My best friend, Rebecca, is heading up this weekend to visit me and our friend Jana (she's from Azusa Pacific). She's stopping by at Azusa, then they are both coming up my way. It will be nice to see some of my friends again. The past three weekends have consisted of friends trying to make it up here, then not able to due to certain circumnstances. LOL. Such as life!
They will spend the night Friday, tonight, then we will be heading back to San Diego on Saturday, where I will kick it with my other best friend, Damian. I am really interested in seeing the new Keanu Reeve's movie, Constantine. Damian and I might go and see that movie. I was told it was a very "interesting" movie. I like "spiritual" movies, even if they don't have biblical grounding. Of course, things don't have to be "biblical" to be "spiritual". We all have souls in us, whether we accept a certain religion or not. Therefore, things.......I can't believe I just changed the subject around to a philosophical discussion. haha. I'm an idiot.
I ask all my brothers and sisters who read this to pray for my cousin Toby. He's been having a problem with his ear that has been going on and off for quite awhile now. I'm concerned for him, so I would appreciate if everyone would keep him in his prayers.
"Lord Jesus, I ask that you will put your hand on Toby right now and bring your healing power upon him. I ask that you will lead the doctors in identifying the problem so that they will be able to aide him in getting rid of this physical ailment. May you take away any pain he is going through and quicken the healing. I thank You Lord for all that you've done, and for bringing Toby into my life and in those of others. We are all blessed by his presence. I thank You once again. I ask this all in Jesus' name, Amen."
Friday, February 18, 2005
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Quote of the Week 02/13/05
"Oh, I know! Why don't we just get her drunk? That seemed to work for a lot of girls in my high school."
~ Frank Buffay
~ Frank Buffay
Dropping a line
I will more than likely only be posting about 2 to 3 times a week...as you might have already noticed. Dial-up is frustrating to me, so i won't be nearly as up to date while at school.
I'm going to post a page from my Old Testament Theology book by Paul R. House. He mentions something rather interesting about the roles of men and women in marital relationships. For all non-religious viewers, i apologize if this does not interest you:
"the woman receives two basic penalties for her actions. One is physical, and the other is relational. Pain will accompany childbirth (Gen 3:16), which indicates that the effects of sin cannot be localized to some spiritual portion of human life. Rather sin impacts the woman's physical being as well, forcing her to remember her failure during what should be a joyous moment in her life. As hard as this punishment is, it is less pervasive than the second. her sin also bears the penalty of frustration in her relationship with her husband (3:16).
Martin Luther argues that this punishment means that women are now placed nder the man's authority in all matters but procreation and the nurturing of children, tasks he considers eminently honorable. This subjection would not have occurred without sin. G.C. Aalders offers the fairly common idea that though the woman knows the pain associated with childbirth she will still desire sex with her husband, which in turn leads her back to her pain. He agrees in principle with Luther's opinions on the woman's subjection to her husband. Victor Hamilton modifies this viewpoint somehwhat stating that this punishment means that instead of 'being a reign of co-equals over the remainder of God's creation, the relationship now becomes a fierce dispute, with each part trying to rule the other'"
Now my main focus on these two paragraphs is the last quote in mentioning "with each part trying to rule the other". I found this interesting because that is, no doubt, a constant dispute amongst marital relationships, especially those in the Christian community. Probably one of these disputes, which many probably stemmed after The Fall, was the idea of the symbolism of submission (in other words, what submission means). We associate submission with "giving up" or "inferiority" and we immediately associate this "inferiority" from the "punishment" that started with Eve. I suppose submission has many meanings, especially in American culture, but one thing I think we must not confuse submission with, is that somehow its origins from punishment make it "bad" or "a sign of weakness". Submission was considered a punishment because it was a HARD thing to do. What would punishment be if there was no challenge established behind it, or no difficulty resulting from it? Everyone can say "I win", but how many can say "the victory is yours"? I do hesitate on using this analogy, because its biggest flaw is assuming that submission is an idea that revolves around "winning or losing", when in fact it is not. I simply cannot come up with a better way of showing the difficulty and challenge behind the thought of submission. I apologize for any offense. I suppose amongst all my rambling that I am trying to say is that the cultural idea of "submission" is deeply flawed, and how disputes of "trying to rule the other" started from is indeed interesting and worth thinking about.
Well, I could write more, but thats just a tidbit on what I was thinking about from my Theology book.
I'm going to post a page from my Old Testament Theology book by Paul R. House. He mentions something rather interesting about the roles of men and women in marital relationships. For all non-religious viewers, i apologize if this does not interest you:
"the woman receives two basic penalties for her actions. One is physical, and the other is relational. Pain will accompany childbirth (Gen 3:16), which indicates that the effects of sin cannot be localized to some spiritual portion of human life. Rather sin impacts the woman's physical being as well, forcing her to remember her failure during what should be a joyous moment in her life. As hard as this punishment is, it is less pervasive than the second. her sin also bears the penalty of frustration in her relationship with her husband (3:16).
Martin Luther argues that this punishment means that women are now placed nder the man's authority in all matters but procreation and the nurturing of children, tasks he considers eminently honorable. This subjection would not have occurred without sin. G.C. Aalders offers the fairly common idea that though the woman knows the pain associated with childbirth she will still desire sex with her husband, which in turn leads her back to her pain. He agrees in principle with Luther's opinions on the woman's subjection to her husband. Victor Hamilton modifies this viewpoint somehwhat stating that this punishment means that instead of 'being a reign of co-equals over the remainder of God's creation, the relationship now becomes a fierce dispute, with each part trying to rule the other'"
Now my main focus on these two paragraphs is the last quote in mentioning "with each part trying to rule the other". I found this interesting because that is, no doubt, a constant dispute amongst marital relationships, especially those in the Christian community. Probably one of these disputes, which many probably stemmed after The Fall, was the idea of the symbolism of submission (in other words, what submission means). We associate submission with "giving up" or "inferiority" and we immediately associate this "inferiority" from the "punishment" that started with Eve. I suppose submission has many meanings, especially in American culture, but one thing I think we must not confuse submission with, is that somehow its origins from punishment make it "bad" or "a sign of weakness". Submission was considered a punishment because it was a HARD thing to do. What would punishment be if there was no challenge established behind it, or no difficulty resulting from it? Everyone can say "I win", but how many can say "the victory is yours"? I do hesitate on using this analogy, because its biggest flaw is assuming that submission is an idea that revolves around "winning or losing", when in fact it is not. I simply cannot come up with a better way of showing the difficulty and challenge behind the thought of submission. I apologize for any offense. I suppose amongst all my rambling that I am trying to say is that the cultural idea of "submission" is deeply flawed, and how disputes of "trying to rule the other" started from is indeed interesting and worth thinking about.
Well, I could write more, but thats just a tidbit on what I was thinking about from my Theology book.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Quote of the week 02/08/05
"Thank you for taking your tongue out of my sisters mouth long enough to tell me that."
~Rachel Greene
~Rachel Greene
Never been kissed
That's right! You got it! No joke! I'm 21 years old and I've never been kissed. I was involved with a girl for two years (ending about 8 months ago) and actually fell in love with her...and no kiss. Why exactly? I don't believe any answer will impress the readers of this post, but here's a tidbit. For one, my girlfriend and I viewed kissing as very special (not sacred mind you...but meaningful). Two, at the beginning she asked me not to kiss her (and I could honestly tell that her parents didn't want me too either. They are REALLY strict with dating). So although later in the relationship she asked me to kiss her, I declined based on the two notions previously mentioned. I didn't want her to give away something she viewed as really special merely because she was caught up in a moment. Of course, put a LITTLE "extreme" to that edge of our view upon kissing and then you got the whole picture.
Have I been frowned at for this? YES! Have I been looked down upon for this? All the time! Am I a loser for not kissing my first girlfriend in whom I fell in love with? Probably! Do I view kissing as A REALLY BIG DEAL? NOO!!! But naturally, because of my story, my issue of never been kissed makes it seem like a big deal. Perhaps I am a freak and quite odd for having the views I do *shrugs*.
I must admit that I bring this up because its a little frustrating whenever someone asks me the question, it somehow is made into a huge ordeal. So what if I agree with some of Joshua Harris' ideals. So I'm sort of a radical. But in many ways I am not.
*BIG KISS* (towards any girl who is reading this) So there!!!! Now my cyber lips are no longer a virgin! One step closer to the real deal! SO HA!!! *shakes his head* LOL I am pathetic!
Have I been frowned at for this? YES! Have I been looked down upon for this? All the time! Am I a loser for not kissing my first girlfriend in whom I fell in love with? Probably! Do I view kissing as A REALLY BIG DEAL? NOO!!! But naturally, because of my story, my issue of never been kissed makes it seem like a big deal. Perhaps I am a freak and quite odd for having the views I do *shrugs*.
I must admit that I bring this up because its a little frustrating whenever someone asks me the question, it somehow is made into a huge ordeal. So what if I agree with some of Joshua Harris' ideals. So I'm sort of a radical. But in many ways I am not.
*BIG KISS* (towards any girl who is reading this) So there!!!! Now my cyber lips are no longer a virgin! One step closer to the real deal! SO HA!!! *shakes his head* LOL I am pathetic!
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Fun facts, quotes.....whatever
I decided to post a e-mail I got. It has some pretty funny and interesting points. Hope you enjoy. As for any updates, not much really. There was an interesting debate that was brought up in my Christian Theology class. It went along the idea of whether christians should be involved with politics, or should they just let the government do their own thing. I firmly believe that God calls His servants to make a God-glorifying society. He tell us to change the WHOLE world and to be a light on a hill top and salt to the earth. Whether other people believe in our God or not, we must make a stand and oppose the immoral aspects that are threatening our country (homosexual movements, abortion, cloning, etc). We must not be sitting aside idly and only do something when it directly hits us. This road only seems to be "persecution hungry". I, no doubt, believe persecution is part of any faith that chooses to make a stand, but one isn't to "look" for it. Anyways, God wants to be in every part of our lives. Politics is no exception. Politics is a tool (a powerful one indeed) which Christians can use to help change the world in which we live. How can we exclude God, as Christians, from such an important aspect of our world?
Enough chat, on with the quotes:
Why do we press harder on a remote control when we know the batteries are flat?
Why do banks charge a fee on "insufficient funds" when they know there is not enough?
Why does someone believe you when you say there are four billion stars, but check when you say the paint is wet?
Why doesn't glue stick to the bottle?
Why do they use sterilised needles for death by lethal injection?
Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?
Why does Superman stop bullets with his chest, but ducks when you throw a revolver at him?
Why do Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
Whose idea was it to put an "S" in the word "lisp"?
What is the speed of darkness?
Are there specially reserved parking spaces for "normal" people at the Special Olympics?
If you send someone polystyrene, how do you pack it?
If the temperature is zero outside today and it's going to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold will it be?
If it's true that we are here to help others, what are the others doing here?
If someone with a split personality threatens to commit suicide, is it a hostage situation?
What level of importance must a person have, before they are considered assassinated instead of just murdered?
If money doesn't grow on trees then why do banks have branches?
Why does a round pizza come in a square box?
Why is it that people say they "slept like a baby" when babies wake up, like, every two hours?
If a deaf person has to go to court, is it still called a hearing?
Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground?
Enough chat, on with the quotes:
Why do we press harder on a remote control when we know the batteries are flat?
Why do banks charge a fee on "insufficient funds" when they know there is not enough?
Why does someone believe you when you say there are four billion stars, but check when you say the paint is wet?
Why doesn't glue stick to the bottle?
Why do they use sterilised needles for death by lethal injection?
Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?
Why does Superman stop bullets with his chest, but ducks when you throw a revolver at him?
Why do Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
Whose idea was it to put an "S" in the word "lisp"?
What is the speed of darkness?
Are there specially reserved parking spaces for "normal" people at the Special Olympics?
If you send someone polystyrene, how do you pack it?
If the temperature is zero outside today and it's going to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold will it be?
If it's true that we are here to help others, what are the others doing here?
If someone with a split personality threatens to commit suicide, is it a hostage situation?
What level of importance must a person have, before they are considered assassinated instead of just murdered?
If money doesn't grow on trees then why do banks have branches?
Why does a round pizza come in a square box?
Why is it that people say they "slept like a baby" when babies wake up, like, every two hours?
If a deaf person has to go to court, is it still called a hearing?
Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
