I'd rather not iron, but that pile of wrinkly clothes is completely useless as far as work-wear is concerned. Though the other day, I did put on a shirt that was somewhat wrinkly, sprayed some Downy wrinkle releaser on it, smoothed it as best I could, and headed to work. I didn't get fired, so I suppose it was a success.
Here's my new hotspot.
man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. Deuteronomy 8:3
3.17.2007
3.15.2007
On Perspective
As Trey and I discussed our testimonies last night, I realized again how persistently I see the world through my own eyes. I've always started my testimony on a somewhat apologetic note because I don't have any sort of dramatic or exciting or name-the-day-and-hour conversion experience. I can always talk about ways that I've grown or things that God has taught me over the years, but I can't say that I remember a time of not knowing Jesus, even if I have a new understanding of grace or realize the gospel in new ways that seem fundamental to basic salvation. (I know I shouldn't apologize for that, but I always feel a bit sappy anyway.)
Anyway, Trey pointed out that the testimony is not that I always knew Jesus, but that covenantally, God faithfully knew me all those years. Well, okay, then let me feel stupid again for a minute: A Christian's testimony is about God, not about the Christian. What's that catechism question? Isn't this stuff I'm supposed to know? And I do know it, in a way; I just don't always realize it.
So last night's conversation is another instance of my salvation becoming more real to me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't as real before I had new understanding, because (hallelujah!) my salvation isn't even dependent on my own perception.
For all that I know, I don't seem to know much. But isn't it splendiferous to learn!
Anyway, Trey pointed out that the testimony is not that I always knew Jesus, but that covenantally, God faithfully knew me all those years. Well, okay, then let me feel stupid again for a minute: A Christian's testimony is about God, not about the Christian. What's that catechism question? Isn't this stuff I'm supposed to know? And I do know it, in a way; I just don't always realize it.
So last night's conversation is another instance of my salvation becoming more real to me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't as real before I had new understanding, because (hallelujah!) my salvation isn't even dependent on my own perception.
For all that I know, I don't seem to know much. But isn't it splendiferous to learn!
Spring!
The colors outside my apt this morning made me melt a little inside. The refreshing rain that fell all night washed off the lovely yellow-ish tree pollen that's been coating everything the past few days. The sky was still that rich, dark grey that brings out the many-hued greens of new foliage. Spotted amongst the bright greens of fresh leaves and dark browns and greys of branches were a bright blooming red bud and a crisp flowering Bradford Pear (thankfully too far away for me to smell). The sight of it all was quite therapeutic.
Then I had to go to work.
Then I had to go to work.
3.13.2007
On Friendship
It's a strange phenomenon that the same person can either drain you of energy or refresh you.
How can you break down the dynamics of communion between two people into chemicals and biological processes?
I'm sure some scientist has pinpointed all the little chemical pathways that instigate emotional responses, but is an emotional response a predictable process? Can you predict what a particular situation will elicit from different individuals?
I should have paid more attention in biology.
But something in me rebels from the thought that my experience boils down to a chemical. Somehow that is too simple to account for the richness of living. Or maybe I underestimate chemicals. Or maybe I don't like thinking that all the wonderful feelings and experiences I live can be teased out of some tube under a fluorescent light in a chemistry lab. Seems to cheapen my value or worth.
Why do I respect things I don't understand?
Why do I keep writing this babble?
How can you break down the dynamics of communion between two people into chemicals and biological processes?
I'm sure some scientist has pinpointed all the little chemical pathways that instigate emotional responses, but is an emotional response a predictable process? Can you predict what a particular situation will elicit from different individuals?
I should have paid more attention in biology.
But something in me rebels from the thought that my experience boils down to a chemical. Somehow that is too simple to account for the richness of living. Or maybe I underestimate chemicals. Or maybe I don't like thinking that all the wonderful feelings and experiences I live can be teased out of some tube under a fluorescent light in a chemistry lab. Seems to cheapen my value or worth.
Why do I respect things I don't understand?
Why do I keep writing this babble?
3.07.2007
Peanut butter
I've been trying to muster up some inspiration to write a deep, thought-provoking blog, but for some reason inspiration doesn't come that way. Or maybe I'm just not deep and thoughtful.
Instead I'm going to tell you about the superiority of Kroger brand crunchy peanut butter. It's basically the best you can get if you like crunchy peanut butter. It has nothing short of whole halves of peanuts, and Kroger isn't skimpy on dishing them out, either. It's kind of like the whole Raisin Bran "two scoops" thing, only with peanuts in peanut butter instead of raisins in cardboard flakes (don't misunderstand me; I like those cardboard flakes, but I really don't know a better way to describe them).
I often ponder the use of the word "crunchy" to label crunchy peanut butter. I don't think of peanuts as crunchy, reserving that word for things like toast or croutons. But I have seen the label "chunky" peanut butter. That's just gross, so I guess it's why the industry (in general) sticks with the "crunchy" usage.
My GRE study guide came in yesterday, so I have no excuse to put off studying for that lovely exam. I also got Far From the Madding Gerund, which has an amusing account of author bios on the back cover. You should check it out. My only hope is that linguistics will save me too!
Instead I'm going to tell you about the superiority of Kroger brand crunchy peanut butter. It's basically the best you can get if you like crunchy peanut butter. It has nothing short of whole halves of peanuts, and Kroger isn't skimpy on dishing them out, either. It's kind of like the whole Raisin Bran "two scoops" thing, only with peanuts in peanut butter instead of raisins in cardboard flakes (don't misunderstand me; I like those cardboard flakes, but I really don't know a better way to describe them).
I often ponder the use of the word "crunchy" to label crunchy peanut butter. I don't think of peanuts as crunchy, reserving that word for things like toast or croutons. But I have seen the label "chunky" peanut butter. That's just gross, so I guess it's why the industry (in general) sticks with the "crunchy" usage.
My GRE study guide came in yesterday, so I have no excuse to put off studying for that lovely exam. I also got Far From the Madding Gerund, which has an amusing account of author bios on the back cover. You should check it out. My only hope is that linguistics will save me too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)