouse. Marrying for love is, in fact, the best reason to marry, but this requires qualification. It is the best reason, because it offers the greatest opportunity to express selfless, authentic love. Such is a love of devotion that stands the test of time (Eph 5:25). Finally, it is in this expression that an individual is poised: A) to provoke, B) to recognize, C) to yearn for, and ultimately, D) to embrace this love in return. ________________________________________ [1] Dr Phil, “Ten Relationship Myths,” Relationships/Sex (August, 2002): accessed April 2, 2020, [2] Stephanie Coontz, “The Radical Idea Of Marrying For Love,” The Sun Magazine (September, 2016): accessed April 1, 2020, [3] Ibid. [4] Stephanie Coontz, “Traditional marriage has changed a lot,” Stephanie Coontz (February, 2006): accessed April 1, 2020, [5] Timothy Keller, The Prodigal God; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith, (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2008), 34. Discussion Board #3 (350 WORDS MINIMUM) Answer the Questions below. In the PREPARE/ENRICH training, Dr. Olson discusses couple strengths. There are a number of theories/ideas about what constitutes a couple’s strength(s). Some texts recommend that couples should be similar so that they have their likenesses to lean on in stressful times. Others contend that couple differences diminish the weaknesses of the other spouse. How do you approach this idea? Is there evidence in Scripture or in couple / marriage research that supports your position? You will need to use at least one good resource, other than scripture for your thread. These resources may be good journal article, reputable websites (not someone's Blog) or good survey research.   DB #3 RESPONSE #1 (250 WORDS MINIMUM) In your reply, you will want to drop a good "additional idea or thought". Most all of our students use good and powerful scripture passages to support compatibility, but what does the literature say about good fit? When you reply to your fellow classmates, be intentional to "add to the learning" with something that has not already been said. S Evans DB 3 Diversity is a Strength According to the expansive, statistical research that David Olson utilizes in the Prepare and Enrich Program for building stronger marriages, pairing couples demonstrate both similarities and differences in their personality types; family and couple maps; ten core scales; relationship dynamics; satisfaction; commitment; etc.[1] Once identified these similarities and differences can be utilized to demonstrate marital strengths or opportunities for growth.[2] Olson’s methodology and purpose for couples, 1) creates curiosity; 2) stimulates dialog about important relationship topics; 3) increase awareness [of both similarities and differences]; 4) [provide] relevant information about their unique relationship; and 5) increase relationship skills and [marital] satisfaction.”[3] That said, the differences and similarities of couples can be both positive and negative to the couple relationship. And yet, through awareness, these similarities and differences can be managed to improve the overall health of the marriage relationship. This assumption has been vigorously tested, as stated above, by previous research conducted through Systems Theory from Marital and Family Therapy, Couple and Family Strengths Model, and Prevention-oriented Approaches.[4] And yet, are other researchers who also agree that similarities and differences are a common dynamic of couple paring and believe these contradictions can have both positive and negative effects. For example, Baxter and West completed a small qualitative study examining “the dialectical unity of two contradictions: similarity/difference and positivity/negativity.”[5] This study was profoundly interesting. Moreover, through its extensive literature review, other researchers have shown that being similar does not demonstrate a positive linear relationship. Conversely, being different does not always demonstrate negative findings. It is a proven fact that there is “strength in diversity.”[6] This concept has been antidotally tested by the United States Military and consequently, has become a cornerstone philosophy for the Department of Defense.[7] Furthermore, this concept is well documented in the New Testament when describing the gifts of the Church (Romans 11:29, 12:4-9, 28; 1 Corinthians 12:1, 14:1; Ephesians 4:8; Hebrews 2:4). Therefore, I agree with Olson’s assumptions that similarities and differences are inevitably and that both positivity and negativity can become a catalyst for change and growth.[8] ________________________________________ [1] David Olsen, “Section One: Overview of the Prepare and Enrich Program,” accessed April, 8, 2020 from*on_demand_training*overview.html&xlat=Y&report_lang_code=ENGLISH [2] Ibid., 5. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid., 1. [5] Leslie A. Baxter and Lee West, “Couple Perceptions of Their Similarities and Differences: A Dialectical Perspective,” in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20, no. 4 (2003), 491. [6] Ibid., 495. [7] U.S. Army, “Diversity in our Nations Armed Forces,” updated November 13, 2018. Accessed April 8, 2020 from [8] David Olsen, “Section One: Overview of the Prepare and Enrich Program,” accessed April, 8, 2020 from*on_demand_training*overview.html&xlat=Y&report_lang_code=ENGLISH   DB #4 RESPONSE #2

Budget: $45.00

Due on: April 24, 2020 00:00

Posted: 12 months ago.

Answers (0)