moment of truth

[7/24/14 11:58 pm]

there's this thing that keeps happening to me, where i'm doing something and someone says,"hey, you show some promise at this.  i'm going to put you in charge of a bunch of other people in this area, so you can lead them.  you'll get used to it, and you'll be a natural!"

well actually, world, you're wrong.  it just so happens that i am not a decisive person, or an outgoing person, or a particularly charismatic person, or even a person who has what one might call "a way with people."  in the best of scenarios i'm not good at influencing people or drawing a reaction from them.  in most cases, even making normal conversation is kind of a strain.  in fact, in most scenarios, i'm pretty good at blending into the background.

all that to say, i would not call myself a natural leader.  people are so difficult.  even if they're not "being difficult."  they're just... hard.

now, i don't really believe in coincidences so much, so the fact that this kind of keeps happening... i don't know.  i'm not quite sure what to make of it.

life's not fair!

[5/28/14  8:27 pm]

"no, really???"

but seriously, isn't that what we've all always been taught?  i mean, everyone's heard that "life's not fair," or even, as my brother says, "if life was fair, we'd all be going to Hell."  but see if this sounds familiar:

you reap the consequences of your actions.

yes?  this is tricky though, because it's true.  every action does have some kind of consequences.  and while it's also often true that positive consequences come from wise actions (if wise = morally right), and negative from unwise, it's not the hard and fast rule that people (i, at least) take it for.

ahem...

"It is possible to commit no errors and still  lose.  That is not a weakness . . . that is life."
-Captain Jean-Luc Picard

reworded: just because you do something right does not mean that it won't turn out badly, and just because you do something wrong doesn't mean that you won't get away with it, even benefit from it (in the short term).

this is so obvious, it's ridiculous.  even Christ, perfectly loving in every way, was backstabbed at every turn, especially by those who should have been the first to know Him.

i've grown up with this kind of teaching for as long as i've been alive.  i don't follow Christ because it's the easy thing, or because it will solve all my problems (right away), or any of the other things that they always tell you at church (that are true).

so why is it that when something goes wrong, i start searching frantically for where the mistake was made?


edit: a few more questions, because no post is complete if it doesn't leave you with more questions than you started with.
how am i supposed to tell the difference between consequences for my poor decisions, a spiritual attack/testing/plan, or just life that happens?  or is there even a differentiation to be made?  are they perhaps masterfully directed and integrated into each other?

how can you love Love itself?

[12/9/13 12:56 am]

sometimes i am bothered that i cannot have a mutual give-and-take relationship with God.  loving someone is doing the best for them, and sacrificing.  loving God is doing as he says, because he already knows what is best.  sometimes that does involve sacrifice.  but it's still annoying.

the purge (attempt II)

my blog has been missing me.

this time i am prepared to succeed where i failed before.  half-hearted apologies in advance for the enormity of reading material.  happy new year!


p.s.: i cannot necessarily vouch for the quality of all of these (for some of them, that's why they remained drafts).  but it seemed criminal to just delete them all, so here they are.

do hugs...

some philosophies/observations on hugs:


side hug
definition:  hug done only with one arm of each party (opposite arms, so the two people's sides come together)
translation:  i see that you want to hug me.  i do NOT want to hug you back either because that would make me extremely uncomfortable or because i don't feel close enough to you for a full on hug.  so instead of flat-out refusing to come anywhere near you, i will simply turn this hug attempt into a side hug to simultaneously save you embarrassment and let you know how awkward this is for me.  by the way, please don't ever do this again.
alternate translation:  this is too quick and casual for a full hug, so i'll just give you a little (side) hug.

bro hug
definition:  hug typically done between men, where one hand shakes and the other arm embraces.
translation:  what's up?  we're guys, so it feels awkward to give you a full-on hug in public, but this "hug" is ok because our handshake keeps us slightly separated.

hand hug
definition:  the coming together of two people's same hands (ex. both people's right hand) with thumbs extending around the other person's hand (most common in male-female platonic relationships).
translation:  to give you a full hug would not be a proper greeting here either because it would not be socially acceptable or because we aren't close enough or because it would be too formal.  but to still greet you personally and affectionately, i bestow upon you this hand hug.

hug
definition:  full embrace, where both parties have both arms wrapped around the other
translation:  ANYTHING from "i'm so glad to see you; it's been so long," to "i will miss you," to "i LOVE you," to "i'm here for you" ........... the list goes on, differing in manner and expression...................




i don't normally initiate hugs, but will usually return them.  there are, of course, exceptions.  if i ever initiate a hug, be aware that it is not something to be taken lightly.  not that it necessarily covers over a ton of hidden meaning, but know that it is fairly rare.

identity

...is NOT wrapped up in...

• past mistakes or experiences
• other people's opinions
• performance of something
• physical appearance

gifts of the magi

so last Christmastime, i heard the Downhere song, "How Many Kings," and this part stood out to me:

Gold for His honor and frankincense for His pleasure
And myrrh for the cross He'll suffer
Do you believe?
Is this who we've waited for?

my train of thought:

gold (ok, know what that is)---honor.  like a king.
frankincense (i guess that's like incense)---pleasure.  because it's fragrant. ok.
myrrh (???)---for the cross? what the heck is myrrh???

so i went to Wikipedia (my favorite online resource).  eventually i looked up the other two, just for fun.  because of what i found the first time.  because i love symbolism, and because it's so cool and prophetic.

gold---symbolism for divine principles, like the golden ratio or golden rule; for holiness (like the covering of the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant); for divine authority (medieval kings used to be inaugurated under a golden crown); for great value.  gold is the most noble of the noble metals, but it is not chemically inert.  it is unaffected by most corrosive substances, so it does not tarnish.  it is a pure element, known for its tendency to show scratches.  the atomic symbol for gold, Au, derives from the Latin word aurum, meaning "gold" or "shining dawn."

frankincense---resin used in incense and in perfumes.  it is tapped from scraggly, hardy trees by slashing the bark, a process called striping.  the hardened resins are called tears.  some even have a method of rooting themselves into rocks, so deeply that their roots keep them from being ripped out of the rock, even during a storm.  frankincense also has some healing properties.

myrrh---the resin of a small, thorny tree species.  used as perfume, incense, and medicine.  extracted by wounding the tree repeatedly.  the word myrrh derives from Arabic and Aramaic words meaning "bitter."  it was also used in holy anointing oil.

definitely gifts of high worth for a king.  but God, as usual, planned things down to the tiniest detail, even symbolically.  how cool is that?