I hope this post finds you all enjoying a blessed and happy Christmas season. I wanted to share a video clip from one of my favorite Christmas shows, A Charlie Brown Christmas, about the real meaning of Christmas. Enjoy!
One friend suggested I "plant the seed on the sly" by signing an email "Love, Learner" and see if he noticed and said anything. I opted not to do that because I figured I was either going to tell him so or wait, not go half way or be "sly".
In the end, even though I knew that I loved B for a while, I decided to wait for him to say it first while doing what I could to express my love to him in ways that did not include just saying the words. I decided to wait because since we started to get to know each other he has had a good feel about when to move forward in our relationship, and I trust his judgement and want to follow his leadership. I later told B about my friend's opinions that I should wait for him to say "it" first and his response was something like "hmm, interesting".
After thinking about this some more I have wondered about another possible reason for waiting for the man to say I love you first. Given the masculine ability to separate emotions from thought and logic better than many women seem to be able to, myself included, perhaps it is prudent to follow the man's lead for when is the right time to say "I love you"?
What do y'all think?
*************************************************************In other news, I just recently noticed I had a follower named Jody! Hi Jody and thanks for following my blog :)
I dislike this one because it kind of smacks of the "I'm in the club and you're not" mentality.
I don't like this one either:
I have God along for the ride to help me out!
Or this one:
As though evolution was a theory that could be tested through experiments like gravity.
On the subject of evolution, here is the latest installment in the "Christian fish" vs "Darwin fish"
Now comes the joke. The Enemy described a married couple as 'one flesh'. He did not say a 'happily married couple' or 'a couple who married because they were in love', but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes 'one flesh'. You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of 'being in love' what were in fact plain descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that whenever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured. From the true statement that this transcendental relation was intended to produce, and, if obediently entered into, too often will produce, affection and the family, humans can be made to infer the false belief that the blend of affection, fear and desire which they call 'being in love' is the only thing that makes marriage either happy or holy. The error is easy to produce because 'being in love' does very often, in Western Europe, precede marriages which are made in obedience to the Enemies designs, that is, with the intention of fidelity, fertility and good will; just as religious emotion very often, but not always, attends conversion. (emphasis mine)When we come from the place that elevates "being in love", a temporary feeling which should not be confused with love, to the pinnacle of human experience, we create an environment where the loss of the feeling of "being in love" can be used as an excuse for all sorts of behaviors destructive to marriage, including infidelity. After all, God wants us to be "happy", right? Right?
Resilient things, aren't they?
My finger is healing well. I'll spare you any of the more gory pictures* [you're welcome Ame :)], but here is a view from the front after one of my friends debrieded** it where you can see how straight and neat I cut it. I honestly had no idea that rotary cutters were that sharp. It seems a challenge to get it through more than 4 layers of fabric. It looks so much better already, I think it will be barely noticeable. Here's hoping all of the feeling comes back.
* I am not as weird as that sounds. I took the pictures for my students...a good step by step example of wound healing.
** Sorry if the word or image of debriedment gives you the heebie jeebies. I should also point out that the friend who did so is a qualified medical professional....not just a random "buddy" :)
Maybe one of these days I'll write a well thought out post.
I get annoyed with many "politically correct" ideas. For example, what was the point of changing the tag line "To boldly go where no man has gone before" to "To boldly go where no one has gone before" in the new Star Trek movie (which was a great flick)? However I do insist that my students use what is called "person first language" when referring to our patients/clients. This means we do not call someone a "stroke" or a "nerve injury", we call them a person who has had a stroke, or a person who has had a nerve injury. I insist on this because it is important to see someone as a person, not a diagnosis, and because calling someone a "head injury" is dehumanizing. Other examples of dehumanization include when the Nazis transported the Jews in cattle cars and called them "dogs", and those who are pro-abortion insisting that a baby be called a "fetus" before birth. It's tough to kill people when you think of them as human beings.
Lesser ill will than murder is associated with dehumanization as well. Some feminists call men "animals" to make them easier to distrust and despise. Recently a commenter at MarkyMark's referred to women as "sweaty bags of cellulite". Well.... I'm not quite sure what to say about that other than ask the following. Do you really need to dehumanize women to make the decision for yourself that you don't want to marry or associate with women? If the answer to that question is no, why do it? If it is yes, maybe you should ask yourself why.
-Carolyn McCully put into words part of what I have been thinking on for a while, with regard to physical beauty, but have been unable to coherently address, in a post last week. (yes, I think I do have too many commas in that sentence)
"What about complimenting her when she is doing beautiful things? We always hear that inner beauty is supposed to be more important than outer beauty, but it doesn't seem to get praised as often--which tempts women to doubt the veracity of that statement."Why do we women doubt the appeal of inner beauty? Well, to be candid, it's because we forget that our Creator is the ultimate arbiter of beauty. We are awash in makeover messages and as such His perspective is often silenced. From TV shows to magazines, we are drowning in Before and After images. At any given time during a day, there's a roomful of people on TV gushing and crying over the physical transformation of some reality show participant. Everybody and his neighbor shows up to applaud weight loss, a new hairstyle, or a wardrobe overhaul. But where is the applause for inner beauty? Where are the TV cameras for the Big Reveal of a renovated character"
In a culture where women are judged and valued on the basis of their attractiveness is it any wonder that inner beauty has taken a back seat? Has our culture simply received what we have asked for? Is there any cultural reinforcement of "inner beauty"?-In a related line of thinking, lets talk about virginity.