"is it possible to have a successful marriage without a "leader"?

[jasoncran]

I'm an unmarried ex-gay, so keep that in mind as you read my input.

I think marriage works best when you follow God's plan. Often--and I know this is going to sound bad, but here it is--women will submit to the men in their lives without any religious/spiritual reasons. Maybe its gender role socialization, maybe its some sociobiological things, I don't know, but it happens. My own take on it is that Christianity instituted certain rules so that the women would be protected. Yes, it says submit to your husband and respect him, but Christianity is big on the idea of men and women being complimentary; women might be in more of a supportive position than men, but there's the understanding that both the male and female roles are absolutely vital.

In my own life, I've watched my parents take on more of what I would consider a healthy Christian pattern after years of fighting. Both of my parents are well-educated professionals, so there's a certain amount of equality there, but they fight a lot less now that my mother lets my dad lead in some aspects and my dad supports my mother as she does certain things. I don't think they made an agreement to act in such a way--they've just been married for so long that this is the pattern they've hit on that works, and it lines up with Biblical principles.

Even in the most egalitarian relationships I can think of--gay relationships--there's usually a more dominant and more submissive partner. I know, it sounds cliche, but as an ex-gay I've seen it; long-term gay partnerships are often able to survive because, it seems to me at least, they create a certain dominant/submissive dynamic that is, at best, a caricature of God's plan for a healthy marriage.

So, I do think you can have a good time without having a leader, but I don't think it will last, I don't think its God's will, and I don't think the warm and fuzzy feelings that fueled the beginning of the relationship will prove to be sufficient to keep it healthy, happy, and functional.

christempowered, thanks this post has confirmed a vision given to me on why God wanted only man and women. i have never ever knew what they(gays)did till he told me and by observation yrs later.

pm me i wish to ask a favor regarding this post.also keep this nugget dear as it will prove valuable.this stuff healed me when i learned of it as you know how they recreate themselves in their images.

sorry rhea, i wanted to adress this and i ask no counter argument be given in this thread.

 

[theLords]

This is taken from another thread but I felt it would be applicable:

When Adam was made he was alone and God took a piece from Adam and made woman. And Adam beheld woman and he loved her more than anything else God had created. But the woman could not reciprocate being that she had never been alone like Adam and she regarded Him no more than anything else she beheld. This is not fair for Adam who esteems more than He is esteemed, after all she is a piece of He. But it is not her fault seeing that both her and Adam's lot are a matter of circumstance. But woman will come full circle when she has a child which will be a piece of her. For she will Love that child more than anything in the world, and yet she will be taken for granted by that child, and she will think of the man.

I say this because I think man is a piece of God that takes God for granted much the same way. And so this betrothal with God is built upon trust from faith to faith. So it begins amid the prospect of doubt in one another, and this doubt was played upon by Satan working both sides against the middle. Hence he is hypocritically both tempter and accuser. While it is undeniable that we were made for Christ so that he may be the firstborn of the dead, he is the Word made flesh that destroys the spirit of enmity between man and God. For this purpose he was manifested, to destroy the works of the devil. Ahhh the many manifold ways of God., who can know His ways?

So also is Satan the enmity between Man and Woman. All is built upon faith.

Childeye said: "But the woman could not reciprocate being that she had never been alone like Adam and she regarded Him no more than anything else she beheld. This is not fair for Adam who esteems more than He is esteemed, after all she is a piece of He. But it is not her fault seeing that both her and Adam's lot are a matter of circumstance."

I'm sorry, but how is ANY of this Biblical? What a crock. Take a look at the reality of the situation. Women degrade themselves just to get men to love them and show them affection. They dress promiscuously, they act promiscuously, they throw away their futures, they disregard their families and friends--and it's all for the sake of getting men to love them!

This is unbiblical and unrealistic!

 

[Mike]

Just so anyone involved in this thread is aware, per request by the OP, this thread has been relocated to the General Forum from the Parenting and Marriage Forum. You might not realize if you've been following from the start. This allows members to contribute who are not or have not been married or have children.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.

 

[jasoncran]

Childeye said: "But the woman could not reciprocate being that she had never been alone like Adam and she regarded Him no more than anything else she beheld. This is not fair for Adam who esteems more than He is esteemed, after all she is a piece of He. But it is not her fault seeing that both her and Adam's lot are a matter of circumstance."

I'm sorry, but how is ANY of this Biblical? What a crock. Take a look at the reality of the situation. Women degrade themselves just to get men to love them and show them affection. They dress promiscuously, they act promiscuously, they throw away their futures, they disregard their families and friends--and it's all for the sake of getting men to love them!

This is unbiblical and unrealistic!

not to toot my horn, as i really dont love my wife enough. her dad loves me(he is a heathen and womaniser in his youth)as i am the only man that he feels that he can die not worrying about whether his only daughter will be taken care of.

my wife has made some bad choices in the past and her dad let her know. she didnt listen to him and almost went to the left of the spectrum in her angst of men. so women do want a man to lead and protect them. and my wife will agree with that promiscous statement.

 

[childeye]

Childeye said: "But the woman could not reciprocate being that she had never been alone like Adam and she regarded Him no more than anything else she beheld. This is not fair for Adam who esteems more than He is esteemed, after all she is a piece of He. But it is not her fault seeing that both her and Adam's lot are a matter of circumstance."

I'm sorry, but how is ANY of this Biblical? What a crock. Take a look at the reality of the situation. Women degrade themselves just to get men to love them and show them affection. They dress promiscuously, they act promiscuously, they throw away their futures, they disregard their families and friends--and it's all for the sake of getting men to love them!

This is unbiblical and unrealistic!

Coming from a Father of three daughters please allow me to explain something about women. They want to be beautiful as in the carnal definition according to carnal thinking, as this is how they define their value carnally. Men desire to behold such beauty carnally speaking. So your statement that they degrade themselves to get men to Love them and show them affection can only be taken as carnal for it is, in reality, neither Love nor affection, but selfish self-serving carnal ego.

What you fail to see, is I am addressing spiritual leadership as in the trust in Love eternal through which one will never have to prove anything to anybody so that such carnal endeavours have no basis for conviction.

The points you omitted in my post address the fact that men have a feminine side as in we are a piece of God. It is not meant to say that the she in both men and women do not desire to be led as you have twisted it and perverted it, but that Satan destroys relationships based on trust by promoting distrust. You say it is unbiblical yet Scripture says we do not esteem God as God and that righteousness is by faith (Trust). The church is counted a woman and a bride. It is through birth that a woman redeems herself, that birth being the Christ. All of this is biblical.

So also there is an enmity between man and woman that is played upon by Satan wherein men have uncontrollable jealousy and women are forced into submission out of fear she desires to be with another. All the while this enforces in the woman the longing to be free from the clutches of her tyrant husband. These sentiments are self fulfilling in conviction. My piece is meant to say that these forces are Satanic and are given place in our hearts by what we believe. Please don't scribble on fine art just because you don't understand it.

 

[reba]

Take a look at the reality of the situation. Women degrade themselves just to get men to love them and show them affection. They dress promiscuously, they act promiscuously, they throw away their futures, they disregard their families and friends--and it's all for the sake of getting men to love them!

Some women do just as you say theLords. Some guys do also.. We are not all in that boat. I am sure your not. Looking attractive is not a bad thing. How far it is taken could well be a bad thing. I do not think the "sleaze look" is attractive. Some dumb guys do.

So how and why do we dress/make-up the way we do? Wanting to look pretty is a good thing . I dont wish to see ladies/men looking 'Wal mart'.

As Christians our efforts to "look good" should match our hearts.

1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1Pe 3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1Pe 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.


God gave Sarah a 'make over"....


My unsaved husband is the head of our home.... We have our daily life duty's that cross the lines of male female.. I am the plumber and electrician. He does a lot of laundry ( that may not seem like much to you guys but a guy from our generation doesn't do laundry!) I will battle to get my way as he does. The final decision/responsibility is his.

 

[handy]

Do any of you who have stated it is not possible to have a successful marriage without one partner being designated as "leader" have any comments about the marriages that serve very long term without a "leader"? Do you think ... well, I don't know what you think. What do you think of these people who are not acting as you say they will?

Rhea, you've made an important point that I'd like to comment on. In Christian marriages, the ultimate Head is of course God Himself (or at least He should be...Christians by no means always live up to the standards that are set for us). In your marriage, you shared that the ultimate "head" is the marriage itself...in your words:

"Now, interestingly, in your definition of a marriage (Danus and Handy) I find that the successful marriages are, indeed, about thinking outside of ourselves. For you it's God's marriage, if I have that right. For us, it's The Marriage as a third partner in this cooperative enterprise. Where the protection of The Marriage itself becomes more important than either individual's ego. And once children are involved, The Marriage is an entity that includes them, too. So we have similar external "pull" to be humble, and I agree that's a big part of how to be humble in a marriage. So on an emotional level, I "get" the marriage-is-god's perspective, and probably make many of the same compromises that you all do. But there is no defined "head" here, and it still works." (emphasis mine)

Obviously, you have what you've determined to be a successful marriage and I would say that in your case...not having God as the "third" and I will add "Senior" partner...this humility to the marriage itself is the key to the success.

The Bible defines marriage as "two becoming one" and this can only work when both in the marriage acknowledge that there is something that is more important than individual ego. Of all the "unsuccessful" marriages that I've seen crash and burn over the years...it is this lack of willingness within one or both of the partners to humble themselves and yield their ego for the marriage that is the foundational root of the marriage's demise.

So, even in your case...a successful marriage where neither the husband nor the wife are the "leader"...there is still a leader...the Marriage...which serves to provide your family with the same goals of mutual humility that God desires Christians to have in their marriages.

I am now curious, Rhea...you shared earlier, "And I happen to know of many many others who operate the same way. There's never one spouse who is the "go-to" person when disagreements occur."

As you think about these "many others" who have successful marriages without a "leader" do you find that these marriages are as well defined by people who humbly submit themselves to the Marriage as the "third partner" and think "outside themselves"?

 

[Rhea]

I am now curious, Rhea...you shared earlier, "And I happen to know of many many others who operate the same way. There's never one spouse who is the "go-to" person when disagreements occur."

As you think about these "many others" who have successful marriages without a "leader" do you find that these marriages are as well defined by people who humbly submit themselves to the Marriage as the "third partner" and think "outside themselves"?

I would say yes; these are people who tend to value their partnership very highly and love the "team" that they have created together as much as they love the partner. And both partners are capable of humility in that partnership, and both partners have the respect that the other could "lead" as well as they do.

I do agree that embracing a larger team concept is very often present in these successful non-leader marriages.

So, even in your case...a successful marriage where neither the husband nor the wife are the "leader"...there is still a leader...the Marriage...which serves to provide your family with the same goals of mutual humility that God desires Christians to have in their marriages.

I'm not sure I could call the team, the marriage, a "leader", though, since it cannot decide anything or break ties. It is more the goal, the outcome, the prize, rather than the leader.

 

[handy]

I'm not sure I could call the team, the marriage, a "leader", though, since it cannot decide anything or break ties. It is more the goal, the outcome, the prize, rather than the leader.

Fair enough.

I would say yes; these are people who tend to value their partnership very highly and love the "team" that they have created together as much as they love the partner. And both partners are capable of humility in that partnership, and both partners have the respect that the other could "lead" as well as they do.

I do agree that embracing a larger team concept is very often present in these successful non-leader marriages.

This doesn't surprise me at all. Mainly because, even when non-Christians and unbelievers live according to God's standards...(albeit for different reasons)...the blessings that come naturally follow.

It's important for me to communicate exactly what I'm trying to get at here...it's not that I think that God is looking at you and your hubby as non-Christians and saying to Himself, "Well...since they are living up to My standards of mutual humility and love in a marriage, I'll bless them even though they aren't Christians."

It's more that I think that God has placed within His creations universal truths that when followed, will bring about consequences.

A good example of what I'm getting at is the "Golden Rule" a truth so universal that many of the world's religions, atheists and agnostics follow the dictum of "Treat others the way you want to be treated". The natural consequence of following the Golden Rule is better interpersonal relationships.

The natural consequence of mutual humility and respect in a marriage is a strong, love filled, successful marriage.

 

[theLords]

Coming from a Father of three daughters please allow me to explain something about women.

You may have 3 daughters that you usher in to the lady's locker room at the local community pool and meet up with on the other side, but I am a woman. I am there with your daughters inside the lady's locker room. So, trying to pull the "experience card" on me, by telling me you "have 3 daughters" isn't going to get you very far.

What you stated is CERTAINLY unbiblical. Let's take a look at what you said:

childeye said: "And Adam beheld woman and he loved her more than anything else God had created."

theLord's says: There's nothing within Scripture to actually support this statement. However, it's not something that I disagree with. From Biblical narration, it's something that I can only presume to be true. The only reason I can choose to believe it is because Adam & Eve were in perfected (sinless) paradise.

childeye said: But the woman could not reciprocate being that she had never been alone like Adam and she regarded Him no more than anything else she beheld.

theLord's says: Unbiblical, unbiblical, unbiblical. There is no such support found within the Bible. None whatsoever. This is an unbiblical statement.

childeye said]: This is not fair for Adam who esteems more than He is esteemed, after all she is a piece of He.

theLord's says: This statement is based on another unbiblical statement. There is absolutely no Scriptural proof for this.

childeye said: But it is not her fault seeing that both her and Adam's lot are a matter of circumstance.

theLord's says: Another unbiblical statement founded on 2 previous unbiblical statements. You're 0-3 at this point.

They want to be beautiful as in the carnal definition according to carnal thinking, as this is how they define their value carnally. Men desire to behold such beauty carnally speaking. So your statement that they degrade themselves to get men to Love them and show them affection can only be taken as carnal for it is, in reality, neither Love nor affection, but selfish self-serving carnal ego.

You fail to realize that the carnal effects of sin are rooted within brokenness. Brokenness of the heart, soul, and spirit. Many women desire to be beautiful (beauty defined by hollywood that is) because they think it's what will cause a man to love them. That's the point! You stated that women don't love men the same way men love them, (based on your unbiblical assessment of Adam & Eve) and I showed you that it is completely and utterly unrealistic and false. Many women love and desire the love of men so much, that they are willing to degrade themselves for the sake of getting a man to love them. Beauty is carnal, but the desire for love is spiritual. Every single man or woman is looking for love because we are created with a place in our heart that is meant for the love of God to fill. But, in their brokenness, these women don't realize that there is a God who loves them and will "set their feet on high places" instead of asking them to degrade themselves for the sake of His love.

No, it is not always simply "selfish self-serving carnal ego." You claim to understand women so much, and yet you fail to realize that it's because of PAIN and BROKENNESS. That pain and brokenness is the reason many women stay with their abusers or make excuses for their rapists. It's kind of hard for a woman to have a "selfish self-serving carnal ego" complex, when the man she loves is beating her into near unconsciousness every night, and she falls asleep telling herself how wonderful he truly is and if she could just fix herself maybe the abuse will stop.

What you fail to see, is I am addressing spiritual leadership as in the trust in Love eternal through which one will never have to prove anything to anybody so that such carnal endeavours have no basis for conviction.

Your analogy could've been made quite fine, without making fallacious and unbiblical statements. The fall wasn't a result of Eve being unable to trust in Adam. It came because of her inability to trust God. It is a humankind/God problem.

The points you omitted in my post address the fact that men have a feminine side as in we are a piece of God. It is not meant to say that the she in both men and women do not desire to be led as you have twisted it and perverted it, but that Satan destroys relationships based on trust by promoting distrust. You say it is unbiblical yet Scripture says we do not esteem God as God and that righteousness is by faith (Trust). The church is counted a woman and a bride. It is through birth that a woman redeems herself, that birth being the Christ. All of this is biblical.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Men do not have "feminine sides." That statement is, in and of itself, divisive of godly gender roles. That kind of thinking is the reason this country has such an issue with homosexuality. We tell our children that "boys don't cry" and "girls shouldn't play so rough" and then we wonder why they gravitate to sin! Love, care, affection, shedding tears, strength, discipline, courage, toughness, etc., these are all characteristics of both men and woman. They are traits of humankind. Neither gender holds a monopoly on these emotions/traits.

Again, this is a humankind/God issue because God does not have a gender. We were created in his image, he didn't divide us in half and say, "Okay, half of me goes to you Adam, and the other half goes into you Eve." No, men are wholly created in the image of God, and women are wholly created in the image of God. We're not walking around half people, we are created whole.

You're absolutely right that the Ekklesia is regarded as a woman and Bride of Christ, because the role of God's Ekklesia (men and woman) is to submit to the Bridegroom God. It's a testimony in front of our eyes, in the light of the Biblical ordinance for "wives to submit to their husbands." The Bible doesn't say "women submit to men" it says "wives." A Christian marriage is a witness before the eyes of the believer and the unbeliever of the love that God has for His creation.

So also there is an enmity between man and woman that is played upon by Satan wherein men have uncontrollable jealousy and women are forced into submission out of fear she desires to be with another. All the while this enforces in the woman the longing to be free from the clutches of her tyrant husband. These sentiments are self fulfilling in conviction. My piece is meant to say that these forces are Satanic and are given place in our hearts by what we believe. Please don't scribble on fine art just because you don't understand it.

Yes, there is enmity between the man and woman and between the woman and Satan. It's the result of the fall. But, we Believers, have the hope of Christ in us, that He came to set us free from the curse of sin. While the unbelieving and dying world is subjugated to that curse, the Ekklesia is called to walk in freedom and newness of life. It's unfortunate that she's not, but she is called to do so, because it is a testimony of the power of God's redemption before the eyes of mankind.

Oh, I understand what you were trying to say just fine. The problem is the choice of analogy you used, it's full of errors and unbiblical statements. That's what I'm addressing. I didn't ignore your points, I addressed the erroneous ones.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I really like your post, theLords. I especially liked that part about men and women sharing certain universal emotions. As an ex-gay, I think society needs to offer both sexes more flexibility in what they consider "masculine" or "feminine." I think we've gotten to a point where a woman can be "tough" and do a "man's job" (it helps if she's pretty, of course), but men are still looked down on for being too soft if they're sensitive. Even in the gay community there's so-called "internalized homophobia" in which the "girly boys" are stigmatized. Of course, part of that, I think, is that most gay/bi men are using same-sex relations to compensate for a perceived lack of masculinity, but that's another topic.

 

[childeye]

=theLords;567813] So, trying to pull the "experience card" on me, by telling me you "have 3 daughters" isn't going to get you very far.

My girls are all married and have their own children. I have raised good daughters under God's guidance. I am saying I know something about it.

childeye said: "And Adam beheld woman and he loved her more than anything else God had created."

theLord's says: There's nothing within Scripture to actually support this statement. However, it's not something that I disagree with. From Biblical narration, it's something that I can only presume to be true. The only reason I can choose to believe it is because Adam & Eve were in perfected (sinless) paradise.

Apart from the fact I am not quoting scripture, I know as a man that Adam loved Eve for he had been alone and she was apiece of him. God said Man needed a mate and Adam declared this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.

childeye said: But the woman could not reciprocate being that she had never been alone like Adam and she regarded Him no more than anything else she beheld.

theLord's says: Unbiblical, unbiblical, unbiblical. There is no such support found within the Bible. None whatsoever. This is an unbiblical statement.

No one ever said it was not conjecture. However let's admit that She was never alone like Adam which invites the exact perspectives I am describing. There is much more I could say about this concerning why Eve was beguiled and not Adam. But it will take too long. Regardless, based on the fact Eve was made from Adam and this must be significant to be in the bible it is therefore relevant to establishing two different perspectives.

childeye said]: This is not fair for Adam who esteems more than He is esteemed, after all she is a piece of He.

theLord's says: This statement is based on another unbiblical statement. There is absolutely no Scriptural proof for this.

From reading your post it is apparrant that you do not know that God is a He and you do not acknowledge the significance of this. She is a piece of He. And this applies spiritually. We all take for granted that which was already there. Hence man who is made by God but given life through His Word takes God for granted as is explained in Romans one where it is said, for when men knew God they did not esteem God as God nor were they grateful but became vain in their imaginations. So it is logical to assume that Eve who was never alone and did not esteem man as much as man esteemed woman or else God is wrong and he does not need a mate and it meant nothing to Adam that He was no longer alone.

childeye said: But it is not her fault seeing that both her and Adam's lot are a matter of circumstance.

theLord's says: Another unbiblical statement founded on 2 previous unbiblical statements. You're 0-3 at this point.

So having established plenty of evidence that there are two different perspectives and that Eve couldn't possibly know what it is to be Adam, how is it anybodys fault? For surely it is no one's fault but just the way things are. The point here is to establish the conditions where distrust could occur. We take God for granted. We took our station in the garden for granted and tried to improve upon it. We found fault where there was none. We tried to fix what was not broken.

You fail to realize that the carnal effects of sin are rooted within brokenness. Brokenness of the heart, soul, and spirit.

Respectfully, I am aware that the carnal effects of sin is to find fault where there is none. That's why we wear clothes and hid from God. Hence a person man or woman measure themselves with others to establish their worth and find fault with where they are at, or else glory and boast compared to others. The result is jealousy and arrogance over things no one can help. And what is the spirit of Satan for he desires to better his station above the stars of heaven even unto the throne of God. The dung beatle should not desire to be an eagle and the eagle should not look down upon the noble bug.

Many women love and desire the love of men so much, that they are willing to degrade themselves for the sake of getting a man to love them.

Only if their Father never loved them or made sure they knew how much they were worth.

But, in their brokenness, these women don't realize that there is a God who loves them and will "set their feet on high places" instead of asking them to degrade themselves for the sake of His love.

You don't need a man to be loved. Just give charity and a you will be loved. A woman carnally needs a man for a child and that is perhaps all. Once a woman has a baby she will forget all about herself being loved and will care about that child as if it were her if she's not sick in her heart. Then she will know what I mean by loving a piece of you and will understand Adam and understand God.

No, it is not always simply "selfish self-serving carnal ego." You claim to understand women so much, and yet you fail to realize that it's because of PAIN and BROKENNESS. That pain and brokenness is the reason many women stay with their abusers or make excuses for their rapists. It's kind of hard for a woman to have a "selfish self-serving carnal ego" complex, when the man she loves is beating her into near unconsciousness every night, and she falls asleep telling herself how wonderful he truly is and if she could just fix herself maybe the abuse will stop.

As I told you, it is all about finding fault where there is none. Comparing ourselves with others. That's what the devil in people does, finds fault or instills arrogance. It's all pride. The man who beats the woman is blaming her for his own perceived worthless image of himself. The more she tries to make him feel like somebody the more the devil tells him that she is only patronizing him and he can see it is true which only verifies his worthlessness. His insecurity exists probably because his Mother didn't love him or never showed it or he didn't really have a healthy relationship if he had one at all. Lack of love, or in other words, sin, is passed down.

Your analogy could've been made quite fine, without making fallacious and unbiblical statements. The fall wasn't a result of Eve being unable to trust in Adam. It came because of her inability to trust God. It is a humankind/God problem.

It's okay with me to say what you want about me if it will get what seems to me to be chip off your shoulder. I never said Eve couldn't trust in Adam. Eve was gullible. The problem is we believe the lies of the devil and the spirits based on those lies live in us.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Men do not have "feminine sides." That statement is, in and of itself, divisive of godly gender roles.

No there is no male or female in Christ. As I said, the woman comes full circle by having a baby then she knows the man. Adam is a she to God for Adam is a piece of God. This is what this scripture means, they are the same in that respect. So as if to say that how a man treats a woman is how the man should want to be treated by God.

That kind of thinking is the reason this country has such an issue with homosexuality.

Why you cast this at me I can only wonder at. You obviously do not understand sin. It comes from comparing one's self with others so as to be put down or lifted up. The Christ came down and became sin so we could become the righteousness of God. He took on a lowly station on earth and became accursed. So to be in Christ is to die to such things and embrace what is undignified so that others may be dignified. Instead of climbing all over one another to be on top the true Christian strives to be on the bottom so that everybody else may be on top. Hence Christ does not count it sin to count himself equal with God but presents himself as a servant to all. Do this and sin must cease to exist. For God is with the poor and the meek and the humble of heart.

No, men are wholly created in the image of God, and women are wholly created in the image of God. We're not walking around half people, we are created whole.

Man was created in God's image, woman was created in man's image. He is a He. To find fault with this is to reveal you have a problem with gender. I'm not the one with the problem. I will not compare so as to think a person makes themselves for I know it is a lie. I love woman even as God loves me. You seem to think you have to prove something when you don't. I don't know who has instilled this in you but it is a lie you are believing. You are perfect as God has made you. There's nothing wrong about being a woman. You need to believe that. I do. If you wish to discuss this further PM me.

 

[jasoncran]

childeye this is correct

Men do not have "feminine sides." That statement is, in and of itself, divisive of godly gender roles. That kind of thinking is the reason this country has such an issue with homosexuality. We tell our children that "boys don't cry" and "girls shouldn't play so rough" and then we wonder why they gravitate to sin! Love, care, affection, shedding tears, strength, discipline, courage, toughness, etc., these are all characteristics of both men and woman. They are traits of humankind. Neither gender holds a monopoly on these emotions/traits

i am kinda in that category as i was kinda told not to cry. while i dont think that men should be so easily emotional as women who by nature nurture. stoic males that dont cry arent so inclined to make good husbands or will have emotional issues.


so i do let the tears flow.and these days women need to have some toughness. yes men should lead the pack in protecting women but really i would feel as a failure if i didnt teach a girl how to do basic"masculine things" ie put a spare tire on car,oil change,"

 

[childeye]

childeye this is correct



i am kinda in that category as i was kinda told not to cry. while i dont think that men should be so easily emotional as women who by nature nurture. stoic males that dont cry arent so inclined to make good husbands or will have emotional issues.


so i do let the tears flow.and these days women need to have some toughness. yes men should lead the pack in protecting women but really i would feel as a failure if i didnt teach a girl how to do basic"masculine things" ie put a spare tire on car,oil change,"

You are arguing a straw man argument with me and I would repectfully ask not to further the futility that clouds the issue. Men cry and so do women. Whoever said men don't cry is wrong. That should be the end of that. This has nothing to do with the fact that men have a feminine side. If you read my posts on this matter you will see I am saying that He\she is pertaining to order of existence as in man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man.

 

[jasoncran]

You are arguing a straw man argument with me and I would repectfully ask not to further the futility that clouds the issue. Men cry and so do women. Whoever said men don't cry is wrong. That should be the end of that. This has nothing to do with the fact that men have a feminine side. If you read my posts on this matter you will see I am saying that He\she is pertaining to order of existence as in man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man.

men were TAUGHT not to cry in the 50s, i know my dad was raised that way and he raised me in part to do that. its wrong but,by nature men shouldnt be so easily teared up either.

yes, but you are using modern feminists definitions(femine side)

a better way would be the scale of manhood from say mr.rogers(gentile and yet very bold too say mr.t )

 

[Boidae21]

In my marriage there is no clearly defined leader, and yes, we're Christians. The role switches back and forth as the situation that we're dealing with at the time changes. Generally it falls down to who has the most experience in that specific or general area.

Before I was convicted by the Holy Spirit I was the leader always and it made a huge mess of our marriage before we ever hit the one year mark. Since we switched to no defined leader, our marriage has faired much better. I'm not saying it's perfect, but there's a lot of hurt that needs to be worked through.

We will married 2 years come January.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I think saying that men have a "feminine side" reinforces the notion that men are a certain way and women are another way, when really there seems to be a lot of overlap (which makes sense, since God designed men and women to work together and complement one another, not to be so different that there would be friction and conflict).

Plus, when a woman excels at sports or other traditionally "manly" activities, few people will say she has a masculine side. I think gender roles are a lot more restrictive for men than for women, which is one reason I think there are more gay+bisexual men that lesbian+bisexual women. Also, I think the restrictive gender roles lead men to pursue masculinity (as society defines it) through material gain or promiscuity, instead of pursuing the sort of strength and dignity that I think God wants men (and women, too) to develop. Some experts have called this "toxic masculinity," and I think it explains a lot of male violence and general misbehavior.

 

[childeye]

men were TAUGHT not to cry in the 50s, i know my dad was raised that way and he raised me in part to do that. its wrong but,by nature men shouldnt be so easily teared up either.

yes, but you are using modern feminists definitions(femine side)

a better way would be the scale of manhood from say mr.rogers(gentile and yet very bold too say mr.t )

I am using God's terminology as in the church is a bride albeit made of both men and women. This has nothing to do with who should cry more or not. I have no idea what modern feminists definitions are. I am using the terms as I understand them. I am not ashamed of my feminine side, as in I am a piece of God and I do not think women should be ashamed of being a piece of man. I feel like I walked into a beauty parlor on this thread and got in trouble for saying you are already beautiful.

 

[jasoncran]

I am using God's terminology as in the church is a bride albeit made of both men and women. This has nothing to do with who should cry more or not. I have no idea what modern feminists definitions are. I am using the terms as I understand them. I am not ashamed of my feminine side, as in I am a piece of God and I do not think women should be ashamed of being a piece of man. I feel like I walked into a beauty parlor on this thread and got in trouble for saying you are already beautiful.

you are democrat and dont know the idea of modern feminism.
odd for a pro-choicer, those go hand in hand.

however, being effimate is a sin unto the lord.

look it up here

one corthinians 6:9

⁹Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

that implies two things,being a pedophile, which isnt what are talking about or having but that soft traits that pedophile looks for. in the middle east and then that was what the boy lovers were bred to be,,soft and so weakminded they didnt resist the control. sick, but the truth.

so men being that weakminded and overlyfeminine is a sin.

 

[childeye]

=jasoncran;568168]you are democrat and dont know the idea of modern feminism.
odd for a pro-choicer, those go hand in hand.

I'm not a democrat. Nor do I embrace the description of one side according to it's enemy.

however, being effimate is a sin unto the lord.

look it up here

one corthinians 6:9



that implies two things,being a pedophile, which isnt what are talking about or having but that soft traits that pedophile looks for. in the middle east and then that was what the boy lovers were bred to be,,soft and so weakminded they didnt resist the control. sick, but the truth.

so men being that weakminded and overlyfeminine is a sin.

[/QUOTE]
You are correct I am not talking about what you are describing. Man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man. That's what I'm talking about.