Wedding indicators galore

Usually if you look at pictures of the groom and bride, you can tell who wears the pants in the relationship/marriage. Who is leaning into who is a decent indicator, but also how happy the groom and bride are respectively can also be one.

Obviously, if the wedding turns into a BrideZilla fest, this is a pretty obvious indicator that it’s not about marriage but about attention to the bride.

One I’ve been thinking about recently is the naming convention. The bride taking the last name of the groom is not always the case that the groom wears the pants. However, hyphenating or keeping her own name is a pretty good sign that the Bride is a independent woman who don’t need no man type of wife though (unless it’s a culture where it’s normal for the bride to keep her own last name).

Something I’ve been paying more attention to recently is who comes first in the wedding invitations. Is it “Groom and Bride’s wedding” or “Bride’s and Groom’s wedding.” The latter from what I’ve seen tends to mean the Bride tends to wear the pants more, especially when you consider that traditionally the bride and groom in western wedding become Mr and Mrs Groom’s name.

I’m sure there are more indicators that I’m missing too. Have any readers noticed any others?

Advertisements
Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 5 Comments

Red pills and blue pills

Dalrock did an excellent job explaining why some Christians associate with the red pill and blue pill distinction that the manosphere uses.

For posterity, I think it is useful to understand Christianity in the context of what the “red pill” is because most Christians who encounter the Christian manosphere do not understand it correctly.

What is the “red pill”

From the Matrix:

 Morpheus: “This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.

  • You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
  • You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Remember: all I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more.”

The “red pill” itself is about seeing the Truth and how deep the rabbit hole goes in terms of worldly and even Church deception about the nature of male and female sexuality. For Christians, the God and the Bible are the Truth.

The problem is that most Christians see the secular blogs and reddits like TRP and MRP and mix up understanding observational truths about human sexuality and confuse it with prescription about what you are supposed to do.

It is a common theme throughout the secular manosphere to basically understand female sexuality and then use it to sleep with as many women as possible. Obviously, this is one particular response to understanding the truth and male and female sexuality, but it is not the only response. There are several different responses which the manosphere fractured into many different groups.

  • Secular manosphere – use the observational truth to try to cultivate strategies to sleep with women
  • MRAs (men’s rights activists) – use the truth to try to make laws even
  • MGTOW (men going their own way) – stop trying to play the game because they’re bitter against women
  • INCELs (involuntary celibates) – just give up because women don’t like them anyway or there’s no hope
  • Christian manosphere – follow the Bible because God’s Truth is paramount

The problem is that most people – Christian and non-Christian – see the secular manosphere, the MRAs, the MGTOWs, and INCELs and assume that is what the “red pill” is. This is simply ignorance, but ignorance is also dangerous.

Common objections

First, one common objection to the “red pill” by Christian men who assume that other Christian men don’t need it is some semblance of the following:

Really we should be teaching and encouraging others to walk in love and have faith that everything else falls into place.

This is one of the big issues. Other common lines of thought are: ‘being a nice young man with a job’ or ‘godliness is sexy’ or ‘just be you’ or ‘love God and everything will fall into place’ as possibly told to you by many Christian parents and the Church are not things that women find attractive.

Are women generally more attracted to men that are leaders, have muscles, have good style and grooming, and status? Sure. I’ve made the point before that Christian women are often more attracted to positions with status such as pastor and worship band leader than the Church janitor or door greeter or parking lot attender.

But is it then find to go escalate and spin plates to something just short of sex? No. Is it OK to think that women are like children and should be treated as such? No. Is it OK to go all hardline on your wife and not love her unconditionally and honor her? No. There’s a lot of ‘prescription’ stuff in the secular RP that is specifically anti-Christian and sin.

Second, another blurring factor that most Christians who get involved with RP do not understand that is a large chunk of the ‘tactics of game’ work specifically on a subset of women: promiscuous women.

Acting like a douche bag will attract some women sure (even some Christian women), but probably mainly the ones with daddy issues or ones that are looking for bad boys. Yes, Christian women can be attracted to bad boys, but the ones who are wise about it will avoid them for relationships and marriage. Those are the ones you want to date and marry (the ones who are wise about avoiding bad boys), so acting that way won’t help you get to that goal.

Third, still yet another issue that often comes up is the issue of anger and bitterness. This often leads to many generalizations about ‘how all women are…’ which is not always the case. General statements are okay with certain context, but anything stated out of anger or bitterness is probably not going to be accurate or godly. This is where you see many of the secular manosphere, MRAs, MGTOWs, and INCELs stuck with a lot of resentment and bitterness against women. This is not healthy.

Fourth, most things related to ‘alpha’ are misunderstood too. Alpha is honestly an annoying topic because it’s such a buzzword but it just means behaviors or traits that are attractive to women. As said before, muscles are generally more attractive to women which will increase your pool of prospective dating candidates. Most of the men who find RP will find it because they are unsuccessful with women. Telling them to lose weight (if they are overweight or obese) or gain muscle (if they are underweight) will increase their attractiveness to the opposite sex.

Can you make being more sexually attractive into an idol? Sure. Can you make getting more attention from women an idol? You betcha. Can you look like an idiot trying to increase your ‘alpha’? Yes. That doesn’t detract from the fact that lifting does increase your pool of viable dating candidates for the most part.

Summary

For Christian men who desire a wife, the Bible is the guideline. God says that man is the head of the marriage, so to fulfill this role and responsibility he should be striving toward being a strong masculine leader, protector and provider (and also may need to work on other attractive traits if he’s having trouble getting dates). These things tend to be attractive to women, so it’s no surprise that men who strive toward this will tend to be more attractive to women.

Beyond these points, the main problem that I see is a lot of Christians are saying that “RP is bad” (which in most cases, it’s true that the prescriptive stuff is bad) but then they don’t have any advice when young men (or even women) say they need advice or want help in finding/attracting a spouse. Talking about the hard truths that appearances do matter to the opposite sex is one of the things that is always going to be controversial but needed.

This is much like the homosexuality issue that is plaguing the evangelical Church. People can’t go over how sinful it is to be homosexual or ‘RP’ so they go and preach fire and brimstone on them not realizing that most of these people have been outcasts all their life. What they really need is compassion and the gospel because they are angry and hurting. When they convert, we should be helping mentor and disciple them according to God’s Truth not continue throwing stones at them.

Do we ultimately need “the red pill”

The simple truth is that ultimately Christians do not need to associate with anything like “the red pill,” with the manosphere proper, or anything other naming conventions. Just like there is no such thing as a ‘gay’ Christian or a ‘straight’ Christian, we are not defined by our feelings and desires but following Jesus. You may be a Christian who struggles with certain temptations, but you are not defined by your temptations.

The Bible is the Truth (the ‘real’ red pill) and observing the sin nature of men and women in the world is instructive for Christians on how to avoid temptation. Christian men and women for thousands of years have not needed anything but the Bible for all walks of life including marriage.

However, much of the problem why single Christian men go to the manosphere in the first place is that the Church, friends, and family lie to them about what is attractive and/or aren’t interested in helping, discipling, or mentoring them Biblically to be successful with women and marriage.

By avoiding or eschewing these hard topics in the Church, the Church pushes men toward the secular by not providing the Christian worldview. As long as this continues to happen, Christian men will continue to seek out ways to be successful with women, even secular ones.

To me, this is a travesty. I hope I am not the only one who thinks this.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 99 Comments

Headship in concept and practice

I’m not sure if I have had a post before on this, but I’ve talked about it before.

Headship in concept

As we’ve discussed before, the structure of authority in the Bible for husbands and wives is modeled off Christ and the Church (Eph 5). This is the headship-submission model for the husband and wives (Eph 5, Col 3, Tit 3, 1 Peter 3, 1 Cor 11).

Egalitarians are wrong from the conceptual level. The husband and wife are one in Christ, but in Christ there is also the distinction of the head (Christ) and body (Church). Each Christian is given roles and responsibilities according to their own spiritual gifts and mission of God for them (1 Cor 12). Likewise, within the context of marriage, the husband is the head and the wife is the body.

Headship in practice

In practice, the husband has the role and responsibility of headship. That is that he is entrusted by God to be the head of the marriage. Patriarchal marriage mirrors many other structures of authority.

husbandswives2GodandJesuschristandchurch govtandchristians

Authority brings order to marriage and various relationships, and proper use of authority and proper submission to it paints a beautiful picture of the cross.

The standard Biblical model is that husbands love and honor their wives and have them be a help to them where needed. She can keep an eye out for his blind spots, bring up things to him, and give input into any possible decision. A wise husband may also delegate some authority to his wife if she has gifts or talents in certain areas that she is better in than him. This is the model that my marriage follows and is the orthodox view.

Headship “egalitarianism”

On the other hand, a husband may choose to give half his kingdom to his wife. This is Biblical in that authority can be delegated (e.g. Jesus sends out the 70 with authority, God delegates ‘all authority in heaven and earth’ to Jesus after His resurrection). A husband may choose to delegate half of his authority to his wife.

I believe this to be extremely unwise, but a husband can still choose to do it. God will still hold the husband accountable for his headship, even if he chooses to be egalitarian in practice.

In other words, any wrongdoing that a wife does with her newfound authority will fall upon the husband because he chose to delegate his authority in this manner. Conceptual (and thus practical) egalitarian husbands, even though they are wrong, will also still be held accountable for how their wife uses her authority that he ignorantly but willingly delegated her.

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

John 13:12 So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them.

Jesus does not denigrate authority, give up authority, or cancel authority. Instead He calls us to use authority through leading by example to use it to love and serve others.

A husband who understands he has the role and responsibility of headship but chooses to run his marriage in an egalitarian manner by delegating half his authority to his wife is within his Biblical privilege*. If any Christian man wants to run his marriage a certain way he can, but he will also bear the consequences of that decision both earthly and at judgement day.

But I would council otherwise to all Christian men**.

*: A wife cannot choose to have an “egalitarian marriage.” The husband has headship and therefore the authority to determine what type of marriage he wants to run. If a wife wants an egalitarian marriage, she should find a husband that wants to delegate her half of his authority. I haven’t seen a marriage where a husband or wife want this type of marriage who have not have had significant cultural blinders of authority.

**: I have never seen a positive result of egalitarian marriage in practice. Not saying it doesn’t exist (as it could), but it seems to be exceedingly rare at the very least. Orthodox marriages have their own problems for sure, but I have seen many godly examples.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 1 Comment

The least masculine society…

I’m sure everyone has seen Babylon Bee’s Least Masculine Society In Human History Decides Masculinity Is A Growing Threat:

U.S.—As society becomes increasingly dominated by nerds, hipsters, and computer programmers, people have fixated on what they think is our biggest problem: masculinity.

“It’s just toxic and causes nothing but problems,” said Elisha Mcewen, a vegan activist and no threat whatsoever to spiders or tight jar lids. “I was sharing my feelings on masculinity with other men in my drum circle, and we all agreed that if we ever encountered masculinity, we would run far away.”

Masculinity is said to have in the past been the cause of such things as violence, war, bullying, defeating the Nazis, carving society out of untamed wilderness, and landing men on the moon, but now masculinity is being driven out of society to make sure nothing like those things ever happens again. However, there are reports that masculinity still lurks out there, which is a source of anxiety to modern men and causes them to have upset tummies.

“I am just so worried that somewhere out there someone is still knowingly producing testosterone,” said Wyatt Lockhart, a Twitch streamer who had never thrown a punch outside of a video game. “I constantly have to find a safe place to calm down just thinking about it.”

It’s funny but sadly true satire (in response to the APA). The real crazy part is that I’ve seen this on facebook on non-Christian friend’s walls. It’s growing and it’s getting more and more obvious even with people’s blinders.

Maybe the Misandry Bubble will pop in 2020 like Singularity predicted… or perhaps it will get worse for another several years before it does. Crazy good prediction by them.

edit- fixed link

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 3 Comments

Rank your Patriarchy level

One of the things I’ve been mulling over for a while now are ‘level’ of controversial statements about women in the New Testament in contrast to today’s culture. Dalrock’s what is the blue pill and Cane’s for the love of the game gave me a bit of more inspiration to create this post.

Here’s a few of the short list.

  • Wives submit to your husbands (Eph 5, Col 3, Tit 2, 1 Pet 3)
  • Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men in the Church (1 Tim 2)
  • Women are to stay silent in Churches and ask their husbands at home (1 Cor 14)
  • Women are to wear head coverings in prayer. And no, hair itself does not count as a head covering. (1 Cor 11)

I put this list together for fun to rank your level of Patriarchy, but there is some general truth to how seriously you take God’s Word.

Here are the rankings. I tried to add some colorful, true commentary to each of the levels.

  1. Patriarchy Level 0 – You agree with none of these and practice none of these. You probably call yourself an Biblical egalitarian but in reality you are a loud and proud feminist. You look for ways to conform the Bible to your cultural influenced opinion rather than God’s Truth. Your responses to Biblical arguments are “but muh equality” or “it says there’s mutual submission right there in Eph 5!” or “[insert long-winded made-up story about how Paul and Peter were saying things that are only culturally relevant]”
  2. Patriarchy Level 1 – You agree with one of these and practice one of these. You are a unknowing closet feminist and likely a conservative complementarian like most Evangelical Christians. You probably claim to practice “wives submit to your husbands,” but in practice she mostly wears the pants. You’re very easily dragged to and fro by your wife’s emotions, but still claim you’re loving her for trying to placate those emotions instead of admonish her when she’s going off track. You will probably be offended by reading this section passage if you are in this group.
  3. Patriarchy Level 2You agree with some of these and practice one of these. Your eyes are starting to be pried open from the deception of complementarism and chivalry to patriarchy. You already knew that liberals don’t care about God, but you can start to see that conservatives don’t either.  You’re comfortable calling out men on their sin but still hesitate calling out women on their sin though you occasionally understand when to do it. You may or may not wear the pants in your relationship or marriage, but you understand that you should and are trying to act as the head of your marriage.
  4. Patriarchy Level 3 You agree with all of these and practice some of these. You reject egalitarianism, complementarism, and chivalry. You consider complementarianism worse than egalitarianism because at least egalitarians admit they’re Biblically disobedient. You’ve probably studied these passages in depth both exegetically and hermeneutically, but you’re still cowardly about taking a stand in front of your family, friends, and the Church. You wear the pants in your relationship or marriage and are fairly comfortable calling both men and women out on their sin.
  5. Patriarchy Level 4You agree with all of these and practice all of these. You are a true Biblical Patriarch. Feminists gnash their teeth at you. Sometimes “Christians” will talk to your family to try to convince them not to do some of these things. You might get weird looks or get called a cult leader by people under their breath. You wear the pants in your relationship or marriage and in most cases your family loves you and will defend you vehemently.

I will painfully admit that I am still level 3 instead of level 4. The process of sanctification is continual and still occurring in me.

Questions to my readers:

  • What stage are you in? Single or married is fine. Also, wives can comment too about the status of their husband’s stance in their marriages.
  • What additional commentary can be added to each of these levels?
Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 104 Comments

Personality traits, attitudes and divorce

Haven’t posted more vetting stuff in a while, but here are some additional things you can look for. Psyblog covers some of combination of Big 5 traits associated with increased risk of cheaters. I recently had a post on the Big 5 traits and attachment theory, so this fits in fairly well.

The conclusions come from a survey of 208 people, who were asked about their relationships and whether they had cheated.

Up to 50% of people admit cheating on their partner, the authors write:

“Early studies reported that by the age of 40, 50% of all married men and more than 25% of all married women have engaged in extramarital sexual behavior.

Three decades later, an estimated 50% of men continued to engage in sexual and/or emotional extramarital relations while 40% of women engaged in similar relationships.”

The results of the study revealed that cheaters tend to be low in conscientiousness, extraverted and open to experience.

An N of 200 is rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but it’s interesting to see that 50% of men and 40% of women are cheaters (emotional or physical).

Low in conscientiousness “is associated with flexibility and spontaneity, but can also appear as sloppiness and lack of reliability” and extraversion + open to experience means that they’re more likely to seek out ‘novel’ or ‘thrill seeking’ behavior. Cheating is obviously one of those types of things. Would not be surprised to see that this falls into similar patterns with alcohol, drug, and other novel substance tendencies.

To go along with this, there is another Psyblog on infidelity that corresponds to women specifically:

Narcissism is one of the strongest predictors that someone will cheat in their relationship, research finds.

Narcissists are likely to be vain, egocentric and over-confident — they like to show off their bodies, talk about themselves and put other people down.

Two other personality factors that predict people’s infidelity are unstable emotions and psychopathy.

People who are unstable are unreliable, careless, badly organised and find it hard to resist temptation.

Psychopaths, meanwhile, are irresponsible, spontaneous and manipulative.

Per the authors of the study:

“One of the strongest predictors is Narcissism.

Women high on Narcissism predict that they will flirt with, kiss, and date other men, as well as have one night stands, brief affairs, and serious affairs with other men.

…two equally strong predictors of mild and serious infidelity are low Conscientiousness and high Psychoticism.

These variables are correlated, and share the common component of impulsivity and inability to delay gratification.

And like Narcissism, Conscientiousness and Psychoticism are stronger predictors of women’s anticipated infidelities than men’s anticipated infidelities.

These findings suggest that a personality style marked by impulsivity, low dependability, and low reliability in general carries over…”

To go along with this is also Gottman’s research on the 4 horseman of the (divorce) apocalypse.

  • CriticismThe first horseman is criticism. Criticizing your partner is different than offering a critique or voicing a complaint. The latter two are about specific issues, whereas the former is an ad hominem attack. It is an attack on your partner at the core of their character. In effect, you are dismantling their whole being when you criticize.
  • Contempt —  The second horseman is contempt. When we communicate in this state, we are truly mean—we treat others with disrespect, mock them with sarcasm, ridicule, call them names, and mimic or use body language such as eye-rolling or scoffing. The target of contempt is made to feel despised and worthless.
  • DefensivenessThe third horseman is defensiveness, and it is typically a response to criticism. We’ve all been defensive, and this horseman is nearly omnipresent when relationships are on the rocks. When we feel unjustly accused, we fish for excuses and play the innocent victim so that our partner will back off.
  • StonewallingThe fourth horseman is stonewalling, which is usually a response to contempt. Stonewalling occurs when the listener withdraws from the interaction, shuts down, and simply stops responding to their partner. Rather than confronting the issues with their partner, people who stonewall can make evasive maneuvers such as tuning out, turning away, acting busy, or engaging in obsessive or distracting behaviors.

Some of the Biblical antidotes to these are:

  • Kindness: speak the Truth in Love.
  • Respect from the wife, and honor from the husband
  • Humility
  • Valuing the relationship/marriage over personal feelings

These are some more traits and character qualities you should avoid when vetting a spouse.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 7 Comments

Civil marriage and private marriage

Since this is coming up a bunch more in the fear of marriage as the self fulfilling prophecy, let’s discuss it some more.

Cane wrote about this a while ago, which I agree with.

Christians should file civil marriage certificates for many reasons. For one thing it is the law and we are bound as Christians to be obedient to civil authorities unless it is against the commandments of God. There is nothing against marriage licenses in the Bible.

Second, it is the God-appointed duty of the civil government to punish evil and approve good, and when done lawfully marriage is a good; about as good as anything on Earth gets. When a marriage is unlawful–such as in a case of bigamy or incest–then the practitioners are duly punished. The churches don’t do that. We may want churches to do that and we may even think they should, but they don’t. They cannot verify to us that Susan and Bob aren’t close relations. They don’t know whether Bob is already married. They cannot even verify that Susan is who she says she is. Nor do they want to.

Some will be tempted to bring up in the comments some failures of civil government such as so-called “homosexual marriage”, or the institution of no-fault divorce. Those are failures, to be sure. The trouble for would-be defenders of the churches is that these points of failure are not points of success for churches. They don’t claim authority over these abominations either. A pastor or priest might mouth something against these sins, but they let them in the doors all the same; even though we are instructed.

The problem with those who ‘fear the government on marriage’ is that they’re basically falling into the same exact pattern of thought they hate with feminists about authority and Patriarchy. Just because ‘some’ men abused authority or Patriarchy means that authority is bad (when men have it) or Patriarchy is bad. Therefore, we should avoid these things completely.

This also means that if you want to ‘protect’ yourself in marriage you have the ability to do that too under the law. Prenups at least 3+ months before marriage, disclosing everything, a lawyer for you and her, video taped, and enough time to show that there is no duress will almost inevitably hold up in court. Usually pre-nups only get thrown out if it’s too close to the marriage or you both didn’t have lawyers or things like that. There are also other alternatives such as putting money into trusts earmarked specifically for certain things like any future kids.

I fail to see the point of going legalistic: we’re married but not actually ‘married’ by the state.

  1. As mentioned before, fear of marriage as the self fulfilling prophecy.
  2. As mentioned before, falling into the same thought patterns as feminists
  3. We are to be obedient to earthly authorities
  4. Concern of earthly over the spiritual: material possessions over oneness. This is like the Church of Laodicea trying to have one foot in the world vs the other in the Church.
  5. It will generally destroy some amount of trust and goodwill, which you obviously do not want to do.
  6. You’re basing your fearful conclusions about women specifically on the thoughts and actions of promiscuous women. This one of the huge issues with the ‘secular red pill’ that can lead many Christians astray as it makes you jaded and bitter when it’s only a specific population of women that does this.
  7. There are legal benefits of marriage and especially name change that make things much easier in terms of taxes, healthcare, insurance, and things like these.

All in all, I don’t really see any benefits of private marriage, and I think that it’s unnecessary fear mongering (See: 1 John 4).

One of the new stats that I’ve seen is that men and women who are focused on evangelism and disciple making in the Church have divorces rates <2%. Those who are actually focused on Jesus’ mission for us aren’t going to be divorcing at any appreciable rates. The reason why the divorce rates in the Church are as high as they are is because the majority of those in Churches are family Christians, cultural Christians, Sunday-only Christians or social Christians. I keep saying this but there’s probably only about 5-10% of people in most Churches who have Jesus at the center of their lives. If you marry a family, cultural, Sunday-only, or social Christian then yeah they’re probably going to possibly opt to blow up marriages if they’re unhappy like the world does. Other corroborating anecdotes [one] and [two] about the 5-15%ish range.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 17 Comments

Tim Tebow blinded by infatuation redux

So I had previously written on Tim Tebow  with the post title being “blinded by infatuation” commending him for staying a virgin against sexual temptation. He recently got engaged to a former miss universe.

Hopefully he has a godly marriage because he does seem like a legitimate Christian, but there are definitely some possible yellow to red flags here.

  • Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters – I’m not one to usually rag on hyphenated names of a child who has one, but it’s usually a yellow flag because the family is more inclined toward feminism than not.
  • Her Miss Universe platform is feminist in nature and about things that have already been debunked:

After winning her title, Nel-Peters made it her mission to focus on gender and pay equality, stressing the importance of confidence for women. She also expressed that she wants to use her self-defense workshops to help women protect themselves.

During the round of questioning, she was asked what she thought was the most important issue facing women in the workplace: “In some places, women get paid 75 percent of what men earn for doing the same job, working the same hours, and I do not believe that this is right. I think we should have equal work for equal pay for women all over the world.”

The campaign, which aims at empowering women around the world with skills and knowledge on how to prevent or handle abusive and violent situations, was started in 2017.

“Becoming Miss Universe made me realize that women worldwide face the same challenges daily, such as various forms of violence and crime, physical and emotional abuse, and toxic relationships, among others,” Nel-Peters said after the launch.

“My hope is that Unbreakable will inspire women to believe in themselves, to value themselves and to know that asking for help does not mean you are weak,” she said.

I don’t know them so they could both be legit Christians, but there are some possible warning signs that hopefully Tebow has taken into account. I hope for his sake he has not been blinded by infatuation.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 26 Comments

Attachment theory and Big Five Personality traits

From what I can see, attachment theory seeks to describe behaviors in infants and children that we generally carry on to later in life.

  • Secure attachment occurs when children feel they can rely on their caregivers to attend to their needs of proximity, emotional support and protection. It is considered to be the best attachment style.
  • Anxious-ambivalent attachment occurs when the infant feels separation anxiety when separated from the caregiver and does not feel reassured when the caregiver returns to the infant.
  • Anxious-avoidant attachment occurs when the infant avoids their parents.
  • Disorganized attachment occurs when there is a lack of attachment behavior.

The Big Five personality traits has some similar concepts that describe behavior from a traits perspective. I use the Big Five over something like Myers Briggs typology as it is one of the more scientifically validated tests.

  • Openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious). Appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of experience. Openness reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a preference for novelty and variety a person has. It is also described as the extent to which a person is imaginative or independent and depicts a personal preference for a variety of activities over a strict routine. High openness can be perceived as unpredictability or lack of focus, and more likely to engage in risky behaviour or drug taking.[5] Also, individuals that have high openness tend to lean, in occupation and hobby, towards the arts, being, typically, creative and appreciative of the significance of intellectual and artistic pursuits.[6]:191 Moreover, individuals with high openness are said to pursue self-actualization specifically by seeking out intense, euphoric experiences. Conversely, those with low openness seek to gain fulfillment through perseverance and are characterized as pragmatic and data-driven—sometimes even perceived to be dogmatic and closed-minded. Some disagreement remains about how to interpret and contextualize the openness factor.[clarification needed]
  • Conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless). Tendency to be organized and dependable, show self-discipline, act dutifully, aim for achievement, and prefer planned rather than spontaneous behavior. High conscientiousness is often perceived as being stubborn and focused. Low conscientiousness is associated with flexibility and spontaneity, but can also appear as sloppiness and lack of reliability.[7]
  • Extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved). Energetic, surgency, assertiveness, sociability and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others, and talkativeness. High extraversion is often perceived as attention-seeking and domineering. Low extraversion causes a reserved, reflective personality, which can be perceived as aloof or self-absorbed.[7] Extroverted people may appear more dominant in social settings, as opposed to introverted people in this setting.[6]
  • Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. challenging/detached). Tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. It is also a measure of one’s trusting and helpful nature, and whether a person is generally well-tempered or not. High agreeableness is often seen as naive or submissive. Low agreeableness personalities are often competitive or challenging people, which can be seen as argumentative or untrustworthy.[7]
  • Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident). Tendency to be prone to psychological stress.[6] The tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, and vulnerability. Neuroticism also refers to the degree of emotional stability and impulse control and is sometimes referred to by its low pole, “emotional stability”. High stability manifests itself as a stable and calm personality, but can be seen as uninspiring and unconcerned. Low stability manifests as the reactive and excitable personality often found in dynamic individuals, but can be perceived as unstable or insecure.[7] Also, individuals with higher levels of neuroticism tend to have worse psychological well being.[8]

In general, I think the “attachment theory” traits are just combinations of the Big Five personality traits.  For instance,

  • Secure attachment – higher on openness, higher on extraversion, high on agreeable, low on neuroticism
  • Anxious-ambivalent – low on openness, low on extraversion, moderate on agreeable, high on neuroticism
  • Avoidant – Probably low on openness, low on extraversion, very low on agreeableness (so very disagreeable), and high on neuroticism (high psychological stress through very easily negative emotionally affected).
  • Disorganized – combinations of them that don’t mix well.

Recognizing these things things as a combination of traits that can be worked on and counseled is important.

Also from the above link:

A study of gender differences in 55 nations using the Big Five Inventory found that women tended to be somewhat higher than men in neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The difference in neuroticism was the most prominent and consistent, with significant differences found in 49 of the 55 nations surveyed. Gender differences in personality traits are largest in prosperous, healthy, and more gender-egalitarian cultures. A plausible explanation for this is that acts by women in individualistic, egalitarian countries are more likely to be attributed to their personality, rather than being attributed to ascribed gender roles within collectivist, traditional countries

This makes some sense, and generally higher scores on neuroticism have issues with trust and bonding and more easily respond to psychological negative emotions. This is why women tend to have higher diagnosed bipolar and other psychological disorders. This is also why it can be more useful to be kind(er) to women than men in regard to Christian instruction, especially correction, admonishment, and rebuke.

All in all, I think knowledge of such trends is used to recognize in those important to you like family, friends and others, so that you can use it to influence them well as a Christian and help raise them up in spiritual maturity.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 8 Comments

God loves inheritance and the West hates it

All throughout the Scriptures we see that God defines inheritance as something extremely important.

  • Firstborn sons were given a double inheritance as they would succeed the family lineage
  • Levirate marriage was required to produce an heir for their deceased brother
  • Inherited land that was sold off by a family could be redeemed
  • There is, of course, the obvious example of the inheritance of the land of Canaan due to the promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as well.

We see similar things in the NT, as God through Christ adopts us as His own children and provides us an inheritance:

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things [m]in the heavens and things on the earth.

In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

The West hates inheritance as it does many of the things of God such as authority, one man and one woman marriage, and other Biblical things.

Coming from a family background that is more “priveleged” will get you the scorn of others, despite the fact that generally the families that provide the priveleged background worked hard for their success and ability to transmit such an inheritance to their children.

Of course, the fact that we have inheritance does not mean we are to treat it lightly or scorn it like Esau. We should use any of it rightly and humbly as we can, but we should not despise it like many in our culture tell us to.

Our inheritance from being children of God makes us the most priveleged in the world, and that should motivate us to share it with others just as He has shared it with us.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 9 Comments