Complementary Relationship Quotes

We’re all seeking that special person who is right for us. But if you’ve been through enough relationships, you begin to suspect there’s no right person, just different flavors of wrong. Why is this? Because you yourself are wrong in some way, and you seek out partners who are wrong in some complementary way. But it takes a lot of living to grow fully into your own wrongness. And it isn’t until you finally run up against your deepest demons, your unsolvable problems—the ones that make you truly who you are—that we’re ready to find a lifelong mate. Only then do you finally know what you’re looking for. You’re looking for the wrong person. But not just any wrong person: it's got to be the right wrong person—someone you lovingly gaze upon and think, “This is the problem I want to have.” I will find that special person who is wrong for me in just the right way.

Women rescue men just as much as, if not more than, men rescue women.

We're broken in complementary ways, thus rendering our damage comprehensible to each other.

How can we find spiritual meaning in a scientific worldview? Spirituality is a way of being in the world, a sense of one’s place in the cosmos, a relationship to that which extends beyond oneself. . . . Does scientific explanation of the world diminish its spiritual beauty? I think not. Science and spirituality are complementary, not conflicting; additive, not detractive. Anything that generates a sense of awe may be a source of spirituality. Science does this in spades. (158-159)

Mack, don't you see how filling roles is the opposite of relationship? We want male and female to be counterparts, face-to-face equals, each unique and different, distinctive in gender but complementary, and each empowered uniquely by Sarayu from whom all true power and authority originates.

Relationships are an art form created by two or more individuals who have similar or complementary visions, passions, and ambitions.

No marriage is fair. It’s complementary. The idea of ‘fair’ is absurd at best, ableist at worst.” We both swivel our heads and look at her. “Ableist?” Freya asks. “Ableist,” Dr. Dietrich says. “Because saying a relationship has to be ‘fair’ implies only a certain balance and distribution of skills and aptitudes is valid. It upholds an arbitrary, damaging idea of ‘normal’ or ‘standard’ as requisite for fulfilling partnership. When in reality, all you need is two people who love what the other brings and share the work of love and life together.

SOULMATES MAY BE OPPOSITES, BUT THEY HAVE SIMILAR LEVELS OF: SPIRITUALITY, CORE VALUES, MATURITY AND COMPLEMENTARY NEEDS

Since the family is the irreducible core unit of cities or any other political order, one may say the same thing of marriage: it was established to render justice, to give each his due—in this case, what is due between husband and wife in the inimitably unique relationship that they form. Owing to the exceptional complementarity and procreative potential of a husband and a wife, the legal form for their relationship is likewise distinctive, and not replicable for other relationships that are neither complementary nor potentially reproductive.

It's odd how relationships work like that: Love is not an accident. It is a delicate union of two complex, complementary puzzle pieces that have inadvertently been created by different manufacturers.

Nature’s ultimate goal is to foster the growth of the individual from absolute dependence to independence — or, more exactly, to the interdependence of mature adults living in community. Development is a process of moving from complete external regulation to self-regulation, as far as our genetic programming allows. Well-self-regulated people are the most capable of interacting fruitfully with others in a community and of nurturing children who will also grow into self-regulated adults. Anything that interferes with that natural agenda threatens the organism’s chances for long-term survival. Almost from the beginning of life we see a tension between the complementary needs for security and for autonomy. Development requires a gradual and ageappropriate shift from security needs toward the drive for autonomy, from attachment to individuation. Neither is ever completely lost, and neither is meant to predominate at the expense of the other. With an increased capacity for self-regulation in adulthood comes also a heightened need for autonomy — for the freedom to make genuine choices. Whatever undermines autonomy will be experienced as a source of stress. Stress is magnified whenever the power to respond effectively to the social or physical environment is lacking or when the tested animal or human being feels helpless, without meaningful choices — in other words, when autonomy is undermined. Autonomy, however, needs to be exercised in a way that does not disrupt the social relationships on which survival also depends, whether with emotional intimates or with important others—employers, fellow workers, social authority figures. The less the emotional capacity for self-regulation develops during infancy and childhood, the more the adult depends on relationships to maintain homeostasis. The greater the dependence, the greater the threat when those relationships are lost or become insecure. Thus, the vulnerability to subjective and physiological stress will be proportionate to the degree of emotional dependence. To minimize the stress from threatened relationships, a person may give up some part of his autonomy. However, this is not a formula for health, since the loss of autonomy is itself a cause of stress. The surrender of autonomy raises the stress level, even if on the surface it appears to be necessary for the sake of “security” in a relationship, and even if we subjectively feel relief when we gain “security” in this manner. If I chronically repress my emotional needs in order to make myself “acceptable” to other people, I increase my risks of having to pay the price in the form of illness. The other way of protecting oneself from the stress of threatened relationships is emotional shutdown. To feel safe, the vulnerable person withdraws from others and closes against intimacy. This coping style may avoid anxiety and block the subjective experience of stress but not the physiology of it. Emotional intimacy is a psychological and biological necessity. Those who build walls against intimacy are not self-regulated, just emotionally frozen. Their stress from having unmet needs will be high.

1. Experience: People who have been down the road of life and understand it. 2. Heart for God: People who place God first and uphold His values. 3. Objectivity: People who see the pros and cons of the issues. 4. Love for people: People who love others and value them more than things. 5. Complementary gifts: People who bring diverse gifts to the relationship. 6. Loyalty to the leader: People who truly love and are concerned for the leader. The Maxwell Leadership Bible

Generally speaking, people are drawn toward intimate relationships either because they are opposites who will compensate each other, or because they are complementary, which means that not only their conscious likes and dislikes line up, but their complexes as well.

An author’s operating charter is to unearth embedded symbols that reflect complementary and inconsistent relationships of our collective assemblage, combine harmonizing and contradictory conceptions that motivate us, and delve larger truths out of variable and erratic elements of human nature.

Soul Mates share complementary, compatible life goals and their spiritual natures are often in sync with ours. They also experience an immense level of comfort with each other that cannot be experienced in other relationships, and they complement each other in many ways through their strengths and weaknesses.

At times I think of the subject matter of the book to be written as of something that already exists: thoughts already thought, dialogue already spoken, stories already happened, places and settings seen; the book should be simply the equivalent of the unwritten world translated into writing. At other times, on the contrary, I seem to understand that between the book to be written and things that already exist there can be only a kind of complementary relationship: the book should be the written counterpart of the unwritten world; its subject should be what does not exist and cannot exist except when written, but whose absence is obscurely felt by that which exists, in its own incompleteness.

Power in the hands of independent humans, be they men or women, does corrupt. Mack, don’t you see how filling roles is the opposite of relationship? We want male and female to be counterparts, face-to-face equals, each unique and different, distinctive in gender but complementary, and each empowered uniquely by Sarayu, from whom all true power and authority originate. Remember, I am not about performance and fitting into man-made structures; I am about being. As you grow in relationship with me, what you do will simply reflect who you really are.” “But you came in the form of a man. Doesn’t that say something?” “Yes, but not what many have assumed. I came as a man to complete a wonderful picture in how we made you. From the first day we hid the woman within the man, so that at the right time we could remove her from within him. We didn’t create man to live alone; she was purposed from the beginning. By taking her out of him, he birthed her in a sense. We created a circle of relationship, like our own, but for humans. She, out of him, and now all the males, including me, birthed through her, and all originating, or birthed, from God.

Masculinity and femininity attract one another, and their attributes are complementary; however this entails more than simply a male being attracted to a female: What actually complements the immature man who runs around, or cheats, or neglects his duties, is the masculine woman because he needs her to lead and to take charge, to take care of him. Immaturity is a state of need, and one of those needs is the need to be kept in check.

The Three Sisters offer us a new metaphor for an emerging relationship between indigenous knowledge and Western science, both of which are rooted in the earth. I think of the corn as traditional ecological knowledge, the physical and spiritual framework that can guide the curious bean of science, which twines like a double helix. The squash creates the ethical habitat for coexistence and mutual flourishing. I envision a time when the intellectual monoculture of science will be replaced with a polyculture of complementary knowledges. And so all may be fed.

If a fountain could jet bouquets of chrome yellow in dazzling arches of chrysanthemum fireworks, that would be Canada Goldenrod. Each three-foot stem is a geyser of tiny gold daisies, ladylike in miniature, exuberant en masse. Where the soil is damp enough, they stand side by side with their perfect counterpart, New England Asters. Not the pale domesticates of the perennial border, the weak sauce of lavender or sky blue, but full-on royal purple that would make a violet shrink. The daisylike fringe of purple petals surrounds a disc as bright as the sun at high noon, a golden-orange pool, just a tantalizing shade darker than the surrounding goldenrod. Alone, each is a botanical superlative. Together, the visual effect is stunning. Purple and gold, the heraldic colors of the king and queen of the meadow, a regal procession in complementary colors. I just wanted to know why. In composing a palette, putting them together makes each more vivid; just a touch of one will bring out the other. In an 1890 treatise on color perception, Goethe, who was both a scientist and a poet, wrote that “the colors diametrically opposed to each other . . . are those which reciprocally evoke each other in the eye.” Purple and yellow are a reciprocal pair. Growing together, both receive more pollinator visits than they would if they were growing alone. It’s a testable hypothesis; it’s a question of science, a question of art, and a question of beauty. Why are they beautiful together? It is a phenomenon simultaneously material and spiritual, for which we need all wavelengths, for which we need depth perception. When I stare too long at the world with science eyes, I see an afterimage of traditional knowledge. Might science and traditional knowledge be purple and yellow to one another, might they be goldenrod and asters? We see the world more fully when we use both. The question of goldenrod and asters was of course just emblematic of what I really wanted to know. It was an architecture of relationships, of connections that I yearned to understand. I wanted to see the shimmering threads that hold it all together. And I wanted to know why we love the world, why the most ordinary scrap of meadow can rock us back on our heels in awe.

Avoidants and the Anxious-Preoccupied are in a sense complementary: the Preoccupied values relationships too highly and thinks about them too much, while the Avoidant (especially the Dismissive) devalues relationships and tends not to be too concerned about them. If the Preoccupied were a bit more secure they’d be able to dial back the attention to their relationships to a healthier level that would make them happier and more successful, while if the Dismissive could only surface those attachment feelings lurking in his subconscious and value his relationships more consciously, he would also be happier and more successful.

The crucial difference was that Roman Catholicism developed a philosophical and artistic humanism typified, and to a great degree engendered, by Thomas Aquinas (1226–1274). Aquinas made the case, eventually adopted by the Church, that human intelligence is a gift from God, and that to apply human intelligence to understanding the world is not an affront to God but is pleasing to him. Aquinas taught that human autonomy is also a gift from God, and that the only way in which humans can realize the relationship with God that God intends is by exercising that autonomy. Aquinas taught that faith and reason are not in opposition, but complementary.

Bohr’s idea of complementarity is especially interesting to Jungian psychologists, for Jung saw that the relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind also forms a complementary pair of opposites. Each new content that comes up from the unconscious is altered in its basic nature by being partly integrated into the conscious mind of the observer. Even dream contents (if noticed at all) are in that way semi-conscious. And each enlargement of the observer’s consciousness caused by dream interpretation has again an immeasurable repercussion and influence on the unconscious. Thus the unconscious can only be approximately described (like the particles of microphysics) by paradoxical concepts. What it really is “in itself” we shall never know, just as we shall never know this about matter.

Next, we discussed the relationship between the tabula rasa (blank slate) and preconfigured brain models. In the empiricist outside-in model, the brain starts out as blank paper onto which new information is cumulatively written. Modification of brain circuits scales with the amount of newly learned knowledge by juxtaposition and superposition. A contrasting view is that the brain is a dictionary with preexisting internal dynamics and syntactical rules but filled with initially nonsense neuronal words. A large reservoir of unique neuronal patterns has the potential to acquire significance for the animal through exploratory action and represents a distinct event or situation. In this alternative model, the diversity of brain components, such as firing rates, synaptic connection strengths, and the magnitude of collective behavior of neurons, leads to wide distributions. The two tails of this distribution offer complementary advantages: the “good-enough” brain can generalize and act fast; the “precision” brain is slow but careful and offers needed details in many situations.

The document that was associated with the divine name Yahweh/Jehovah was called J. The document that was identified as referring to the deity as God (in Hebrew, Elohim) was called E. The third document, by far the largest, included most of the legal sections and concentrated a great deal on matters having to do with priests, and so it was called P. And the source that was found only in the book of Deuteronomy was called D. The question was how to uncover the history of these four documents—not only who wrote them, but why four different versions of the story were written, what their relationship to each other was, whether any of the authors were aware of the existence of the others’ texts, when in history each was produced, how they were preserved and combined, and a host of other questions. The first step was to try to determine the relative order in which they were written. The idea was to try to see if each version reflected a particular stage in the development of religion in biblical Israel. This approach reflected the influence in nineteenth-century Germany of Hegelian notions of historical development of civilization. Two nineteenth-century figures stand out. They approached the problem in very different ways, but they arrived at complementary findings. One of them,

For propaganda to succeed, a society must first have two complementary qualities: It must be both an individualist and a mass society. These two qualities are often considered contradictory. It is believed that an individualist society, in which the individual is thought to have a higher value than the group tends to destroy groups that limit the individual's range of action, whereas a mass society negates the individual and reduces him to a cipher. But this contradiction is purely theoretical and an illusion. In actual fact, an individualist society must be a mass society, because the first move toward liberation of the individual is to break up the small groups that are an organic fact of the entire society. In this process the individual frees himself completely from family, village, parish or brotherhood bonds - only to find himself directly vis-a-vis the entire society. When individuals are not held together by local structures, the only form in which they can live together is in an unstructured mass society, Similarly, a mass society can only be based on individuals — that is on men in their isolation, whose identities are determined by their relationships with one another. Precisely because the individual claims to be equal to all other individuals he becomes an abstraction and is in effect reduced to a cipher.

Summing Up • Central to the debates about the applicability of Romans 1: 24-27 to contemporary committed gay and lesbian relationships is Paul’s claim that the sexual misbehavior he describes in these verses is “unnatural,” or “contrary to nature.” We must understand the moral logic underlying this claim in order to discern how to apply these verses to contemporary life. • The Greek word that Paul uses for “nature” here (phusis) does not occur in the Septuagint, the early translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. Rather, it arises in Jewish discourse after 200 BCE, when Jewish writers make use of it as a Stoic category in order to interpret Jewish ethics to Gentiles. • In the ancient world there were three dimensions to the understanding of nature, and we find each of these reflected in Paul’s use of the word: ° Nature was understood as one’s individual nature or disposition. Paul’s language in Romans 1 thus reflects the ancient notion that same-sex eroticism was driven by an insatiable thirst for the exotic by those who were not content with “natural” desires for the same sex. The ancient world had no notion of sexual orientation. ° Nature was also understood as what contributed to the good order of society as a whole. In this sense, it looks very much like social convention, and many ancient understandings of what is natural, particularly those concerning gender roles, seem quaint at best to us today. ° Nature was also understood in the ancient world in relationship to biological processes, particularly procreation. Paul’s references to sexual misbehavior in Romans 1: 24-27 as “unnatural” spring in part from their nonprocreative character. Yet there is no evidence that people in the ancient world linked natural gender roles more specifically to the complementary sexual organs of male and female, apart from a general concern with the “naturalness” of procreation. • While we as modern persons should still seek a convergence of the personal, social, and physical worlds, just as the ancients did under the category of nature, we must recognize, even apart from the question of same-sex relationships, that this convergence will look different to us than it looked in the ancient world. • The biblical vision of a new creation invites us to imagine what living into a deeper vision of “nature” as the convergence of individual disposition, social order, and the physical world might look like, under the guidance and power of the Spirit of God. This might also entail the cultivation of a vision for how consecrated and committed gay and lesbian relationships might fit into such a new order.

Though we often speak of fiction and nonfiction as opposites, they are actually complementary storytelling techniques that make the most sense in relationship to one another.

Idealism is materialism upside down. It proposes that all that exists is pure consciousness. Everything in the physical world, all matter and energy, are emergent properties of consciousness. In its more radical form, it asserts that the entire physical world is a mind-generated illusion, somewhat like the virtual world in the movie The Matrix. Idealism runs into a miracle if it proposes that out of ephemeral nonphysical consciousness there emerges a hard, physical world. How does that happen? Once emerged, is it still connected to mind or does it go on its merry way? On the other hand, if it proposes that everything is an imaginary projection of consciousness, then the miracle is that everyone other than me is also a part of my imagination. Does that mean I still have to pay taxes? Panpsychism is the fourth main worldview. It acknowledges that mind and matter are quite real, but it also proposes that these elements of reality are inseparable and go all the way down to elementary particles and “below,” and also all the way up to the universe and beyond. The idea of a complementary relationship, where something is “both/and” rather than “either/or,” is a core concept within quantum theory. Light, for example, behaves both as a wave and as a particle, depending on how you look at it. The advantage of panpsychism is that no miracles are required to account for how matter can be sentient, or how mind can have physical consequences. It is both/and. But all is not completely rosy. The trouble with panpsychism is called the binding problem. This means that if all matter is already sentient, then every atom of your body, your cells, and your organs should also be sentient. Why then is your sense of self a unity and not a multitude? What binds it all together so that the “I” within you experiences just one self rather than trillions of tiny selves? Dealing with the New Story One of the more interesting takes on the developing new story of reality has been proposed by Rice University’s Jeffrey Kripal, who, as a scholar of comparative religion, has explored the core themes of his discipline—the sacred, the paranormal, the supernormal, the mystical, and the spiritual—in a direction that few academics have dared to tred.80 He views the intense popular interest in the paranormal as more than a mere fascination with fictional miracles, but rather as a sign of the original meaning of fascination—a bewitching accompanied simultaneously by awe and terror. He defines “psychic phenomena” as “the sacred in transit from a traditional religious register into a modern scientific one,” and the sacred as what the German theologian and historian of religions Rudolf Otto meant, that is, a particular structure of human consciousness that corresponds to a palpable presence, energy, or power encountered in the environment.

Smith argues that within the pagan “matrix of assumptions, the Christian view of sexuality was not only radically alien, it was close to incomprehensible.” About this he is certainly right historically. But consider that the Christian view of sexuality is today, within the “matrix of assumptions” of secular progressivism, perfectly aptly described as “not only radically alien, but close to incomprehensible.” Consider again the debate over marriage, as just one of many possible examples. The biblical and natural law conception of marriage as the one-flesh union of sexually complementary spouses is not only “alien” to secular progressives, who understand “marriage” as a form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership, but nearly incomprehensible—except as a form of bigotry against people who are attracted to and wish to marry (as progressives understand the term) people of their same sex. Or consider the view that nonmarital sexual conduct and relationships, including homosexual ones, are inherently immoral. That, too, is regarded by a great many secular progressives as not only unsound, but unreasonable, outrageous, scandalous, even hateful. They can account for it, if at all, only as religious irrationalism, bigotry, or, as many today now claim, a psychopathology.

At times I think of the subject matter of the book to be written as of something that already exists: thoughts already thought, dialogue already spoken, stories already happened, places and settings seen; the book should be simply the equivalent of the unwritten world translated into writing. At other times, on the contrary, I seem to understand that between the book to be written and things that already exist there can be only a kind of complementary relationship: the book should be the written counterpart of the unwritten world; its subject should be what does not exist and cannot exist except when written, but whose absence is obscurely felt by that which exists, in its own incompleteness. I see that one way or another I keep circling around the idea of an interdependence between the unwritten world and the book I should write. This is why, writing presents itself to me as an operation of such weight that I remain crushed by it.

Joint ventures thrive not just on paper agreements but on shared visions and complementary strengths.

Two are never Two but the One and its void which is filled in by an inconsistent multiplicity. “Two” (in the sense of a complementary couple of opposites) is a dream of sexual relationship.

A fast way to get a clear understanding of yourself and others is through personality a profile assessment. Many companies and hiring managers administer these tests to ensure that personalities are well matched to positions. They also help build dream teams to optimize the combinations of strengths and complementary qualities among their people.

By highlighting what she learned from Jimmy on these cross-country trips, Grace was affirming the political wisdom that he derived from his background and experiences that differed from hers—namely, his rural upbringing, experiences riding freight trains, and many years as an autoworker. She was also asserting the significance of their divergent backgrounds for their relationship. 63 Decades later, after they had made many more such trips over many years, she reinforced this point with a telling description of their trips: “Traveling along the highway, I would have my head in a book, while he was pointing out the cows and sheep, counting the freight cars and trying to figure out what they were carrying based on his knowledge of industry and agriculture in the region.” And this, she said, reflected not just their divergent personal styles but also their differing political styles: “My approach to political questions came more from books, his from experience.” 64 This duality of books and experience may have been exaggerated—theoretical concepts informed Jimmy’s political practice more than the statement would suggest—but it captures the complementary and cumulative nature of their collaboration. Combining their respective approaches to the politics that they engaged together, Grace and Jimmy could learn from each other, influence each other’s thinking, and grow together. This mutual growth came to be a crucial dynamic of their intellectual and political partnership, and this is what Grace was coming to see, and reporting to C. L. R. in their 1957 correspondence, as she weighed the decision to join him in London for several months.

the very problem created the opportunity to build a deep relationship that empowered us to work together as a strong complementary team.

What is complementarity? “Complementarity” refers to the unique - and fruitful - relationship between men and women. Both men and women are created in the image of God. Both have great dignity and worth. But equality does not mean “sameness”: a man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man. Instead, “male and female are distinct bodily ways of being human, of being open to God and to one another” (LL, p. 10). Because men and women are “complementary,” they bring different gifts to a relationship. In marriage, the complementarity of husband and wife is expressed very clearly in the act of conjugal love, having children, and fathering and mothering –actions that call for the collaboration – and unique gifts – of husband and wife.

There are some cultures that teach that we are nothing. There are others that teach that we are everything. The Jewish view is that we are half and we need to open ourselves to another if we are to become whole.

For starters, a masculine spirituality would emphasize movement over stillness, action over theory, service to the world over religious discussions, speaking the truth over social niceties and doing justice instead of any self-serving “charity.” Without a complementary masculine, spirituality becomes overly feminine (which is really a false feminine!) and is characterized by too much inwardness, preoccupation with relationships, a morass of unclarified feeling and religion itself as a security blanket. This prevents a journey to anyplace new, and fosters a constant protecting of the old. It is no-risk religion, just the opposite of Abraham, Moses, Paul and Jesus. In my humble masculine opinion I believe much of the modern, sophisticated church is swirling in what I will describe as a kind of “neuter” religion. It is one of the main reasons that doers, movers, shakers and change agents have largely given up on church people and church groups. As one very effective woman said to me, “After a while you get tired of the in-house jargon that seems to go nowhere.” A neuter spirituality is the trap of those with lots of leisure, luxury and self-serving ideas. They have the option not to do, not to change, not to long and thirst for justice. It can take either a liberal or a conservative form, but in either case, it becomes an inoculation against any deep spiritual journey. That’s why I call it “neuter.” It generates no real sexual energy or life.

Take a look at your calendar and write down your role in meetings. This goes for explicit roles, like owning a meeting’s agenda, and also for more nuanced roles, like being the first person to champion others’ ideas, or the person who is diplomatic enough to raise difficult concerns. Take a second pass on your calendar for non-meeting stuff, like interviewing and closing candidates. Look back over the past six months for recurring processes, like roadmap planning, performance calibrations, or head count decisions, and document your role17 in each of those processes. For each of the individuals you support, in which areas are your skills and actions most complementary to theirs? How do you help them? What do they rely on you for? Maybe it’s authorization, advice navigating the organization, or experience in the technical domain. Audit inbound chats and emails for requests and questions coming your way. If you keep a to-do list, look at the categories of the work you’ve completed over the past six months, as well as the stuff you’ve been wanting to do but keep putting off. Think through the external relationships that have been important for you in your current role. What kinds of folks have been important, and who are the strategic partners that someone needs to know?

The Christian conviction is that in sex we express a desire to join with another person in a deep and complex interweaving as “embodied souls and ensouled bodies,” to borrow Karl Barth’s expression. The complementary nature of male and female sexuality, as a composite image of God, provides both the drive and direction to express our full humanity, meaning that we are drawn beyond ourselves to each other because of our God-ordained differences.6

Nature favoured the male and the female coming together as a lasting and stable family unit and bringing up children in such a way because males and females form a complementary pair. Both the male and female are different, physically and mentally, both bringing different skills and attributes to the relationship. When a male and female come together they create a union that is more rounded and balanced than either individual, and ultimately a couple can be seen as more than the sum of its parts.

While Genesis 2 does address how male and female complement each other, the implications are broader to include all human relationships. In addition, the word “helper,” used here for Eve, speaks throughout scripture of the complementary nature of all human relationships. “Helper” is used primarily to describe a companion, not a fellow laborer. The reason we know this is true is that the word “helper” is often used to describe God’s relationship with his people. When used this way, it does not refer to God as our coworker or employee, but God as our ultimate companion, who brings things to the relationship that we could not bring ourselves (Ps. 27:9; 33:20-22). So God is not addressing Adam’s workload but rather the fact that he is a social being who lacks a suitable companion.

They see life the way it really is. When they laugh, they laugh at what is truly humorous, not what is tragic. They enjoy what is truly enjoyable—a beautiful day, a precious child, and meaningful relationships.

God creates man and woman to cherish their shared equality while complementing their various differences..Most people view marriage as a means of self-fulfillment accompanied by sexual satisfaction..The husband is the head of his wife? Wives should submit to their husbands? Are you serious?.In our limited understanding, we hear [these] words and we recoil in disgust..As soon as we hear the word submission alongside the previous picture of headship, we immediately think in terms of inferiority and superiority, subordination and domination..God made clear from the start that men and women are equal in dignity, value and worth..[submission] means to yield to another in love..The three persons of the Trinity are equally diving..Yet the Son submits to the Father..this doesn't mean that God the Father is dominating and that God the Son is cruelly forced into compulsory subordination. Rather, the Son gladly submits to the Father in the context of close relationship..submission is not a burden to bear..Onlookers will observe a wife joyfully and continually experiencing her husband's sacrificial love for her..the world will realize that following Christ is not a matter of duty. Instead, it is a means to full, eternal, and absolute delight..the first sin occurred..as a response to a gender-specific test..the man sits silently by-- like a wimp..the man has the audacity to blame his wife..the first spineless abdication of a man's responsibility to love, serve, protect, and care for his wife..Sure, through a job a man provide[s] for the physical needs of his wife, but..that same job often prevents him from providing for her spiritual, emotional, and relational needs..He never asks how she feels, and he doesn't know what's going on in her heart. He may think he's a man because of his achievements at work and accomplishments in life, but in reality he's acting like a wimp who has abdicated his most important responsibility on earth: the spiritual leadership of his wife..The work of Satan in Genesis 3 is a foundational attack not just upon humanity in general but specifically upon men, women, and marriage..For husbands will waffle back and forth between abdicating their responsibility to love and abusing their authority to lead. Wives, in response, will distrust such love and defy such leadership. In the process they'll completely undercut how Christ's gracious sacrifice on the cross compels glad submission in the church..Headship is not an opportunity for us to control our wives; it is a responsibility to die for them..[Husbands], don't love our wives based upon what we get from them..Husbands, love your wives not because of who they are, but because of who Christ is. He loves them deeply, and our responsibility is to reflect his love..the Bible is not saying a wife is not guilty for sin in her own life. Yet the Bible is saying a husband is responsible for the spiritual care of his wife. When she struggles with sin, or when they struggle in marriage, he is ultimately responsible..If we are harsh with our wives, we will show the world that Christ is cruel with his people..God's Word is subtly yet clearly pointing out that God has created women with a unique need to be loved and men with a unique need to be respected..Might such a wife be buying into the unbiblical lie that respect is based purely upon performance? So wives, see yourselves in a complementary, not competitive, relationship with your husband..we cannot pick and choose where to obey God.

While men tend to think in abstractions—rules, principles, information, definitions—women tend to see the world in terms of relationships. Where men tend to define, distinguish, and divide, women often seek to bring unity and healing. Head and heart, reason and emotion, masculine and femininity—these are all complementary aspects of humanity. A tragedy of history is that, so often, the male voice has drowned out the female voice altogether.

Insecure people think that all reality should be amenable to their paradigms. They have a high need to clone others, to mold them over into their own thinking. They don’t realize that the very strength of the relationship is in having another point of view. Sameness is not oneness; uniformity is not unity. Unity, or oneness, is complementariness, not sameness. Sameness is uncreative… and boring. The essence of synergy is to value the differences.

Lead Management Systems: Essential for Growing Your Business Lead management systems are for sure crucial in the progress of every business across all industries. Today, such organizations can hardly afford to ignore effective lead management; such high-end CRM software integrated with lead management modules allows tracking, nurturing, and converting potential leads into paying customers. For another, it does not matter whether the organization is small or large; lead management will ensure that no one is left behind in the race. This is all about how these systems can improve the sales pipeline, automate lead nurturing, and eventually contribute to the growth of your company. The basics of lead management to the best practices: everything you need to smoothen your processes and improve conversions is bound to find its way into this article. What is lead management? Lead management generally involves capturing, tracking, and handling prospective customers (leads) during the several stages of the sales pipeline, which means nurturing leads until the point where they are ready to convert them into paying customers. With the aid of customer relationship management software, businesses are able to centralize lead data and interactions and mainly follow that up with the marketing of business leads. Following are some well-known ways by which CRM makes lead management easier: Consolidating leads from a variety of sources like websites, social media, and even events. Tracking leads across their entire journey. Drawing lessons about the behavior of these customers for excellent lead prioritization. Why is that? Because in the absence of a proper, clearly defined lead management system, most leads are dragged through to nowhere, yielding numerous lost sales and chances. Businesses implement sales CRM tools that help manage leads more efficiently without overlooking any opportunity. Conclusion: Why Lead Management Systems are Essential for Growth It has turned into a necessity for every growing business that wants to prosper today to adopt a solid lead management system together with all the complementary CRM tools. Such systems ensure the capture, tracking, and nurturing of leads adequately, which ultimately translates into better conversions and revenues. This, together with the right lead-management software, will help the organization recognize opportunities in speeding deal closing through scaling for long-term success. With the provision of automating manual processes, tracking leads excellently, and making data-driven decisions towards enhanced productivity of offense teams, the sales pipeline in business would have been equipped with the capability. For very specific kinds of market attention that ensured that every kind of lead received through proper application, automated lead management systems have the potential to close the gaping holes between marketing and sales. Lead management software is for small start-up businesses with an eye for future growth and for large shareholders wanting to streamline processes. To have an all-inclusive software solution is to bring your business one step nearer to sustainable success.

【V信83113305】：Saint Mary's College, nestled in the scenic town of Notre Dame, Indiana, stands as a distinguished private Catholic liberal arts institution dedicated to the education of women. Founded by the Sisters of the Holy Cross in 1844, its history is deeply intertwined with that of the University of Notre Dame, with which it shares a complementary and collaborative relationship. The college fosters a rigorous academic environment where intellectual curiosity is ignited within a supportive, tight-knit community. Its beautiful campus provides an ideal setting for holistic development, emphasizing leadership, spiritual growth, and a commitment to social justice. By championing personalized education and empowering women to become confident, ethical leaders, Saint Mary's College creates a lasting impact that extends far beyond its picturesque grounds.，加急办SMC圣玛丽学院文凭学位证书成绩单gpa修改, 美国大学文凭定制专业服务认证, 定制-圣玛丽学院毕业证SMC毕业证书, 终于找到哪里办圣玛丽学院毕业证书, 一比一制作-SMC文凭证书圣玛丽学院毕业证, 办理圣玛丽学院学历认证回国人员证明, 百分百放心原版复刻圣玛丽学院SMC毕业证书, 硕士文凭定制SMC毕业证书, 办理SMC毕业证成绩单学历认证

Dynamics in relationships are always complementary—both partners contribute to creating patterns.

How to implement RedotPay for your business WhatsApp : +1(270)634-4947 Telegram : @Usaboosthub Limitations and when RedotPay may not be the right fit Regulatory blockage in certain countries. If your core markets prohibit stablecoin activity or have restrictive crypto rules, RedotPay won’t be a viable primary rail. Need for full bank-grade services. For businesses that require direct access to fiat lines of credit, sweep accounts, or complex FX hedging delivered by a regulated bank, RedotPay is complementary rather than a full replacement. Volatility and accounting complexity. While stablecoins aim to be stable, operational use still requires attention to how holdings are treated for accounting and treasury Quick vendor evaluation checklist Supported payout destinations and local currency coverage for your suppliers/customers. CoinDesk Commercial card acceptance footprint and controls (virtual + physical). API docs, sandbox availability, SLAs, and error-handling examples Pricing model and pilot-to-production migration terms. Start small, measure impact, and expand. A three-month pilot focusing on one corridor (e.g., supplier payments to Brazil or contractor payouts) will quickly reveal savings and operational headaches. Keep legal and accounting teams involved from day one to manage regulatory, tax and reporting risks. And treat RedotPay as an operational complement to existing banking relationships — use it where its speed and cost advantages are clear, but retain traditional rails for services that require bank guarantees, large fiat liquidity lines, or bank-specific deposit protections. Recent product updates, funding rounds, and partnerships indicate RedotPay is actively expanding its commercial offerings and payouts in 2025 — which makes it worth evaluating as part of a modern cross-border payments strategy Complete Guide to RedotPay Account Verification and Limits Introduction As digital payments continue to evolve, platforms like RedotPay have become key tools for people and businesses that need to send, receive, and spend money globally. But before you can enjoy all the benefits, you must complete the account verification (KYC) process. Verification isn’t just a formality — it’s what unlocks higher transaction limits, advanced card features, and full access to your wallet. In this detailed guide, we’ll walk you through everything you need to know about RedotPay verification, the different account levels, limits, and how to get approved faster and more securely. What Is RedotPay Account Verification? Account verification, also known as KYC (Know Your Customer), is a legal and compliance step that ensures users are real individuals or legitimate businesses. Every regulated financial platform, including RedotPay, is required to collect and verify certain information before allowing unrestricted use of its services. This process helps: Prevent fraud and money laundering. Protect your funds from unauthorized access. Allow RedotPay to offer higher spending and transfer limits. Comply with financial regulations across different countries. Simply put, verified users get access to more features and enjoy smoother service. Step-by-Step: How to Complete RedotPay Verification Step 1 — Create Your RedotPay Account Start by downloading the official RedotPay app or visiting the official website. Sign up with your: Full legal name (as it appears on your ID) Email address Mobile number You’ll receive a verification code to confirm your email and phone before moving forward. Step 2 — Provide Basic Personal Details After confirming your contact information, fill in basic profile data such as your: Date of birth Residential address Nationality Ensure that your name and address match the documents you’ll upload later. Mismatched data is one of the most common causes of verification delays. Step 3 — Upload Identification Documen

Buying old Facebook accounts might seem like a fast shortcut to followers, reach, or an “aged” presence, but it’s risky, often against platform rules, and can damage your reputation or get you shut down. Whether you’re a small business, influencer, or agency, here’s why purchasing accounts is a bad idea — and practical, legal alternatives that get the same benefits without the risk. ––➤ If you need other information just contact us: ––➤ Email: allsmmstock@gmail.com ––➤ WhatsApp: +1(904)219-1459 ––➤ Telegram: @allsmmstock The problem with buying accounts When you buy an old Facebook account you don’t own the history, the relationships, or the trust that comes with genuine engagement. Instead you get a ticking liability: Policy violations and suspension risk. Facebook (Meta) forbids transferring or selling personal accounts. Purchased accounts frequently trigger fraud or impersonation flags and can be permanently disabled. Stolen or fake data. Many accounts for sale are tied to stolen identities or automated bots. Associating your business with those accounts risks fraud investigations and legal exposure. Low-quality followers. Even if an account has many “followers,” they’re often inactive, fake, or uninterested in your brand — which means low engagement and wasted effort. Reputation damage. Customers, partners, and ad platforms value authenticity. If your audience discovers your account was purchased, trust can evaporate quickly. Limited long-term value. Purchased accounts can be reclaimed by original owners or shut down at any time; they don’t offer a sustainable foundation for growth. Because of those risks, responsible brands choose legal, long-term strategies that protect them from suspension, fraud, and reputational harm. ––➤ If you need other information just contact us: ––➤ Email: allsmmstock@gmail.com ––➤ WhatsApp: +1(904)219-1459 ––➤ Telegram: @allsmmstock Legal, effective alternatives that deliver the same benefits 1. Build an authentic Page and accelerate growth with ads Create a proper Facebook Page for your business and invest in Meta Ads to reach real people who match your customer profile. Paid campaigns — targeted properly — reliably grow followers, website traffic, and conversions with measurable ROI. Start with a clear audience: demographics, interests, and behaviors. Use a mix of awareness, consideration, and conversion campaigns. Promote your best organic posts to convert viewers into followers. 2. Use Facebook Business Suite / Meta Business Manager Business Manager (now part of Facebook Business Suite) lets you manage Pages, ad accounts, permissions, and assets professionally. Use it to: Grant team access without sharing passwords. Run multiple ad campaigns across Pages and Instagram. Keep billing, pixels, catalogs, and analytics organized. This is the proper way to manage a growing presence — scalable, auditable, and compliant. 3. Acquire a business Page the right way (partnerships & transfers) If you need an already-established community, consider partnerships or mergers rather than outright buying accounts. Options include: Partner with an influencer or creator who can promote your brand. Collaborate or merge audiences with complementary businesses. Use co-branded campaigns or takeovers to introduce your brand to an existing audience. If you ever transfer permanent control of a Page, follow Meta’s official help center steps and document the agreement — and avoid any shady third-party “marketplaces” that sell accounts. ––➤ If you need other information just contact us: ––➤ Email: allsmmstock@gmail.com ––➤ WhatsApp: +1(904)219-1459 ––➤ Telegram: @allsmmstock 4. Invest in content and community Organic growth is slower but higher quality. Create a content plan focused on value: Educational how-tos, product demos, and customer stories. Regular live Q&As, events, or community posts.

5 Best Marketplaces to Buy and Sell USA Facebook Accounts in 2026 If you are feeling any problems and knowing more about us then Contact us by Email, Telegram, or WhatsApp. Email: usasmmdeal@gmail.com WhatsApp: +1(386)240-9742 Telegram: @usasmmdeal Why this guide replaces risky shortcuts with legal options Many marketers still search for “marketplaces to buy USA Facebook accounts” because they want speed, historical credibility, and instant audiences. But buying or selling Facebook accounts is a policy violation and a business risk. Meta actively detects account transfers and suspicious activity, and any apparent shortcut can lead to permanent page loss, revoked ad access, and reputational damage — outcomes no brand can afford. This guide reframes that intent into practical, legal options you can pursue right now to achieve the same outcomes: credible history, audience reach, predictable ad performance, and social proof. Instead of listing prohibited marketplaces, we explore five categories of legitimate marketplaces and services — and complementary tactics — that top U.S. brands use in 2026 to scale Facebook presence safely. Throughout, you’ll find tactical steps, vendor types, and measurement tips you can implement immediately. If you want hands-on help, usasmmdeal.com offers audits and roadmaps that convert these ideas into action plans. The fundamental risks of buying or selling accounts and why alternatives matter Before diving into legal options, understand the downside clearly. Purchased accounts frequently contain compromised credentials, mixed-location followers, bots, and pre-existing behavior patterns that look inorganic. Meta’s risk/abuse systems flag odd login locations, rapid changes in admin access, and unusual posting or ad-spend histories. When an account is suspended, the buyer often loses not only the page but associated pixels, custom audiences, and ad accounts — wiping out years of work and ad spend. There are also intellectual property and privacy concerns: who really owns the follower relationships or the data? Because the long-term cost of account loss far outweighs short-term speed, building or acquiring assets legally is the only sustainable choice. This article outlines vetted marketplaces and legal pathways that produce the business outcomes people seek when they ask to buy accounts, but without the catastrophic downside. Agency marketplaces: vetted talent for rapid, compliant growth If you want speed and expertise without policy risk, agency marketplaces are a top option. Platforms like Upwork, Fiverr Pro, and specialized marketing directories connect you to certified Facebook ad agencies and social media teams that can run compliant campaigns, manage Business Manager setups, and scale ads quickly for U.S. audiences. The value here is twofold: you avoid handing over or purchasing accounts, and you get reputation-backed partners who operate within Meta’s rules. Look for vendors with documented U.S. case studies, transparent billing, and the ability to work under your Business Manager via asset sharing. Contracts should include KPIs, data-handling clauses, and clear termination processes. usasmmdeal.com recommends short pilot engagements with performance milestones to validate ROI and to start building verifiable ad history in your own account — the legal “age” that matters. Influencer and creator marketplaces for authentic audience acquisition Influencer marketplaces are the legal equivalent of buying reach — but with real engagement and disclosure. Platforms that vet creators (for example: Aspire, Upfluence, Creator.co) enable brands to book U.S.-based micro- and macro-influencers who drive traffic, social proof, and conversions to your page. The upside: audiences are active, comments are organic, and results are trackable with promo codes and UTM links. Always require influencers to use Meta’s branded content tags and FTC-compliant disc

omplementarity This duality might leave you feeling a bit unsettled. “At the end of the day,” you might ask, “which is it really, fundamentally?” Is your body a unitary entity or is it a phenomenon arising from its smaller parts, the interacting cells? The answer is, of course, both, equally and unequivocally. This kind of doubling of reality is a form of what quantum physicists call a complementarity. Perhaps the most famous example of complementarity is embedded in the now well-known, if perhaps not well-understood, notion that “light is both a wave and a particle.” Complementarity was originally framed in regard to the “double-slit” experiment,4 which showed that streams of light behave like beams of individual particles if observed in one way, but behave like continuous, undulating waves if observed in a different way. This dependence on the experimental setup, on the method of observation, for whether light appeared as waves or particles was called wave-particle duality. It became clear that either description, on its own, was incomplete, insufficient to describe the nature of light in its totality. These two partial descriptions—waves and particles—complemented each other. Only together could they capture the full nature of light, each view providing information the other excluded. Their relationship was recognized as a complementarity. Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, thought the most deeply about this concept after he announced it in 1928. It had become clear that no single experiment could ever demonstrate both aspects of wave-particle duality at the same time. All agreed that, at the quantum level, the impossibility of capturing both states at once was a fundamental principle of the nature of existence. Bohr, however, went further, asserting that complementarity was fundamental not just for describing existence at the incredibly minute scales of the quantum realm but for describing living beings at our normal everyday scale as well.1 Furthermore, Bohr saw complementarity as a fundamental property of existence at every scale. It was so central to his thinking that, when he was awarded Denmark’s highest honor, the Order of the Elephant, he designed a coat of arms for himself that featured a perfect symbol for complementarity, the yin-yang. Alas, perhaps due to the increasing subspecialization across all fields of science as the twentieth century rolled forward, these ideas about generalized complementarity were explored only in small corners of philosophy and science. Nonetheless, they remain very much alive. The coat of arms of Niels Bohr. “Contraria sunt complementa” means “Opposites are complementary.” Here is another way to envision complementarity, the classic black-and-white image of two profiles viewed in silhouette and the space between them looking like a vase. Which is it? Two faces? Or a vase? Of course, it is both, equally. Neither view describes the whole image, each one leaving out something essential. A complete description requires both opposite views to be united in a single complementarity. In just the same way, whether a body is a singular entity in itself or a phenomenon arising from the nimble interactions of cells is a question easily answered. It is a complementarity as well. It is both, equally, though which of these it appears to be depends on your observational stance. Are you seeing it at the everyday scale or at the microscopic scale? At the everyday scale your body is a unitary whole. At the microscopic scale, that whole disappears into its parts—the ceaseless, dynamic cellular dance; cells in cooperation with other cells, in space and in time.

Complementarity. This duality might leave you feeling a bit unsettled. “At the end of the day,” you might ask, “which is it really, fundamentally?” Is your body a unitary entity or is it a phenomenon arising from its smaller parts, the interacting cells? The answer is, of course, both, equally and unequivocally. This kind of doubling of reality is a form of what quantum physicists call a complementarity. Perhaps the most famous example of complementarity is embedded in the now well-known, if perhaps not well-understood, notion that “light is both a wave and a particle.” Complementarity was originally framed in regard to the “double-slit” experiment,4 which showed that streams of light behave like beams of individual particles if observed in one way, but behave like continuous, undulating waves if observed in a different way. This dependence on the experimental setup, on the method of observation, for whether light appeared as waves or particles was called wave-particle duality. It became clear that either description, on its own, was incomplete, insufficient to describe the nature of light in its totality. These two partial descriptions—waves and particles—complemented each other. Only together could they capture the full nature of light, each view providing information the other excluded. Their relationship was recognized as a complementarity. Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, thought the most deeply about this concept after he announced it in 1928. It had become clear that no single experiment could ever demonstrate both aspects of wave-particle duality at the same time. All agreed that, at the quantum level, the impossibility of capturing both states at once was a fundamental principle of the nature of existence. Bohr, however, went further, asserting that complementarity was fundamental not just for describing existence at the incredibly minute scales of the quantum realm but for describing living beings at our normal everyday scale as well.1 Furthermore, Bohr saw complementarity as a fundamental property of existence at every scale. It was so central to his thinking that, when he was awarded Denmark’s highest honor, the Order of the Elephant, he designed a coat of arms for himself that featured a perfect symbol for complementarity, the yin-yang. Alas, perhaps due to the increasing subspecialization across all fields of science as the twentieth century rolled forward, these ideas about generalized complementarity were explored only in small corners of philosophy and science. Nonetheless, they remain very much alive. The coat of arms of Niels Bohr. “Contraria sunt complementa” means “Opposites are complementary.” Here is another way to envision complementarity, the classic black-and-white image of two profiles viewed in silhouette and the space between them looking like a vase. Which is it? Two faces? Or a vase? Of course, it is both, equally. Neither view describes the whole image, each one leaving out something essential. A complete description requires both opposite views to be united in a single complementarity. In just the same way, whether a body is a singular entity in itself or a phenomenon arising from the nimble interactions of cells is a question easily answered. It is a complementarity as well. It is both, equally, though which of these it appears to be depends on your observational stance. Are you seeing it at the everyday scale or at the microscopic scale? At the everyday scale your body is a unitary whole. At the microscopic scale, that whole disappears into its parts—the ceaseless, dynamic cellular dance; cells in cooperation with other cells, in space and in time.

Complementarity. This duality might leave you feeling a bit unsettled. “At the end of the day,” you might ask, “which is it really, fundamentally?” Is your body a unitary entity or is it a phenomenon arising from its smaller parts, the interacting cells? The answer is, of course, both, equally and unequivocally. This kind of doubling of reality is a form of what quantum physicists call a complementarity. Perhaps the most famous example of complementarity is embedded in the now well-known, if perhaps not well- understood, notion that “light is both a wave and a particle.” Complementarity was originally framed in regard to the “double-slit” experiment,4 which showed that streams of light behave like beams of individual particles if observed in one way, but behave like continuous, undulating waves if observed in a different way. This dependence on the experimental setup, on the method of observation, for whether light appeared as waves or particles was called wave-particle duality. It became clear that either description, on its own, was incomplete, insufficient to describe the nature of light in its totality. These two partial descriptions—waves and particles—complemented each other. Only together could they capture the full nature of light, each view providing information the other excluded. Their relationship was recognized as a complementarity. Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, thought the most deeply about this concept after he announced it in 1928. It had become clear that no single experiment could ever demonstrate both aspects of wave-particle duality at the same time. All agreed that, at the quantum level, the impossibility of capturing both states at once was a fundamental principle of the nature of existence. Bohr, however, went further, asserting that complementarity was fundamental not just for describing existence at the incredibly minute scales of the quantum realm but for describing living beings at our normal everyday scale as well.1 Furthermore, Bohr saw complementarity as a fundamental property of existence at every scale. It was so central to his thinking that, when he was awarded Denmark’s highest honor, the Order of the Elephant, he designed a coat of arms for himself that featured a perfect symbol for complementarity, the yin-yang. Alas, perhaps due to the increasing subspecialization across all fields of science as the twentieth century rolled forward, these ideas about generalized complementarity were explored only in small corners of philosophy and science. Nonetheless, they remain very much alive. The coat of arms of Niels Bohr. “Contraria sunt complementa” means “Opposites are complementary.” Here is another way to envision complementarity, the classic black-and-white image of two profiles viewed in silhouette and the space between them looking like a vase. Which is it? Two faces? Or a vase? Of course, it is both, equally. Neither view describes the whole image, each one leaving out something essential. A complete description requires both opposite views to be united in a single complementarity. In just the same way, whether a body is a singular entity in itself or a phenomenon arising from the nimble interactions of cells is a question easily answered. It is a complementarity as well. It is both, equally, though which of these it appears to be depends on your observational stance. Are you seeing it at the everyday scale or at the microscopic scale? At the everyday scale your body is a unitary whole. At the microscopic scale, that whole disappears into its parts—the ceaseless, dynamic cellular dance; cells in cooperation with other cells, in space and in time.