TBK. I have a friend who was in service. He was caught by an IED. Severe head trauma. Now, he can not control his emotions. He can barely take care of himself...in some areas he cant, like the restrom. His wife has to lead now.
Five Signs that Your Online Love Interest is Emotionally Unstable
You Don't Need to Meet for Coffee to Know Something is Wrong
Public perception of online dating has changed. Online dating no longer points to some inherent creepiness in its participants. It has become a legitimate way for well-adjusted people to pursue a relationship. But be warned. The increasing incidence of normal people in the online dating pool has not displaced the emotionally unstable contingent.
The wounded and misguided are still treading water out there in cyberspace. They look just like everybody else. Sometimes they even look better. Still, you don't have to date a person for three weeks to figure out that they are emotionally unstable. Just pay attention. The signs are right there on the screen.
1. Her "About Me" is About Him
If over half of your cyber honey's "About Me" is about her previous relationship, she isn't over it. Emotionally, she is unavailable. She doesn't know this. Despite the fact that she hasn't gotten out of her pajamas in a month, she thinks she's doing great.
In reality, she isn't. Most singles over the age of twenty-four have an ex or five. We have all had our hearts ripped out, stomped on, and mailed to the Arctic Circle. Learning to live through heartbreak is part of life. We gain strength, and this in turn allows us to hold our own in new relationships. Spare yourself the grief. This one isn't ready.
2. He Doesn't Save the Drama for His Mama
Your online love interest is so dang sexy, until he speaks. There's always something going on with him. His cousin wrecked his car, his ex-wife kidnapped his dog, his neighbor moved his trashcan. He was born under a bad sign. Or maybe he's just emotionally unstable.
Bad stuff happens to everyone. Some people deal with it and move forward. Others turn it into a whole five act production. Your guy's inability to resolve the endless drama in his own life suggests an inability to let go. Resentments and grudges destroy trust. Exit now before you land a starring role in his tragedy.
3. Are You, Like, Mad at Her or Something?
You weren't even thinking about her. You didn't respond to the IM because you were in the bathroom, for God's sake. While you've enjoyed the e-exchanges and the phone calls, no protocol has been established. You haven't even met her yet, and she wants to discuss the relationship.
This is not your fault. A parasite is problematic no matter how cute its avatar. In order to survive, it must hurt you. It's nothing personal. Your online love interest has made her insecurity your problem. She needs reassurance from you in order to feel all right with herself. Mind games of this nature are best reserved for much later in a relationship. And as a general rule, parasites make poor bedfellows.
4. He Thinks He's Falling in Love With You
Nothing decimates romance faster than an inappropriately dropped L bomb. Cyber dude must have been absent the day they covered this in Acting Normal 101. He's proud of himself for emoting. You feel like you can't breathe.
Maybe it is possible to fall in love after three phone calls, twenty emails, and 104 IMs. But to profess that love without ever having met is just plain needy, not to mention a little manipulative. He wants to secure what cannot be secured. Love takes time. By propelling himself into the future, he has created a chasm between the two of you. Just as Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock discover in The Lake House, living in different eras puts tremendous strain on a budding relationship.
5. She Vanishes then Materializes then Vanishes Again
Coincidentally, the day you two were supposed to meet for the first time, she had to go into the witness protection program. Seriously, that could happen. They didn't let her make phone calls. It was awful. At least she got to keep the same house, the same car, and the same job.
In online dating, disappearing acts are standard. Yes, they are a little harsh, but like ripping off a band-aid, they serve a purpose. Nobody needs a hundred mini break-ups. Materializing after a vanishing act, however, is an entirely different animal. At the very least, a person who yo-yos cannot make a decision, which does not bode well for a future partnership. More importantly, this kind of magic wastes precious time you could be spending on healthier prospects.
We all come with baggage, but we aren't all tripping over it. The key to online dating is to determine as soon as possible whether, in spite of a few issues, a love interest is reasonably balanced. Signs of emotional instability often mean that a person is unable to participate fully in a relationship. No matter how hard you try, you can't build a life with someone who isn't there.
The problem with the logic that "If you do not act according to scripture, then you must not be a believer" is that everybody sins....constantly. Some christians who lack significant self-awareness may fool themselves into believing that they don't sin any more, and may invent rationalizations to further cement this misguided belief, but all people sin. It is human post-adam to sin. It is what separates us from God. All the Saints sinned numerous times etc etc. So the idea that somebody who has problems adhering to the Bible is not a believer would disqualify even Saint Paul from being a believer, and I don't many think would agree with that standpoint.
Matthew 7:1-5 says: �Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, �Let me take the speck out of your eye,� when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
So if our judgment is:
not almost always obeying the Bible = non believer, then I'm not sure anybody can qualify for being a believer. Clearly this standard is ridiculous.
Now I understand what you are getting at here, I really do. The murderer who repents his sins, and then goes out the next day murdering more people can be thought of as not really being a believer since his beliefs are not being translated into life changes. Thought ought to guide action, so pure thoughts should lead to pure action. If faith does not change us in any meaningful way, one can easily question what the impact of the faith really is.
However, it would be naive to act as if being saved by Jesus causes one to nearly never sin again. I'm sure every righteous christian would admit to sinning after being saved, let alone the least of us. This observation certainly doesn't make these sins "OK". Not at all, but I'm simply being realistic here.
Furthermore, the idea that emotional instability is a sin is somewhat ridiculous. Imagine if a grown man is emotional unstable due to childhood abuse. Is this his fault and something that we should condemn him for? It's a problem of course, but that's like telling someone who got shot in the face that they must have sinned for being in a state of physical need. Of course they didn't sin, some problems have nothing to do with sin. Same thing here, except the problems are not physical but emotional.
What about emotional disorders caused by nothing more than the man's DNA? After all God created him that way, it would be a little more than ignorance to blame someone for something that he literally has no way of naturally stopping. Perhaps God's purpose for this man involves what we ignorant people describe as "emotional instability". Perhaps God's plan uses the broken? But then again, are we not all broken? Was Peter not a broken man or anybody else we see in the Bible who was used by God for his purposes?
It's easy to judge other people with their problems when one does not have the same problems, but sometimes such quick judgements can do little more than reveal how blind we truly are. Mental instability can certainly be caused by sinful ways, but let's not pick up the long rejected idea that mental illness is automatically some kind of punishment for sin. It's certainly easy to claim, but those who know such people may have better insight into why it truly happens and many of those reasons are completely independent of sin. As our wisdom in medicine and genetics increases, a staggering amount of our emotional stability can be chalked up to simply how we are wired, and there is a lot of God-given variation in this area.
Of course this discussion begs the question: What is emotional instability? We certainly have a somewhat intuitive idea of what it looks like and how it can manifest itself, but it is interesting to think about what it actually is and how we can more objectively define it besides "Your moods swing a lot therefore you are emotionally unstable"
To the actual question: I definitely believe a man with emotional problems can lead a family. Every single man who leads a family sins, arguably daily but the rate is somewhat irrelevant. No woman will ever be married to a biblically perfect man who never errs, instead she is always married to a flawed, broken, dependent, sinful man who needs both her and God in his life. She is always married to a man with problems, so why if the problems are emotional that somehow he is incapable of leading? Perhaps he needs nothing more than the right Godly woman to be the inspiration and guidance he needs to set himself back on track?
Like you said, I am by no means attempting to concretely prove or disprove anything, but simply forwarding my opinion with some reason along with it.
I am only responding to what you wrote here because you seem to suggest that I have made claims that I have not made. Perhaps you should reread what I actually wrote. My suggestion was that a believer's sin in any particular area should not be the normal pattern. For example, David sinned with Bathsheba. This was an exception, not a pattern of behavior. As I stated, God also dealt with David for that sin.
I never said that "If you do not act according to scripture, then you must not be a believer" However, that begs the question. At some point, if one is not behaving themselves in a manner consistent with Scripture, can they really be considered a believer? Where is this point? It must also be reconciled with Scriptures such as these:
6.Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 1 John 3:6-10
Being the head does not mean you know how to lead, nor does being the leader mean you are the head of the man.
The man who is the head of his household is the provider and care taken of his family, and he makes sure of their security and needs in all things, but he may not have any skills whatsoever in taking care of the financial matter of the household and the wife takes care of this, they have a balance, it does not mean the man is suppose to be in charge or authority over everything in the house, if he is not skilled in these mattesr.
He is to be an example in all things in the household as a leader, but this does not mean the wife isn't to have a say so about how things are ran in the household.
