Brent wrote:

<<< Scott, I have a question for you. Is a strong righteous woman to show belief in a weak childish husband >>>


Typically, conversations between Brent and I are not productive, but in this case, his question seems fair and deserves an answer. This is my answer.

What I will say now is a word picture of who we are. In the beginning, God made Adam. God was both male and female and now, so was Adam. I am speaking of principles here and not necessarily of physical realities. At some point in time, God removed the female portion of Adam and it stood alone. No longer enclosed and protected (covered), Eve feels exposed, afraid, and insecure. Adam did not feel afraid and insecure, but he now had a hole in his soul. This is a perfect picture of why men and women need each other for totally different reasons. The woman craves again to be "covered" by a man, and the man in incomplete without his woman.

Now, a man's need, deep in his soul, is to have the confidence of his wife. In other words, it is necessary that his wife believe in him and look to him for leadership, protection, and care, or in other words, security. This instinct seems to be basically intrinsic in testosterone. It is this "looking to him" which validates his manhood. Now for this to happen, it is absolutely essential that she choose her husband wisely. In other words, if she is going to validate her husband by honestly looking to him for leadership, or in other words, actually seein that it is in her own best interest to sublimate her emotional sentimental feelings to a more logical, rational, objective masculine goverment, then is becomes absolutely essential that she marry a man "larger" than herself. Or going back to the Adam and Eve scenario, that she select a husband who is large enough to enclose her, to cover her, you choose your own terms.

It is true, a man is validated by leadership. It is also true that a woman is often frustrated by leadership. When a woman leads a man, she probably always secretly scorns and despises him. I believe this is how God made us.

But the key here is NOT to use a rule, a doctrine, to force woman to look to unworthy men for leadership. They key begin in the initial choosing. A wise woman who has been taught properly by her mother will know before she marries that her husband craves her confidence in his leadership. Therefore, she will look for a man who is worthy of leading her.

Now back to Brent's question:
<<< Is a strong righteous woman to show belief in a weak childish husband >>>

This scenario is impossible. A strong righteous woman will NOT seek to marry a weak childish husband, period. I now know that most of us had no clue how men and women were designed by God to dovetail, therefore, we had no clue and no teaching regarding proper selection of a mate, and many all of us chose improperly. Once you have ill-chosen your mate, there is nothing you can do to fix it. That is why I said on another thread, that I would take 90% of the effort currently being expended in marriage counciling and transfer it to teaching young men and women how to choose properly.

With what I know now, I would do it for myself this way. I would very specifically look for a mate in that narrow band of women who were intelligent enough I could stretch, but not so intelligent that I would never be able to stretch. In other words, a woman needs to marry a man she can believe in and admire. You would not believe how much marriage problem this takes care of right off the bat. Once this is done, the man needs to take "authority = responsibility" very seriously and begin to labor with everything he has to be worthy of his position. This involves studying proper government, principles of justice, being absolutely honest and trustworthy, being faithful. He cannot and must not sit on his ass because if he does, his wife will pass him up, and then she will look down her nose at him, and then he feels invalidated and emasculated, and then they both end up unfilled and frustrated, or worse, with unattached heart strings and a roving eye.

[[This scenario is impossible. A strong righteous woman will NOT seek to marry a weak childish husband, period. I now know that most of us had no clue how men and women were designed by God to dovetail, therefore, we had no clue and no teaching regarding proper selection of a mate, and many all of us chose improperly. Once you have ill-chosen your mate, there is nothing you can do to fix it. That is why I said on another thread, that I would take 90% of the effort currently being expended in marriage counciling and transfer it to teaching young men and women how to choose properly.]]

Scott, I do follow along with the bottom line of what you are writing on your last several posts, even though I think it's a bit over romanticized and idealistic. The basic of it is a good standard.
I don't totally agree with your above statement. If nobody ever fell in love with a childish type or someone who maybe at the time of marriage isn't their equal, there would be a ton of single, unloved people out there. Who's to say who is our equal or by what measure do we determine that when choosing a mate? I think you somewhat underestimate the power of God in a marriage..it doesn't always make sense to humans as to the choices we make but if God is in it he has a plan to make it work. Nor do I agree that there is nothing to be done to fix a bad choice. If the respect is maintained that we have when we marry and all of the above things you have written as to making the other feel needed and keeping a vision of the whole marriage plan, anything is possible. A man can make a woman feminine and a woman can morph a man into a masculine, confident person. Most of us are pretty immature when we get married but if there is the determination with HUMILITY to make it work it can mature into a beautiful thing.

Cupcake, what you wrote is true. But I want to keep running pell mell towards the perfect standard instead of towards something less. Now I have not written this yet, but have discussed it much my friends, and it does deal with the points you are making.

Let me use engineering as an example. It is a tough field of study, and the competition can be keen. BUT, people who are average bright can excel in engineering by simply working their rear-ends off. I knew this for myself when I worked at Sandia Natinal Labs. I knew I wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I knew that if I could find some area and excel in it, that I would have my place.

So this is the case with a husband. He should take leadership extremely seriously, and should study more than his wife, and work harder at expanding his horizons and thoughts than his wife, and do this so she can naturally, spontaneously look to him for leadership. I mean, if the husband doesn't lead her, then the author of a book will, or the local pastor will, or someone. Why not let it be him, because if it is him, it will satisfy his need for validation, and then he will reciprocate by cherishing her, and the marriage will spiral upwards? Believe me, a man cherishes a woman who believes in him and has confidence in him. If you married below yourself, or your husband is so lazy that you are larger than he is, then you can never look to him, and he will be incapable of cherishing you. It really is a dance. One person has to lead a dance, but the leader must be extremely sensitive to know the way, abilities, and movements of their partner who is following, and certainly not to step on their toes.

Imagine a dance in which the follower fought their unqualified leader the way wives now fight against and compete with their husbands. It would be absolute chaos on the floor, and would never win the olympics. We can comprehend this truth in business, in dance, in a musical band, in a captain on a ship, but not in a marriage. Why?

I was told recently, that in some of the most delicate and difficult dances involving two partners, it is always the man leading because he is stronger, and his partner is nearly always female, and she must place her absolute confidence in him that she will not be harmed. This picture is so beautiful, and I think we should strive for it as a practical reality.

What would happen if a female dancer entrusted her safety to an unqualified male leader who couldn't dance well, couldn't lead well, and was not strong enought to protect her during the difficult dangerous moves? Please, we have to see this. Back to my previous point, we have to choose our partners wisely.

Would a female dancer choose her male dance partner because he drove a corvette, talked a good line, or because he could lead the dance and keep her safe? That is how you must choose your husband.

how did a good dancer (leader) became good at dancing (leading)? did he practice and make a lot of mistakes? or was he always a good dancer (leader) from the very first time he took the floor (got married)?

He studied and practiced a lot before he took a woman as his partner and placed her physical safety at risk. That is why so many cultures have specific rites leading towards what that culture values in manhood. We have trivialized the responsibility here. Now wonder the wives are telling us to kiss off.

I believe the primary fault here is the men. Eve led Adam to the wrong tree, but God blamed Adam and enquired, "why did you listen to your wife". Adam was supposed to show leadership and he didn't. I bet ten bucks (if there ever was an actual Adam and Eve), that Adam was thinking first of all, I'm unqualified, what if she is right (lack of worthiness), and second of all, if I stand against her, I will probably sleep alone for the next two months (allowing himself to be controlled in exchange for female love).


Another reason I blame the men more is because to whom much is given, much is required. If the husband has been given the place of authority for leadership, then more is also required of him. Men are lazy and afraid. That is how our culture wants us. The Church of Satan, in 1998 in Sidney, had as their vision to break apart the home, i.e., to kill the love between husbands and wives.

The feminist movement, and the homosexual movement, and the trend to neutralize the genders and replace husband and wife with two equal partners is (I believe) the primary tools of the Satanist movement to obtain their objectives. If they can destroy our vision of the beauty of the masculine and feminine, the downward spiral that follows fullfills all their objectives. A genderless dance between equal partners with no leader will never win the olympics in China, nor will it win the olympics before the God of the milky way. If destroying marriage is the vision of the professional God haters, then it should be our vision to make it strong. If we take this on, expect to catch hell. If you want to go play with your religious relics like beards and head coverings, Satan will likely provide just enough opposition to help you believe you are fighting a relevant battle. You are not!