Quote of the Week:

Fairy tales are true not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us they can be defeated. - GK Chesterton (paraphrase.)

Significant Others

Spouse, Wife, Husband, Partner, Girlfriend, Boyfriend, Companion? What is this? What does it mean?

Here is a little summery of what I think they mean, whether they are accurate is a matter of opinion until some scholar decides to look into it and define.

They key to it is intentions, future plans, and commitment.

Spouse:

A spouse is either a wife or husband. They have made a commitment and now have "rights" so to speak over each other and obligations to their spouse. (Marriage is selfless) A married couple intends to stay together for as long as they live through hard times and good times, as said in vows. They have the right to assume the other will be faithful and remain committed to them and them alone. There is way more too it, but that is not the purpose of this post, so I won't go into it.

Partner:

A partner is more serious than a girlfriend and boyfriend and generally reserved for older people who are theoretically too mature for the ups and downs of a flimsy b/g-friend relationship.

It is associated with co-habitation. Some people consider it as good as a spouse, but it isn't. (Depending on what you believe in the Bible, it can also be considered wrong) The intention is to maybe stay together for as long as they live or just as long as they see fit. There is no commitment, like in marriage, and they have more personal rights and less obligations to the other, so, it's still "me"-focused.

For instance, it's a huge process to leave a spouse, but to leave a partner is as easy as anything.While marriage should be selfless, partnership is not so much. It is a stronger bond, though, than b/g-friend. People in partnerships don't generally move into spouse-hood. Why would they? In partnership, it is easy, there is not so much vulnerability or trust needed. But that is an entirely different topic that is way too big to talk about here.


Boyfriend/Girlfriend:

We all know what this is, right? The constant jumping from girl/boy to girl/boy. The heart breaks and infatuations. There is no future, there are no plans. The only commitment is - something. I guess a g/b-friend agreement is simply to be the other piece of that person and satisfy their emotional/sexual needs to the best of their ability for as long as the other meets theirs. It is generally selfish, "me"-focused, and based off of fun. Yes, it is possible to remain in such a relationship for the rest of ones life.

Boyfriend/Girlfriend relationships can move into marriage, usually not partnership, you'd stay boyfriend/girlfriend in that case, even in co-habitation. (That's where the definition gets a little weird and grey between the two). It can also be considered a form of courting, but I don't think so. Maybe it's the world's form of courting. I don't know, but I don't consider it a form of courting at all.

Companion:

Do you remember how it was when my grandparents were kids? Dating was a fun thing, not serious at all. You sorta just went out with random people?

Companionship is a term I have just invented to describe someone who agrees to go somewhere with someone and be their "partner" or significant other for that night - but I use the word companion because partner is already taken.There is even less commitment than b/g-friend relationships. It is generally among friends of opposite gender who are possibly friend-zoned or "brother-in-Christ zoned."

Companionship can lead into any of the above relationships.


Courting? Why haven't I mentioned courting? Companionship is actually the closest thing to pre-courting I can think of. The reason I don't mention courting is because courting is a stage, all the above are status-quo that can remain forever. Nobody courts forever. People court with the intention of moving into marriage. That is why it does not qualify for this list.

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

I went to see the midnight showing of The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug. There were of course deviations from the book, but in all, Peter Jackson once again did a fantastic job, and I'll be the first to admit that I wholly doubted him and was proved mostly - only mostly - wrong. I think it is worth the watch. And a helpful tip, reading the book, trilogy, appendixes make understanding everything that is going on much easier. The actors do a great job in showing their deepest emotions in their acting, but reading the book makes it even better! :D That's all I'll say, because I don't want to spoil it for you, but I will say this: If you think they are going to give us a satisfactory ending to allow us to wait patiently for the next movie, don't hold your breath. Also, if you don't have access to a clock, then there will be several times throughout the movie you might think it is going to end, but it doesn't... it's long. That said, go see it! Have a great time! And read the books!

-Lynsi Keye

Quote of the Week:

If you aim at nothing, you will hit it every time. - Unknown

Conjecture: Toddlers and Tiaras

Earlier this year my sister, I'll call her Christine, told me about a show called Toddlers and Tiaras. We don't have cable, so we usually find things out through the internet or friends. I had heard about it before them. Christine told me it was a horrible show and that I should never watch it. A couple months later, I had run out of episodes on all the shows I liked, so I began to peek around for more. I thought of Toddlers and Tiaras. Was it really as bad as Christine had told me it was? Probably... but would I regret watching it? I decided to see, but I never got around to it. Obviously, I wasn't too interested. But it just so happened that when we went on vacation this summer and our grandfather had TV. More often than not there was nothing but junk on. Once or twice we got on around MythBusters time (a show we like to watch occasionally on YouTube) and Say Yes To the Dress or I Found the Dress. We were hoping for CakeBoss, a favorite in our house. Then, it happened, no other interesting show we could find or risk was on except Toddlers and Tiaras. Why not? So we did. My two sisters, my little brother, and I.

Christine was right! It was horrible. I was horrified that I found it oddly and disturbingly intriguing. Here are a few reasons I do not like the show.

One, many of those children are brats. The entire world is about them and being beautiful and crushing those other little girls who think they are beautiful. Why do I have an issue with that? Not only does it make no decent person - and INFLUENCE - want to be around them, but they are missing a big life point that is crucial for them to learn while they're young; life is not all about them and people won't tolerate brats. Young people don't learn it enough these days, these young people are being taught the opposite. What's going to happen to them when they get older? I cringe to think.
Two, all about beauty. When I was a little girl, yes I enjoyed playing with make-up. I usually made myself look like a clown, it was great! I enjoyed playing dress-up, too. Yes, I enjoyed competing with the boys, climbing so high that the trunk of the tree swayed under my weight or no one could see me, or play Little House on the Prairie or something. But beauty was one of the last things on my mind. My mom picked out my clothes and it is only because of her I look good in my childhood pictures. It has been hard to become a young adult and struggle with image. You have to weigh a certain amount. You have to wear make-up a certain way. You have to have the right fashion. Etc... this is hard to deal with knowing these values aren't even true. Why are these little girls being taught so young about these troubles and not only that but being taught that it does matter. Can one imagine what losing feels like for a little girl? Many of these girls are in fact too young to fully understand. That's the hope. But when they get older they might understand and on top of that, this is what their mom and dad are teaching them.
Three, the exploiting. Okay, this might seem a bit exaggerated, but I can't tell you how much my heart dropped when I saw a three year old dancing as a belly dancer on the stage. Really? Really? That is when I turned it off. I didn't want my brother seeing that. What sort of paths are being set for these little people? What are they being taught? Sure, many of them, luckily, don't understand, and hopefully real life will teach any bad habits out of them really quickly, but who knows, it may solidify them. It just doesn't seem healthy to expose little minds so ready to learn and be influenced about things they will no doubt struggle with when they are older and teaching them the wrong side of it, too. 
It may not be doomsday for these little girls, but it sure is opening doors to wrong paths for their futures and lies to take hold that may haunt them their entire lives or cause at least a great struggle to be freed from. While watching parts of the show, a verse kept on coming to mind: "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." - Matthew 18:6
"And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward." - Matthew 10:42

Quote of the Week

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

Conjecture: Western Harems?

I recently read Fatema Mernissi's article called Size 6: The Western Women's Harem. It really bothered me. I was hoping to find a link to a free copy on the internet, but apparently it is copyrighted. So, the gist is, Mernissi was born and raised in a Muslim Harem in Morocco. She has since left the country and lived abroad. She is a feminist and a sociologist, I think. I am more certain on the first one. She is certain that the Western women is kept in a harem, too, just like some Muslim women, so she seeks to find it and concludes with a largely flawed article. I would say that it inspired me to write an essay in response, but actually it was a college assignment, and this is what I came up with in evaluation.
I hope you find it interesting and maybe even enlightening. Remember college students, don't take everything you read or are told for granted. That actually ought to go for everybody. We still need to think for ourselves!

Holey Thesis

It is a good tactic to use a new perspective to introduce a startling topic; however, to convolute the truth is a major fault that can cause a thesis to falter. Fatema Mernissi states in her article “Size 6: The Western Women’s Harem” that “the image of beauty in the West can hurt and humiliate women as much as the veil does when enforced by state police in extremist nations” (282) equating the Western image of beauty with the Middle-Eastern Muslim harem. Her Western audience is attracted by her use of a familiar social paradigm and her correlation of it to the Islamic harem she earlier defined as a place where “Muslim men and women both acknowledge the inequality of the harem and women resist men in any way they can.” After this, she attempts to prove her points with examples, parallels, and conclusions. She does not seem to realize she has blown them out of proportion. While Mernissi brings up an interesting position from a culturally different angle, her down-right skewing of facts, contrasting incompatible social aspects, and reflecting inaccurate reality of true issues causes her article to collapse inexcusably for lack of credibility.

Mernissi makes many errant broad assertions in her article. She ironically claims that she is oblivious to all fashion designers right before she identifies the exact fashion designers of a saleswoman’s clothing. She proceeds to say that Western men, like Islam, control what women wear, although women designers are a significant force in the fashion industry. Readers are perforced to conclude that she is either excessively ignorant of American culture or deliberately leaving out the data that includes the extensive list of female designers. Either way, neither the facts nor her own statements support her allegation.

A common theme throughout her essay is a heavy blame upon men. It is her idea that men are the reason women put themselves through the loops to measure up. Using a personal example, Mernissi recalls an experience in a department store with a clerk. The clerk practically calls her fat before admitting to be under a beauty harem. This interchange leaves the audience stunned and skeptical. Anyone familiar with American culture knows that a clerk who desires to keep her job wouldn’t dare treat a customer so rudely. True, if one were to ask a group of girls why they dress the way they dress, a number would answer, “for all the cute guys.” After some exploration on the topic, though, they would all admit it is also because girls judge and determine how they treat people based on appearance. The confirming head nods and admissions of this latter truth will be nearly uniform (English 101 & City Central girls, 2013). Mernissi seems to take for granted her belief that it is all man’s fault and not even consider that a judgmental culture of both men and woman might be the issue. She reveals a bias against the male gender and an inability to provide the reader valid evidence in regard to her support.

Mernissi references Chinese foot bindings for her evidential support. The originality of the tradition is unknown. According to her, “Chinese men did not force women to bandage their feet… all they did was to define the beauty ideal… a beautiful woman was one who voluntarily sacrificed” (285) her comfort to please a man. This is a popular theory among feminists as well as the least supported story. Another of the many legends says that the daughter of the empress had club feet so the queen declared that the deformity was beautiful and all women should have club feet. Another legend claims that is was for social standing. If a family could afford to keep a member at home, the family must have been wealthy, and the daughters would marry well. According to Harvard’s research on the subject, though, the idea that bound feet would give girls a better chance at wealthier marriages is an illusion. The data the researchers gathered revealed that bound feet had no impact on the social status of a marriage. In regard to the originality, it appears to them that the “practice was directly linked to the use of young girls and women in the hand-labor force” (Walsh, 2011, 1). Handwork was more lucrative for women than the labor men and boys did. At present, there is no fully verifiable story and Mernissi’s reference to her theory of the Chinese foot binding as though it were fact is misleading.

While fashion in the US is a major influence of the social norm, it is not forced. In extreme Islamic countries, a girl can be detained, interrogated, and punished for not dressing appropriately. Punishments include “up to two months in prison or even [a] lashing.” (as cited in Bolton, 2013, para. 4 ) In countries like Afghanistan, unlike Morrocco where Mernissi is from, “roving police physically punish any woman who calls attention to herself even by wearing shoes that squeak or click on the pavement.” (Cooper, 1) There are videos posted on YouTube of modesty police in the capital of Iran stopping women and lecturing them about their clothes (infolive, YouTube). One girl was coaxed into a police van when they told her they, “just wanted to talk to her.” (as cited in Bolton, para. 19) Once inside, they reprimanded her so harshly she began to cry. After being released she expressed to her father, “as soon as I finish high school, I’m leaving this country forever.” (as cited in Bolton, para. 20) In 2008, a secret cell phone video was taken and posted on YouTube and was unfortunately recently removed about a young woman who’s head scarf did not satisfy the modesty police resulting in an arrest. Infuriated and frightened, the young woman fought back. A nearby crowd became angry and surrounded the officers causing all but one to flee. The ill-weighed comparison of Muslim’s approach to fashion and America’s attitude is disproportioned.

In the US, people can choose what they want to wear or weigh. The US government spends thousands of dollars attempting to support the healing of those who might be in situations where they are condemned for their appearance. Even in the media “there have been some signs of a backlash against the prevailing body image… so-called full-figured models like the popular Emme are increasingly showing up on magazine covers. ‘I stand for accepting your body size, whether you are a size 2 or a size 14,’” Emme says (as cited in Masci, Body Image). There are places for victims of eating disorders ranging from anorexia to compulsive eating disorders to find encouragement and people to rally behind their journey to healthy living. Unlike under Muslim law, in the United States there is a choice and there are no penal consequences.

In Mernissi’s article, she falsely claims that the majority of women are the size of her “fourteen year old niece” or an “adolescent girl”. According to statistics, “more than one-third of U.S. adults (35.7%) are obese” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013, Adult Obesity Facts). Additionally, “women have been getting heavier. Today the average adult American woman weighs 152 pounds, up from 144 pounds in the 1970s” (Masci, Body Image). “This is already causing a lot of problems for women, and all indicators are that it's going to get worse in the future, not better,” the University of Cincinnati's Gass informs (as cited in Masci, New Threats). It is evident according to statistics that the majority of woman in the United States are not the size of an “adolescent girl.”

Mernissi quotes the clerk as saying, “Many women working highly paid fashion-related jobs could lose their positions if they didn’t keep to a strict diet” (284) as though all careers are similarly affected. There is only one major career affected by size on face-value. That is the fashion career, which has the singular focus on appearances. There are thousands of careers with people who couldn’t care less  about what a person looks like as long as she can get the job done professionally. Despite the evidence otherwise, Mernissi describes dieting as a “fast” that lasts twelve months in order for a woman to fit into what she call the beauty expectations (286). Again the reality does not align with Mernissi’s perception. For most Americans, dieting is an attempt to lose unhealthy fat, not a way to keep a job or to measure up to a physical standard.

The essay is not without its merits, but its lack of consistency leaves the reader frustrated and offended. Mernissi does not portray the West culture accurately. She does not value the reader enough to give accurate facts. In addition she contradicts herself throughout the essay. In the end, the reader begins to feel Mernissi is an emotional, insecure woman with a bone to pick with men and the West leading her to write an unsupportable article. It is very disappointing because she had the potential to write a very profound and inspiring article, but instead allowed her own clouded experience to get in the way.

Works Cited:

Bolton, Kent. “Struggle Over What to Wear in Iran.” Hydrablog. Hydrablog. 22 July 2012. Web.             24 Oct. 2013

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013.) Adult Obesity Facts. CDC. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

Cooper, Mary H. (1999, April 30). Women and Human Rights. CQ Researcher, 9, 353-376.

English 101 & City Central girls. (2013) Personal interview. September and October.        

Infolive, Youtube. “Modesty Police Cracks Down on Women.”

Masci, David. (2003, November 7). Women's health. CQ Researcher, 13, 941-964.           

Mernissi, Fatema. “Size 6: The Western Women’s Harem.” The Bedford Reader. 11^th Edition.       X.J. Kennedy, Dorothy M. Kennedy, and Jane Aaron, eds. Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.     Boston. 2012. Print 226-229. Pages 282-287

Walsh, Colleen. “Unraveling a Brutal Custom.” Harvard Gazette. Arts and Culture. History,         Language, & Culture. 2013, Dec 9.

Quote of the Week

"Do not merely quote scripture. Live it." - Pinterest*

"So fill your heart with what's important & be done with the rest." - Pinterest*


*Meaning found on Pinterest

Quote of the Week

"To change and to change for the better are two different things." - German Proverb

Quote of the Week

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil; God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Counteracting College Lies

Two weeks ago I began my first quarter in college. Wow! What a big step. It's definitely exciting, not only because it is a step into adult-hood but also because of everything I've heard about it, the challenges, the Christian challenges, the moral challenges, the thinking challenges. Challenges everywhere!... Challenge is right. I have been blessed to have good professors, or so they seem so far, who aren't all about what they believe and that everyone should believe so, too. They seem pretty tolerant of what the students believe.
Still, some of the text books still have propaganda you might say. Everything has a message. Everything! From Disney Princess stories to Star Trek to Jane Austen's to Lord of the Rings to Action to everything else whether it's obvious or not. Ever have that feeling that "Something is not right" and you just don't know why? It feels great when you find out that your intuition was right, but what if you find out you were having bad feelings about something good? That's because the messages in school, movies, media, and just general life - culture - has tuned your intuition a little. Even if you didn't pick up on it, that little pattern finding radar in you did and maybe it converted it into a paradigm of life or truth. This doesn't always happen, but it isn't far enough from common. Ever watch a movie and feel "Something is wrong" too? That's probably because of the same thing influenced by something else.
Everything has a message and each message tries to shape our paradigm, our perspective, on life. It is impossible to shield off every single false message or perspective planting circumstance but it is good to be aware. It is important when you do realize you might be believing something you didn't think you did or you get that bad feeling about whatever you are learning/watching/reading to find out why to have an answer.
That is why I am hoping to create this series about countering acting college lies. It won't all be things I learn in college that is counter what I believe, it will be other things like media. So many young people go to college - which is a good thing - and get flabbergasted by a whole bunch of perspectives and opinions masqueraded as truths - not a good thing - or if they aren't, they still look pretty convincingly like truths. Some of them are, but some of them aren't. Whenever we are about to believe something, we should cross-check it with our standards of belief - that is the principles we have set for ourselves to believe if something is true or not and if it contradicts or coincides with what we have already set as the foundation of our belief and what we already to believe. Maybe it's time to rethink, but maybe it's time for them to rethink.
A lot of lies are underrated, not thought of as very important to cover or even confront. I am not going to turn a mole hill into a mountain, but I don't like mountains being turned into mole hills. And isn't every lie worthy of being replaced with a truth? Too many times in history tiny lies have eventually undermined an entire nation. Besides, when a lie comes along masquerading as a truth, it is very hard to simply say 'no' and not replace it with a truth and a reason.
Belief isn't blind, sometimes indirect, but never blind. Believing in PeterPan is blind, believing in the good girl turn bad boy to good Disney Princess paradigm is blind, believing in fairies and pixie-dust is blind, because there is substantial evidence to prove otherwise and none or very little to prove it so. Believing in atoms though no one has ever seen one is not blind, it is indirect. Believing in dogs are not blind, we seem them a lot. Two live next door and another two in the house behind mine. Believing in gases and chemistry and history is not blind, it is either direct or indirect.
I would even debate that faith isn't blind. Faith is seeing a pattern and trusting that whatever happens won't break the pattern. The most trustworthy thing we can put our faith into is God. We've felt God, we've experienced God, we've seen His handiwork - and only a small piece. God made promises, He's kept all of them. God has been faithful, He has seen people through time and time again. Sometimes is is not obvious, but if we look at the long run, we can be confident in God. When times of trouble come, we don't have to have blind faith that God will look after us, a foundationless hope. We can KNOW He will through the foundation of faith, through confidence that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, so He'll be faithful today like was yesterday and will be tomorrow.
With that introduction to lies, blind-belief vs. belief, and faith that is not blind, I guess that will close this post up. Hopefully in the near future - usually on Mondays - another blog post will show up, but college is a lot of work with a lot of homework. I'll do my best!
Blessings!
-Lynsi Keye

Quote of the Week

"The way to get started is to quit talking and start doing." - Walt Disney

Latina 2

are - sunt


Silvae sunt bellae. Bellae silvae sunt. Silvae bellae sunt.
Forests are beautiful. Beautiful forests are. Forests beautiful are.
Forests are beautiful. Forests are beautiful. Forests are beautiful.



(Latin sentences
Exact translation
Adapted translation)


Plural Latin - Plural English
Silvae - Forests
Bellae - Beautiful



NOTE:

Silva is a Feminine NOUN
Bella is a Feminine FORM of an ADJ.


Silva to Silvae
     -a = feminine singular
     -ae = feminine plural

Bella to Bellae
       -a = feminine singular if described noun is feminine singular
       -ae = feminine plural if described noun is feminine plural

No! No! No!

Here is a quote I read awhile ago: "Smart girls are the over-thinkers, the insecure ones, the different ones. They know what the real world is like. They analyze every little thing in life. Why? To avoid getting hurt. To find happiness. They stay up at night trying to think about every possible situation to get through all the problems. They think too much. They trust less people. Their insecurity proves their respect towards themselves. Of course they try to live away from a drama-filled life. Smart girls know their worth, now that's the ones worth keeping by your side."

Need I say again... no! no! no! This is coming from a girl who is partially described in this quote. It is not so romantic, it is not so sweet, nor so admirable. Its fear and loneliness and hopelessness. Maybe the reason I react so much to this is because I am not okay with a fault of mine not only being accepted as good, but admirable. I know it to be what it is and it is not romantic, healthy, or admirable. At face value, this quote is promoting insecurity, fear, shells. They are not the first people I would want to spend the rest of my life with if I were a boy.

Now, this may be someones best attempt to explain something that is good. To give it the benefit of the doubt if the quote could be translated as:


"Smart girls are the ones with understanding, the cautious ones, the different ones. They understand the foundations and principles of human behavior. They analyze what is generally accepted to make their own decisions based on their understanding. Why? To avoid taking the common path to hurt and ruin. To find happiness. They are not don't trust easily. Their caution, wisdom, and willingness to do the lonely, right thing proves their respect towards themselves. Of course they try to live away from a drama-filled life. Smart girls - wise girls - know their worth, now that's the ones worth keeping by your side."

Still, unfortunately, it is a bit over-romanticized and unrealistic. It is very self-trusting and lonesome. There doesn't seem to be much hope in it except, hey, you're smart. And when it does get realistic, no one seems to really want smart girls. There has to be something more than all that. There is, thank goodness, but it is not in this quote. I guess that was really the point of this post, to say, don't allow yourself to have false hope in just that, because when you are at your end, you'll realize it's not enough to carry you past it... I know. Without a real reason, it might seem more profitable just not to be "smart." If you browse my other posts you'll see that there is a lot more, but it will take more room than I have time for in this post.

-Lynsi Keyes

Conjecture: Bad Bird Gets the Worm

Let's admit it, generally guys are looking for the inviting girls, and, darn it, girls look for the inviting guys. The thief gets the money. The guilty judge gets the bribe. The cheater gets the grade. If they don't get caught... and for a lot of the little things or the bad things done right, they do get away... and they get away with that lovely reward and a clean conscious because they probably don't have one anymore. What on Earth is there to keep us from doing evil? If it is all about avoiding trouble, well, just learn how to do bad right, because doing good won't keep you out much better. Read some stories about Christians in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, China and that'll prove that.

Well here's something new, if you want the reward anytime in your lifetime, that might not happen. There is really no guarantee. In fact, there is a greater chance of reaping the joys of doing what's right if you except that and change your priorities accordingly than if you try to get it immediately. A great part of the joy and hope that comes from believing in Jesus comes from What Is To Come... not on Earth but afterwards. So when all falls down and nothing seems to go right, we can still be joyful and let go because the things of this world aren't permanent, but our actions for God, our family in Christ, our love is all eternal in heaven, just as His love and mercy and company is eternal even on this Earth. There are actually verses in the Bible where we find the promises of rewards for our actions.

 A lot of people live under the impression that we do good to avoid the bad consequences of doing bad. Although that can in the long term be true, a lot of bad actions come out with great rewards. And also, for practical people, if it were all on earth, if that's all there is, for goodness sakes there is more joy in just throwing in the towel and following what we want. There is pain, but it is just as much as when we are doing good. So??? What now?

There is something more... and it is easy to forget because in certain circles it is not talked about a lot. But its right here in the Bible:


James 1:12 ESV 
"Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him."

Colossians 3:23-24 ESV
"Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ."

Matthew 16:27 ESV
"For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done."

Matthew 6:1-34 are great verses to read about promises and Jesus' also talks about the reward of people who do good for show... "Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward."
So there are promises! And God won't forget, which can honestly be a bit frightening when I think about all the opportunities I could have taken to expand God's kingdom just by saying "hi" but was too shy.

To sum it all up. Doing what is right is not just about avoiding what is bad. Because sometimes, if that's all it is, its not hard to say that the bad consequences are worth it compared to the pain and hardship of doing what is right over the little things, like respecting one's body or not going with the flow. Doing what is right isn't just a defense against evil, it is an offense to expand the Kingdom of God.

Matthew 28:19-20 
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Mark 16:15 
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

And we can have faith that:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.- 2 Peter 3:9

Conjecture: Who's what and What's who?

Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are probably some of the most confusing names. Neither is actually called by its self-proclaimed name by the other party. Pro-Life advocates call Pro-"choice" people Pro-Abortion, and Pro-Abortion/"choice" people call Pro-Life people Anti-Choice.
This is natural of course, because pro-abortion people would sound horrible ranting about the "evils" and "tyranny" of a group called pro-LIFE. But call them anti-choice and that sounds better and immediately sets a defensive, antagonistic feeling towards them. Who would be for an anti-choice, group? I agree, that is why pro-life people are not anti-choice, but pro-life. But that is not how pro-abortion people see it, so they call them as they think them.
Of course, it wouldn't sound good advocating against pro-choice groups, either. Choice is good. So, pro-life people call them a mild term of what they see them as, pro-abortion. Because, pro-choice is about as truthful of a name as Planned Parenthood. There is no planning or parenthood in there!
But who's to say. Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion. Pro-Life, Anti-Choice. Who's what, and what's who? It's actually not very difficult, though I mentioned in an earlier post that the topic of abortion is a very delicate and complicated one. It goes down to where the line is drawn. Our founding father's fought so that we would be master of our own fate, not a king or a slave-driver. One of the ideas were that each individual person's value and future wouldn't be determined by another, but that everyone would have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and Pursuit of Happiness. In order to Pursue Happiness an individual would need Liberty, in order to have Liberty and individual would need Happiness. Of course, it has taken a very long time to really live that out, and it seems like each time we take a step forward in one place, we take step back in another.
There are many sorts of people in each party, and one are the people who believe that the child in the womb is indeed a human being. They are people who are concerned for both parties as most pro-life people are. But unlike pro-life people who draw the line at the child under the rights of the constitution and the rights given to him/her by God in the ten commandments (thou shalt not murder), the child despite the circumstances under which they were conceived has the right to life, they are still dramatically concerned for the mother and the future welfare of the child.
What if the mother doesn't want them? What if they are drug addicts before they have a chance because their mother took them during her pregnancy? What if we have too many kids and not enough families to care for them? What if the child was conceived under less them legal means? What about the nine-months of pain caused to the mother during that time? What if the mother decides to commit suicide because she is so distraught?
These are such good questions! So relevant and so heart felt. There are many families who want to adopt but there are not enough children to go around. There are many people who do want to help these children who have been hurt at no fault of their own. But these last three are much more difficult and brings us to where we draw the line according to our priorities.
First of all, the offender, if possible, should be brought to justice! But my question is, if there is a poor family, they have many kids, both the father and the mother work, barely bringing in enough to care for the kids, then the husband is brutally murdered, can the wife decide that since this was not her fault and that it was terribly unjust, and now she had to find a way to care for her kids not to mention they reminded her daily of that terrible person who killed her husband, so she would rather just kill them. Is this legal? Of course not, so why is it legal to do so with a child who is younger?
Maybe this sounds heartless... but on who's perspective? There are so many woman who have abortions and afterwards loathe themselves for it! Not to mention abortion increases chances of certain diseases that they can die from! Was saving nine months of pregnancy worth the possible guilt - which is heavier than any sickness - and the possible disease that could kill the woman? It is not as one sided as it may seem.
But, that is not the only problem. What about the future welfare of the child? What are the statistics of these children growing up healthy and successful? But who cares about the statistics? One of the goals of the America was that each individual could choose what to do with his life. Do we have the right to look at statistics and say, "Well, most likely this kid is going to turn out miserable, so we will save them the misery." What about the individuals who chose to climb out of it and make great men and woman of themselves? Do we have a right to snuff them out, to throw them into a box of statistics and throw them out? That is what Hitler did. And under God, I don't believe we ever have the right to take a life in that way. There are so many stories of men and woman who have climbed out of the gutter and these stories have inspired many other men and woman to greatness, without them, what would we do?
With these stories, with these choices, we have people who inspire others to create a better society, to better themselves. There will naturally be some bad repercussions, because sometimes doing the right thing doesn't always lead to immediate well being. When the slaves were free, many slaves didn't know what to do with their lives, and many plantation owners were ruined. Not very great results, but it led to a better society eventually, it led to a better livelihood for the descendants. The right to choose whether they would remain a victim - in effect victimizing themselves - or become an overcomer. God made us to be overcomers. He has given us the strength, He gives us the strength. It is always possible, and part of being an American is having that right to choose to overcome.

1 Corinthians 13:13

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

"Et ergo haec tres mansi: fides, spero, et ama. Sed maxi haec est ama."

Conjecture: Christian or Not?

Years ago, the Mormons were determined to be distinguished as NOT Christians. Now they want to be considered as Christians? I guess it was a prophecy, their belief changes a lot. From must have many wives to now only having one, from people of darker color being cursed to now being equal...
Those changes have a significant point other than casting even the simplest doubt upon the religion in general.
There is a controversy as to whether Mormons are Christians or not, but it really shouldn't be so difficult for anyone of Christian, Mormon, or no faith. I think I can sum it up in a few references to the Bible and one to the Mormon belief.

The following verses are three vital - not the most, but still vital - verses from the Bible:



1) Malachi 3:6: "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed."

2) James 1:17: "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

3) 1 Timothy 2:5: For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,


In these verses we can take: God, the ONE and ONLY, is GOOD and does NOT change, and Jesus Christ is the ONE mediator.

Now, for the Mormon verses:

1) "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man...I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in a form-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man." (Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith, 1973 ed., p. 346)

 2) "How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods." (Brigham Young-Journal of Discourses 7:333)

Yes, okay, that's two. I decided the second one was important, too.

From these two verses we can take: God was a MAN who ASPIRED to be a ONE OF MANY gods and succeeded, and WE CAN TOO! 

 God, the ONE and ONLY, is GOOD and does NOT change, and Jesus Christ in the ONE mediator.
VS. 
God was a MAN who ASPIRED to be a ONE OF MANY gods and succeeded, and WE CAN TOO! 

What??? That is blatant contradictory of the Bible. The problem? The same problem Atheists claim the Bible have, and what Christian Apologists have proved over and over again the BIBLE doesn't have: Contradictions. You can't count something as credible if it has such BLATANT and unexplainable contradictions. A few that can be explained through contexts are okay, but these can't be.


As in my first examples, the Mormon Doctrine changes a lot... but the Bible says God does not change and as far as the Bible is concerned, God's character does not change either, but it would have to drastically in order to fulfill the Book of Mormon. It is important for a Christian to believe in the God of the Bible, and it is obvious the God of the Bible is not the same God of the Mormons, therefore, it can't be the same Jesus - who is the way, the truth, and the life. So, it is one or the other.

Closing Verse:

Galatians 1:
⁶ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— ⁷ not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
¹⁰ For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant^[a] of Christ.


^{NOTE: To look up Bible verses, a good website it biblegateway.com}

Hebrews 13:3

"Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body."
- Hebrews 13:3

Latina

est - is

Silva est magna. Magna Silva est. Silva magna est.
Forest is big. Big forest is. Forest big is.
The Forest is Big. The Forest is Big. The Forest is Big.



(Latin sentences
Exact translation
Adapted translation)


Singular Latin - Singular English
Silva - Forest
Magna - Big



NOTE:

Silva is a Feminine NOUN
Magna is a Feminine FORM of and ADJ.

Quote: Winston Churchill

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."

Science: Who's To Say

If you think about it... it doesn't make much sense when people say God isn't scientific. They feel so secure and proud in that, but where is the logic? Who's to say? What but culture says that God isn't scientific. It is true that most "gods" and "goddesses" aren't very systematic... storms in the Roman times were attributed to Poseidon or Neptune's random fancies and wars dictated by the favors and hates of Athena/Minerva, Zues/Jupiter, Aphrodite/Venus, and all the other upper "gods" and "goddesses." Not very scientific. The Hindu supernatural beliefs aren't much better. And the Celts and the Natives of the Americas and Africa, etc... same thing. But, funny thing, when you read the Bible, it is completely different! God is very systematic, and although He does have the power to contradict scientific laws - a note that will be touched on later - He is also a God of order. The Bible is full of seemingly ridiculously religious rules of God in the Old Testament that modern science has shown to really be hygienic and wise.

Wash your hands before you eat???? They didn't understand that back then, and surely it must have appeared odd, but now we all know why it is important. Don't eat pigs and certain sea food? Why on Earth not? Now we know that pigs were filled with worms and other disgusting creatures that could cause painful, painful diseases. Many of those certain sea foods are creatures we now know that CLEAN up the ocean. They didn't have the same germ killing tools we do today, and even today we have to be careful. Not so pointless religion now, it seems like God was actually trying to keep His people safe. Hum! Who knew? It only talks about love and working out for the good of us a whole lot!

How did these people know? How did these people who knew nothing about germs and bacteria "make-up" so many preposterous, inconvenient rules that coincide with scientific knowledge so common today. God is scientific, He is the creator of Science.

Of course, this still counts for nothing against people who think the IDEA of God is unscientific. My question to them is, you can't even come up with a legitimate explanation for how life began and you say God is unscientific? People who believe in Evolution must believe that in the beginning, every single known scientific law for some reason no one knows completely contradicts itself to create life, continues to contradict itself to continue creating life, until randomly in the last 6k years started following them again for some random reason. Hmm... that is REALLY scientific. ? I don't think so. They could say, "Well, same to you, God was just there, how did He come."

Yes, God was always there. But doesn't that make sense? He CREATED science, not the other way around. It does take some getting one's mind around, but if you think about it in the sense that God is the Creator and Science is His tool, it makes more sense. It makes even scientific sense. Miracles? I like to see it like this. Suppose I create a little town with dolls and little houses. I might even hook up an engine to make them all move in a certain way of life. But, suppose I wanted to take one doll and put it somewhere else but the machine doesn't move it like that. What would I do? I would go, grab the little doll, move it, and hook it up to the machine to move again. Nothing magic in that, perfect logic. The little dolls might exclaim that that destroys the science of their little town and their little machine that makes it move so that I cannot possibly exist because I am not run or explained by the machine. Yet, when you think that I created it, it would make perfect sense. And then if you observe the little town and creation, you might realize it makes perfect sense that something outside of it created it.

That is how I see Creation. And people might say, well that is cutting it pretty thin, anybody could say that about anything. True... but not when you take EVERYTHING into account. Put everything onto a scale, and honestly, God and Creation and the Bible are a much weightier reality than ANYTHING else. It would be impossible to cover all those in one post, but over the next few weeks of Science, I am going to try to cover different aspects of science and see how they support Evolution and how the support Creation.

Genre

I decided since I only have one blog, I am going to have different genres of posts. At present it is the following:

1) Conjecture
2) Quotes
3) Around the World (Geology)
4) Earth's Secrets (Science)


Some more are sure to come. Each genre title will precede the title of the document so that the genre will be obvious and easier to navigate through.

-Lynsi Keye

Be Prepared, Be Prepared! This Lesson Must be Shared!

Ah... Texas... the Seven Flag State, the Lone Star State, and the home of Dr. Pepper. I think the mosquitoes here think I am main course! I have 22 bites on one leg. Nice for me they don't itch most the time, they just look horrible! It is hot, as usual, what can you expect if you visit Texas in August? Thankfully, Washington was rather warm before we left, so I have gotten used to coping with it.
I've learned a good many thing already here, but a big thing that life seems to be trying to teach me these last few months is the value in being prepared, and I don't mean just in material, I mean in knowledge. The other day, I was talking to my little cousin about Jesus. He had heard about Jesus and he knew that Jesus loved everybody and that he was in the sky (heaven, I assume he means). When I tried to explain that Jesus came down to save us and He was in our hearts, that's where I lost him. I realized that children are very literal - I really should have known that being the older sister of three. I used church talk with him and he didn't understand. Church talk had become so common to me since I grew up in the church from a very young age. I realized that I had not been prepared to talk to my little cousin about Jesus like I should have been and I hope that I will have another chance. This is probably pretty close to what the Bible means when it says to be prepared with answers for the joy that is within you (1 Peter 3:15) and it is always good to be prepared with a reason for most everything you believe in if not everything. Several weeks ago - a little over a month - three Mormon Evangelists showed up at our door. Well, thought I, I just watch an hour and a half video about their religion and their Holy Book, but that was from a Christian perspective, let's see what an actual Mormon says. So I went out there and talked to the three girls.  I wasn't sure what exactly to expect, whether they were more main stream and didn't actually believe most of what they claim to, or if they did. It was actually very enlightening. But by knowing as much as I did, I was not only able to answer questions about their own religion and my own, but I was able to form intelligent, deep questions many wouldn't even know to ask. This caused them to open up and tell me much more than they would the usual person who wouldn't have even understood. By the end of the day, I think they got almost as much out of the conversation as I did, which wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been prepared with answers and questions. I have two more examples. The other day I was at my grandparent's good friend's home for a cookie party and her grandkids were there. I fell into conversation with two of the boys - 9-ish and 12 - about some very interesting scientific topics. They were very bright and knew more than most kids about the particular history and scientific topics we were discussing, one of which being Creation (including Dinosaurs). The conversation did remind me of the sad fact that many Christians today have compromised the Bible's truths for Evolution which blatantly contradicts it (if nothing else, the need for animals to die for it to take place does, but that is only one among many) and science in general, let alone the Bible. When the younger one asked when Mammals first existed, I answered, "I'd say the Fifth Day of Creation." The older one then said that that was true, but of course each day was a couple thousand maybe million years. We stayed on this topic for awhile and I was able to give them example of why that wouldn't work and also why it is most likely dinosaurs lived alongside humans. I am not saying this because it is what the Bible says - although it does say so - but because I have been shown the science which supports it! My last example is a bit of sticky conversation I had with my aunt today. I am Pro-Life and she is Pro-Choice. Naturally this is a rather delicate topic being that is also very hot, very complicated, and can deal with a lot of pain on the part both parties involved. After making clear that neither of us would take offense, get angry, or take anything personally, we have a rather lively debate about this. I can't say it was enlightening, because I had heard most of the arguments before and I had heard most of the answers before, and the outcome was just about what I had supposed it would be, though far from what I had hoped. But by being prepared with answers, I was able to give her something to think about and work the debate down to where we both had to make a final stance of what we believed in. Mine was that the right to life of the child was precedent, and her's was that the future welfare of the unborn child was. Like I said, a very complicated subject. A random thought, if you have never watched Amazing Grace, you should. It will really enlighten on the Abortion topic too, because like Abortion, Slavery wasn't too easy of a topic either, as it is easy to think, and Amazing Grace helps clarify that a bit. Doing the right thing doesn't always lead to immediate great results. I'll touch on that some other time.
That was my last example. In all, by having answers to the Mormons I was able to give them something to think about without being rude or mean or antagonistic and I was able to learn something useful for myself. By not being prepared for my little cousin's literalness I lost an opportunity. By being able to answer my twelve-year old friend's questions and ask him intelligent questions myself, I was able to give him something to look up and think about, while having myself a few things to think about as well. In regard to my aunt, she did not change her mind in the end, I did not change my mind in the end, in fact, in all the examples, no one changed their minds in the end. If someone has to change their mind at the end of a debate for it to be worthwhile, then it will never be worthwhile. But if you can cause someone to think about it, or say, "I'll look that up." - granted they probably won't - you have made them think, and you have left a subconscious or conscious impression on them. Most people are taught that Creationism, Christianity, Pro-Life people are all idiots who blindly follow random things. By having answers, it shows everyone that that is not true and leaves a lasting impression that might eventually lead to them realizing maybe these people have answers, maybe they are right, but at least they can respect them as people who have reasons. Because it is hard to respect someone who has no idea why they believe what they believe and wants everyone else to believe it, too.
Thanks for reading... :) Have a great day!

New Post, New Name, New Goal

Wow... it has been years since I have on this. Well, we have just finished moving again and finding this is perfect timing, I was just wanting a blog. It has been, let's see, four years since I was last on. That is a long time. I still love to write and I have been working on some novels. A short story or two is actually finished, and I might post it. I am working on my photography, too, and have a Pinterest account where I post some of my pictures. I will have many more coming since I am going on a cross-country trip soon and plan to stretch my "skills" to the maximum possible. Good practice and I am very excited. I am no longer God's Jewel... that is to say, that is no longer my name - I still am His Jewel :) - I call myself Lynsi Keye (Lynsi: that is pronounced as it is spelled, Not Lindsey and Keye: pronounced Key) And yes, both names have a story to them which I do not have time to tell now, but maybe in the future if I have time - which I very much hope I do. Who knows, maybe I'll eventually get the stories to which the name's belong to out on this blog. That would be fun! Now I need to go and figure out how this thing works, so far the only thing I have figure out how to do is make a post, which is one of the least of the things I need to do on this blog. :)

-Lynsi Keye