The reason for this is quite obvious, women want to secure a stable and happy future for their offspring....as every half-decent human being who has ever existed on this planet it wants.
Most men in the dating scene just want the woman and will treat the kids like trash. Child abuse in divorce situations is rampant, especially by men who have no idea how to take care of kids, don't care at all about them and have no respect for the work and dedication single mothers have in providing for themselves, their kids and actually taking care of their kids. So women telling potential men upfront that if they are going to emotionally ignore the kids that they are not welcome is just a way of women protecting their kids from ungodly and selfish men who probably only want a relationship for their own good.
Men who are unable to love other woman's children are likely to be poor mates anyway and are certainly not looking to God for guidance in the relationship, instead they are clearly just looking for their own selfish desires.
God should be the king of every relationship, but individuals who are entering divorce family situations need to realize that they are marrying the whole family, not cherrypicking members. Power to the women, and men, who do this. They probably avoid tons of terrible mates by doing it.
Single women tend to be more 'desperate' for a relationship and are particularly vulnerable to scummy guys considering their usually weak financial status relative to single men, so all this is is a defense mechanism against this pool of men that are out there. I don't think a single man here can truly empathize with a single parent's situation unless they are one themselves. Easy to judge, harder to walk a mile in their shoes.
Those Who Teach Contrary to the Word and Those Who Defend Them
Posted : 11 Sep, 2012 11:22 PM
It's somewhat trivial to say "People who make false teachings are causing harm"
That's like saying school teachers who incorrectly teach subject materials are doing a bad job. Well of course they are.
The real core of the issue is what is biblical and what isn't. Anybody who disagrees with anybody else on anything biblical can easily point the finger and make the claim that the other person is a false teacher. Anybody can slander. Arguably though, those who slander others are themselves falling into sin and by their own judgements, they too will be judged.
Jesus was able to call the pharisees hypocrites because he himself was without sin. Your average joe cannot really do the same if they are making the exact same mistakes the pharisees are making as well. Now average joe is a hypocrite as well. Because nobody is perfect, we all err. We err in everything, from sin to non sinful logic mistakes. Just because a preacher is preaching things that aren't completely biblical doesn't automatically mean that it is intentional as well. It would be little more than human error. Error that needs correcting of course. Likewise, those who defend erroneous teachers can themselves simply be erroneous. It doesn't have to be good vs evil, hypocrisy vs holiness. It can simply be correct vs incorrect. One of the biggest problems very religious Christians have is that they get so emotional and zealous over scriptural interpretation that they end up sinning in their zeal to defend their interpretations, often deluding themselves into believing that they have "the truth" and that everyone else is wrong. So in their zeal to correct someone who indeed may have an incorrect view of the bible, they can sin WHILE correcting them on the accuracy of the text. The irony is sad indeed, but it happens all the time.
One could argue that more sin is done by the well-intentioned than the ill-intentioned, especially when it comes to zealous people who are so focused on the details that they miss the bigger picture. I have met very few zealous people who remember in their actions to be humble in everything they do.
At the end of the day, as Christians we need to individually challenge and critically think whether the sermons we receive are indeed biblical or not. Instead of mindlessly accepting them as true, look up what you have learned and compare it with scripture and what God is saying in them. We don't have to lean on our own understanding to use our head. He didn't give us a brain so that we would never use it, especially on such important things as spirituality.
I agree...sadness is both a natural and healthy response to situations. I would argue that it might even be sinful to NOT be sad at certain moments. It would certainly be inhuman to never be sad.
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.
Ocarina of Time is my long-held favorite. It just does too much right, especially without the precedent of much 3D gaming.
I was pleasantly surprised by Skyward Sword. The motions controls....worked....how unusual :yay:
A Link to the Past is great, as are the two Oracle games (seaons and ages). Majora's Mask is arguably the best zelda game as an experience...it makes you feel interesting things but as a game it's somewhat lacking.
Hopefully that was good enough of an answer, haha. :excited:
To each their own...some people enjoy taking up the interests of their partners, others want to continue their own. If one has talents in something, I don't see why marriage should automatically make one throw them aside.
If you are a fantastic fiddle player, why not continue playing?
Granted, some hobbies become difficult/impossible to balance with family life, but many could probably be maintained to some degree.
I'd agree with the Ice Dragon. Absolute Zero... is a really weird theoretical phenomena (even space has SOME minute temperature I think).
But then again, absolute zero just means that there is no average velocity of the particles in the area, while extreme heat means that the average velocity is very high...so maybe the extremely hot particles would simply excite the absolute zero atmospheric particles. Unlike in space, where there are almost no loose particles at all, an atmosphere even at absolute zero would still have a lot. Maybe the heat would simply transfer to the still particles.
Kindness is something that is one of the spiritual fruits, for all to eat and express, not just the ladies. Let's not allow societal norms to prevent us from appreciating spiritual girfts in non-traditional vessels :nahnah:
While I agree that women, on average, tend to express it more strongly than men, I have certainly met the extraordinarily kind man and the extraordinarily mean woman. Same thing goes for nurturing, not all you ladies are...well how do I say this... cut out to be terribly nurturing, haha. On the same vein, I have met incredibly nurturing men.
It's best to think of it as a statistical spectrum, even if 99% of women are kind, there is a 1% who aren't. Though it's far from 99% :ROFL:
Best not to stereotype over 3 billion people (each gender) into one box. Humans are such delightfully unique and varied individuals. Life would be so boring if everyone has the same personality traits, wouldn't it?
The sign of a king in charge is one who's sword has visibly rusted, hanging on the wall. For such a king does not need to even lift his sword to keep control.
Similarly, the man who does not need to assert control is the one who is truly in control.
The signs of leadership are humility and servitude, not egotism, authoritarianism and anger. The man who orders others around all the time is the one who is not leading at all.
Instead of allowing insecurity of our masculinity to consume our decision making, let's remember what biblical leadership is: it means getting on the ground and scrubbing other's feet. That is what true leadership looks like. It is not the American idea of an executive ordering his underlings around. Unfortunately it is this very secular idea that has infiltrated most conservative christian men, replacing the biblical idea of leadership.
The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. Those who are in charge in this life will not be in the next. The meek shall inherit the earth. Food for thought.
