Language is more than just words...

Have you ever thought about how much we (I mean all societies, not just limited to good ol' Northern America) depend on context and assumed knowledge when we speak to each other? (Especially over the internet!)

For instance, if I say something like:

"Rage Comics are pretty funny but I get tired of seeing "le" all the time!"

You could, if you had a very basic understanding of English, understand this sentence to some degree. But if all you knew was the literal meaning of the words being used, you'd miss a lot.

For instance, what is a Rage Comic? Even if you understood English AND had a rough idea about US culture, that would in no way help you discover the meaning of "Rage Comic". You'd actually have to know something about a specific sub-culture of the English-speaking Internet.

And even if you miraculously figured out what a Rage Comic actually meant, then you'd have to figure out why "le" would make someone tired. Why should a word exhaust someone? And if it's not making them literally tired, but figuratively tired, why exactly would that specific word cause a problem? Is this a common complaint or is it specific to just one person? And, seriously, what the heck is "le" anyway?! That's not even English!

Of course it gets more complicated.

From Charmed to Serving

I have lived a charmed life. I was born into a loving home, where at least one parent always had a steady income, and I was given every chance to succeed. As an adult, I still find myself gliding through life on some perpetual magic rainbow where all my needs are met, as well as most of my wants.

I became a Christian very early on in my life. In this I was charmed too. My parents were strong Christians who never coddled me and forced me to think critically about what I believed. My church was heavily invested in teaching core doctrinal truths as well as exploring what other's believe. They had a heavy emphasis on prayer as well as missions. At age 11 I was praying and reading my Bible every night. It was like God put my faith on a silver platter and handed it to me.

The problem with this, of course, is that it's very hard not to get spoiled. Things given in love become things entitled to. Opportunities are passed up because, well, there'll always be another time. Ever so slowly the charmed life becomes an apathetic life, marked by a sense of restlessness and discontent.

Have you ever read "The Parable of the Talents"? (Matthew 25:14-30) At a very young age this parable alarmed me. What if I was that negligent servant? What had I ever done with all the good things I'd been given? 

These questions haunted me for years. I could probably never let it go because I knew, no matter how much I rationalized, that I didn't "invest" anything I'd ever been "given" in life. I just consumed. Knowledge, talent, whatever it was... I consumed it, and I never gave back. Not out of fear (like in the parable), but out of apathy and a sense of entitlement.

In 2012 I suffered from physical pain seemingly every day. I spent a good portion of the year not even knowing what was causing the pain, which I found scary. It was fortunate (perhaps Providential) that my Pastor did a sermon on suffering. He talked about why God lets us suffer and what we're suppose to do with that suffering. During that year 2 Corinthians 12:8-10 became my mantra. (“My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”)

There was another curious side affect to all the physical suffering I was going through. You see, by living the charmed life, I'd developed an almost phobic fear to any kind of pain and/or discomfort. If something was going to make me uncomfortable, I didn't want to do it. But with this physical pain I had, I was forced into being uncomfortable AND in pain every day (to the point where sleeping was becoming difficult). I was forced into the position of depending on God's grace for contentment, for happiness, instead of my "charmed life". To my surprise (though I should have known better), the Grace of God was much more satisfying than all that "charm" I'd been clinging to.

My life had, thus far, been marked by a sort of consumerist behavior. But once I experienced the Grace of God I could not quite be satisfied with that anymore. I wanted to find out some way to spread around this heavenly Grace, instead of just letting it sit inside me until it rotted. 

And so I asked God to give me something to do. Around this time my church started up a women's ministry/group that partnered with local Christian organizations. I was introduced to Faith Refuge through this.

Now I won't lie, I was uncomfortable. I didn't know anyone in my church group, much less anyone at Faith Refuge. I didn't know what to talk about or how to relate to almost any body. I'd never felt so socially inept as I did during those first few volunteer opportunities. 

At some point it was mentioned they needed drivers (people to drive the women at the Refuge to appointments and jobs). I thought this was something I could do, since I'm a decent driver and I have experience driving a variety of vehicles (as long as they're automatic, lol). I work part time so the only day I really had available was a Wednesday afternoon. 

The Volunteer Coordinator had a meeting to get everyone together and figure out where people could serve. One of the first things out of her mouth was how they had almost all the driver positions filled. I distinctly remember the feeling of disappointment, since it seemed to me that I had just lost the chance to do the one thing I felt confident enough to volunteer for. And then she said, quite casually, that the only day they had left was for Wednesday afternoon! I immediately volunteered for that position, since I didn't want anyone else to take it before me.

Now here is something wonderful indeed: they had a need to fill, and God filled it through me. I had a heart to volunteer, but limited time, so God kept a need open for me to fill. 

I am not quite sure how to adequately express how humbled I was by this experience. When you spend most of your life being self-centered, it's a little scary trying to do anything for anyone else initially. You wonder if you'll be any good at it, or if you'll just get in people's way. This was as if God had said to me, "Yes, you can do this, and I'll help you to do it well."

Every week I go serve at Faith Refuge, and every week I think to myself how extremely lucky I am to be there. I don't even know what I'm doing half the time, but I'm glad I have the chance to learn. I am meeting all kinds of amazing women, women who are 10x stronger than I am. I have the privilege, the honor, to serve these women... to be one in the chain of many to help them regain their dignity, their value. 

This is what I had been running away from for so long. This is what I'd missing. Looking back, I don't understand why I'd tried so very hard to avoid this. I would never had wondered what kind of servant I was in that Parable if I'd just gotten to the business of investing myself in other's early on. Instead I'd insulated myself and chosen something that only seemed satisfying.

Are you like who I use to be? Are you consumer, but never a producer? Do you run away from the uncomfortable, the possibly painful? Have you wondered what kind of Servant you'd be in the Parable of the Talents?

I want to encourage you to find some way to invest yourself in the lives of others. Almost assuredly there is a Christian organization in your town or city that would love to have you participate. If you're uncomfortable in crowds, or socializing, have no fear... God will find a place for you. If you're willing to do His good work, He won't let you down.

Don't pass up the chance to imitate Christ, don't pass up the chance to serve!

The Fundamentalist Mindset, the Anti-Theist

I've been pondering "internet atheism". I know what atheism is (a disbelief in God) but internet atheists is... well, they are something a little bit--ok, a lot--more than that. They don't just disbelieve in God, they want everyone else to disbelieve in God too. They belittle, mock, and harass anyone who claims a belief in God. If I described the general tone of their writings it would be "hateful".

This did not seem quite right to me. There are plenty of pleasant atheists in the world, and I felt that these internet atheists were doing them a real disservice. What was the deal? Why were they being so hateful when the average long-time atheist seemed to do just fine?

Then I heard it. The perfect word for these hateful, arrogant yahoos I keep bumping into online: Anti-Theists.

See, it seems to me the average atheist is not out to prove themselves to anyone. They believe what they believe and don't hold it against anyone for believing different. They might disapprove of a belief in God, but they won't go around calling people stupid for it.

However, while Anti-theists claim a disbelief in God, they act and talk like people who hate God. They are bitter and angry, not just at religious people, but at God in general. It's like they decided to be atheists just to spite God or someone close to them (who believes). It's not a genuine disbelief, they're just angry and lashing out the best way they know how.

Another interesting thing about the average Anti-theist is that they embrace the fundamental legalistic view of Christianity. In their minds, there is only one kind of Christianity, and that's the fundamental conservative independent [insert denomination] church. People who don't adhere to this specific kind of Christianity aren't REAL Christians and are just deceiving themselves.

Really, if you got an Anti-theist and a Fundamental Independent Baptist together  (for instance), the only difference you could find in their theology (within the confines of Christianity) is that one hates God while the other loves him. They are just astonishingly similar, to the point that you start wondering if the Anti-theist was raised by legalistic Christian parents.

The problem with these Anti-theists is they're going around claiming Christianity can only be what they define it as, and everyone who says otherwise is obviously wrong. They even use the same arguments that legalistic Christians use to dismiss objections to their belief. ("You're just picking and choosing what you want from the Bible!" "I take the Bible literally, which makes me right and you wrong.") This is problematic because if a group is loud enough and says something often enough, people begin to believe it.

Honestly, when I think about how Anti-theists are treating Christians, I feel deeply sympathetic to the plight of the average Muslim. They're suffering because of that same mentality (all Islam is bad because of the terrorist activities of a few). Any attempts to defend themselves are drowned out by "You're not a REAL Muslim unless you're like [XYZ terrorist group], so why should I listen to YOU?" On a intellectual level that's gotta be a frustrating mentality to deal with, but on a day-to-day level it's also terrifying (because when your country as a whole starts thinking you're evil, persecution is sure to follow).

For the record, legalism is just another side to Bible illiteracy. It's what happens when people ignore history and deny 2 thousand years worth of Christian teaching in favor of their own fearful narrow-minded view of the Bible. They aren't interested in what the Bible actually says, they simply use it to justify their preconceived notions of holiness and righteousness.
 
The other thing I feel compelled to talk about is how Anti-theists harp on the "evils" of religion. All wars and strife is linked back to religion, while the many advances in science, math, education, and medicine that were endorsed or discovered by religious people are completely ignored. This view that religion is evil is so historically inaccurate and naive that it boggles my mind.

Besides that, it shows a huge flaw in the Anti-theistic view point: They believe man is intrinsically good and religion is what corrupts man, turning them evil. Without religion, without a belief in God, mankind would be good and kind and there would be no wars or racism or bigotry.

I'm highly skeptical of the belief in the [moral] goodness of man. I am told that man is just an advanced animal. Animals, the last time I looked, were not particularly "good" to their own kind much less other creatures. In moral terms, they rape, murder, and [physically/sexually] harass each other on a regular basis... and it's all considered natural. If humans are indeed animals, then our base instinct will be like that of animals. We'll do what we have to, to survive. If that means we rape, murder, and harass other humans than so be it.

So when you take religion out of the human equation you won't get peace. It's not religion that's the problem, it's the natural state of man. We are violent and cruel, because that's what it takes to survive in a world with limited resources. We will continue to be violent and cruel because it works.There's no reason to evolve out of a behavior that has served us so very well.

I'm not saying all religions are good or even equal. I'm just saying it's false to claim they're all evil and that without religion we'd all be better off. That's just not true.

Another thing that puzzles me about Anti-theists is how they focus so exclusively on Christianity. There argument seems to be "If the Christian God does not exist, then no God exists!". They completely neglect the fact rejecting one religion does not somehow disprove the concept of God in general.


I mean, God is a pretty big concept. Lots of different religions have a different take on what "God" means and how that affects humanity. Before you can go around claiming God doesn't exist, you have to at least ATTEMPT to disprove other non-Christian arguments for God.

This is why I wonder if some of these Anti-theists were raised in Christian homes. Christians typically believe that there is only one God, the Christian God. That's it. So if you reject Christianity, you reject God. The Anti-theist might take this a step further and think that rejecting Christianity disproves God altogether.


I disagree with atheism, but I don't have a problem with Atheists (generally speaking). But these Anti-theists walking around calling themselves atheists are giving real Atheists a bad name. Not only are their arguments laughably bad; they're spiteful and disruptive. They make Atheists look like a bunch of angsty bitter people who don't know how to enjoy life. I'm pretty sure that's not the impression the average Atheist wants to be giving.

Alternative to Wacom: Monoprice!

Welcome to my review of
Monoprice 12 x 9 Graphic Tablet
NOTE: LOTS O' IMAGES!
and lots o' text too!

This review is now out of date. I've got an updated version you can find at this website. (Most of the changes are at the bottom.) I also have written a FAQ that lists the most common problems & fixes found with Monoprice (and therefore UC-Logic) tablets. I've also written up a little post discussing cheap Cintiq alternatives.

THE COST:
12x9 Tablet: $87.00
Extra Pen: $9.60
+S/H: $8.03
------------------------
TOTAL: $104.63 

COMPARE:
Wacom Bamboo Create (Med Size) $170.00+
Wacom Bamboo Connect (Small Size) $65.00+
Wacom Intuos5 Touch (Medium) $330.00+

The Box: It's Square!


They packed the box well and I like that they used easy-to-recycle paper instead of that stupid peanut stuff... Danny approves.


Yeeeep. There's the stuff in the box.... Even Ichigo is bored with this picture.


Everything was nicely packed inside the tablet box. Danny thought so too.


Tada! The TABLET! It's big... so very big...


The back! Interesting... what are these black things for...?


....GENIUS!!!

Warning: These suckers are tough to get into place and then remove. You gotta be rough. (I had to ask :devaremke: to get them on AND off.....) If that scares you, just leave 'em alone!

Size Comparisons.....

1) Manga


2) Books


3) Japanese Fan


4) First Generation Wacom Bamboo Fun Medium Size.

 Monoprice Tablet WINS!

/THE END

Supposedly this flap thing is for you to put your hand drawn art under and then digitally sketch over on the computer. I'm dubious about how well this would actually work in practice. On the upside, it gives the tablet a nice texture and will likely help keep it protected. :)





 Reviews online constantly mention the cheapo pen that comes with Monoprice tablets. It's true. It does feel like cheap plastic! But unless you get a defective one, I think it'll hold up alright.
If it turns out to be defective, Monoprice will stand by it's product and replace it for free.
Also, I have man-sized hands for a girl so keep reading to see a better pen-size comparison...

WARNING: The Start Guide specifically says (in it's wonderfully Engrish way) not to put pressure on the tip when you're not using it. So set it on it's side or have the tip pointing up or use the pen holder included. Just don't ruin your pen by being an idiot because you didn't read or take the advice of the Guide.

Still the thought of getting a defective pen or having it break on me long after the warranty expires did not sit well. SO I BOUGHT AN EXTRA! I call it "The Fancy Pen"
 
This pen works with all the Monoprice Tablets!

Extra pen nib, nib remover, and battery....


Both the default pen that comes with the tablet and this pen have programmable clicky things. The default pen has a lame hard plastic clicky thing, but the Fancy Pen's clicky thing is underneath the rubber grip. A nice touch!

PS: The Start Guide calls them "buttons", not "clicky things".

Quality wise, the Fancy Pen is definitely a step up. The plastic doesn't feel as cheap, the rubber grip feels firmer, and it's slightly smaller.


These are BATTERY POWERED PENS. You need AAA batteries for them to work. The batteries that came with my pens worked just fine BUT I've heard of some batteries being Dead On Arrival (DOA). If your pen doesn't seem to be working with your tablet, the first thing you do is replace the battery. (And if you replace the battery and it's still not working, keep fiddling with it. Trying a different brand of battery sometimes works too.)
WARNING:
1) Don't bend the spring or metal battery connector doodad. BE CAREFUL when you changing batteries!
2) To open the Default pen you pull the top black part. It pops right off! Do NOT twist it off. Gently put it back on, if it gives you a hard time, you're doing it wrong. The "wavy" parts of the rubber and the black plastic need to match, so check that first.
3) The Fancy Pen screws on and off... do NOT try and pop it off. You also need to be gentle screwing it back on. (Side Note: The AAA Rayovac refused to work with this pen... I have no idea why. Using the knock-off AAA battery that came with the pen worked though. Go figure...)

DUH: Wacom pens have no batteries. They use a proprietary technology that they have no intention of sharing with anyone. It goes without saying, Wacom Pens won't work with Monoprice Tablets.

Here we can get a better idea of the size of these pens.
The Default Pen: The widest and the longest, but a little lighter than the Fancy Pen. Obviously heavier than the Wacom Pen. No eraser nub. Programmable Buttons.
The Fancy Pen: Shortest and only very very slightly wider than the Wacom pen. Heaviest. No eraser nub. Programmable Buttons.
Regular Ink Pen: Look at it sitting there, all old fashioned and non-digital! Tch! No eraser, no batteries, and no programmable Buttons.
Wacom Pen: Thinnest, lightest, second longest, and comes with eraser nub. Programmable Buttons. (Am I the only one who never used the eraser nub? o_0)

From the Left: Default Pen, Fancy Pen, Regular Ink Pen, and Wacom Bamboo First Generation Pen

"Heavy" is a very subject term with these pens. None of them are so heavy or wide they'd feel uncomfortable. But if you've got small hands (unlike me =n= ) you might prefer the Fancy Pen over the Default Pen simply because it's more compact. My husband found the Wacom pen's annoyingly light. I found the transition between the Wacom pen and the Fancy pen the easiest, though using the Default Pen wasn't very hard either.

Note: I don't get the hype about the Wacom pens. It's neat that they don't use batteries, but that's about it. Having to use batteries is no deal breaker and anyone who kicks up a fit about not having an erase nub needs to go sit in a corner for an hour for being silly.

Included driver CD with Quick Start Guide.Came in a nice plastic sleeve with 5 extra pen nibs and a battery for the pen.

And yes, you SHOULD read the Quick Start Guide before doing anything!


About the Drivers.....
1) The installer auto-started in Vista but not Windows 7. I had to go through Windows explorer to manually start it.
2) I originally installed "Support Dual Screen". It works, but I hated having my tablet split between two monitors. If that's your thing, go for it. Worked OK with Photoshop CS4 & Manga Studio EX 4. Wonky with GIMP. SAI flat out ignored the tablet.
3) I installed "Support XP 64bit" to force the tablet to only see the main monitor. Worked GREAT with Photoshop & Manga Studio, GIMP still bein' wonky, and SAI... SAI worked this time, but it forced the tablet into dual screen mode! WEIRD.
4) Don't just plug the tablet into your computer! For heaven's sake, install the driver first! Make sure to restart, THEN plug it in!

Sorry Mac users, no driver support for you! But the smaller 10 x 6.25 tablet is Mac compatible and only $44!

Here's what I mean by GIMP being wonky. I'm almost positive this has to do with my dual monitor set up. GIMP doesn't like it. There ought to be a way to change the settings around within the program to get it to work.. but I don't know what to change the settings *to*, ya know? If anyone figures that out, let me know. :)

TL;DR: No dual Monitors? GIMP should work fine for you. :P


I spent a good ten minutes wondering where the Pen Tablet Settings window was for this tablet. Turns out it was "hiding" in the corner.

Note: Read your Quick Start Guide in all it's glorious Engrish to learn how to program your hotkeys and shortcuts on your tablet. :)
Don't lose your Driver CD or Quick Start Guide. Finding drivers online for these tablets IS A PAIN.

How does the Monoprice tablet compare? The MP Tablets10x6.25 (there are 2 types) and 12x9 fall between the Wacom Bamboo and Intuos in terms of specifications.

Monoprice Tablets:
Resolution (LPI): 4000
Report rate speed (RPS): 200
Pressure sensitivity: 1024
Tilt: No
Touch: No

Bamboo Create:
Resolution (LPI): 2540
Report rate speed (RPS): 133
Pressure sensitivity: 1024
Tilt: No
Touch: Yes (Excluding Connect)

Intuos5:
Resolution (LPI): 5080
Report rate speed (RPS): 200
Pressure sensitivity: 2048
Tilt: +/- 60 degrees
Touch: Yes

Intuos traditionally beat out all competition, including Wacom's own Bamboo (and before it the Graphire). But this isn't a review for people with gobs of money to spend on a tablet, this is for folks hoping to find a good alternative to the Bamboo line. And that's what you'll find with the Monoprice, a good alternative.

Functionally, the Monoprice "feels" different from the Bamboo. I think this might be because of the higher resolution and RPS rate, as well as the freakin' huge active area (12x9). And it's important to note that these tablets don't work like a mouse (like how the cursor remains stationary even when you pick the mouse up and move it 5 inches to the left). Where ever you move the pen on the tablet, the cursor will be in a similar spot on the screen. (I wish I knew the technical terms for this, but I hope you get what I mean.)

The other thing I noticed was that you had to press down a little bit harder to make your lines thicker than what I was use to on the Bamboo. My husband LIKED this, because it imitated the feel of a real pen or pencil and allowed for lighter more precise lines without as much effort. For myself, I prefer Wacom in this instance, but I don't think it'd be difficult to make the switch either and it shouldn't be considered a deal breaker.

If you've used tablets before, particularly the really small Graphire and Bamboo line, you've probably found it frustrating. Getting a bigger tablet WILL make a difference. The smaller the size difference between your screen and your tablet, the easier it is to draw. My husband was never able to make the jump between traditional to digital partly because the tablets he's used (even my Medium Bamboo) was just too small.

When switching from a really small tablet to a really big one, keep in mind BIGGER brush strokes will be needed. Prepare to use your whole arm versus just your hand. There's more real estate so you'll have to put some elbow grease into moving that pen around. (Just like with REAL paper!) If you just want a tablet for a mouse replacement, go SMALL. If you're drawing, GO BIG.

I find the 12x9 to be a bit TOO big for me. I'm use to using smaller tablets, so I find the big arm movements a bit annoying. That said, the 8x6 or 10x6.25 Monoprice would probably work just fine for a person such as myself.

Something important to consider, but often forgotten, is Monoprice as a store. Yeah, their name sounds sketchy, but the company itself is reputable and has a very high customer satisfaction rating online. (Heck, my Dad loves them and was all surprised to hear they make graphic tablets.) Having a company that cares about it's customers puts this tablet firmly in second place to Wacom. (Some of the other brands have really terrible customer support.)

The only thing left to say is that I don't know how durable this tablet will be. Wacoms tend to last for years and years with proper care... Monoprice, being substantially cheaper, might not last that long. The pens certainly won't last as long as Wacom's pens, that much I'm sure. Of course, MP tablets don't have to last very long--though it'd be nice if they did--simply because they're dirt cheap.

Would I recommend this to you? YES I WOULD. And if you're unsure, try it anyway! The worst you could find out is that you hate it, return the thing, and buy a Wacom. The best is that you love it and you just saved yourself some serious cash.

Weight, Eating, and More

I am fat. Not curvy, not plump, just plain ol' fat.

Fatness was never a problem for me. Body appearance was one of those things that only mattered if the people I cared about made it matter. And it happens I did have one person who really REALLY did not want me to be fat and made sure I knew it. (Fitness gurus would laud that person as my savior, but as for me I mostly found it frustrating and demoralizing.)

I lived in a state with a LOT of severely over weight people. I had a friend who was over weight. I guess I could have spent years judging them and snickering and thinking how much better I was than them (back then, not now obviously) because I was so much skinnier. I mean, aren't skinnier people smarter, healthier, and greater people after all? Otherwise why would our country be so very VERY obsessed with being skinny?

I didn't judge them though, and I'd like to think it's because I'm not stupid. Judging people based on their weight is like judging them based on a handicap or their hair. You don't know what brought them there, you don't know what their struggles are at that very moment, and you don't know if you were in their situation whether you'd have done any better. Only God could know, and the last time I looked none of us are God.

I won't delve too deep into it, but I think I gained weight because of--for lack of a better word--emotional stress. I felt trapped and hopeless, so I over ate (what I ate wasn't the problem) and I became lazy (or lethargic, if you want to say it nicely). Once the emotional stress was dealt with, I was able to crawl out of the pit I'd fallen into and take stock of myself.

And that's when I realized the fat had to stop. See, if I just maintained my weight that would have been one thing, but I was gaining weight. About 8 pounds a year, for the last 8 years. Do the math and you'll see how much weight I've gained. If I kept gaining weight I was gonna turn into a mountain of unmovable human flesh, and I didn't want that.

After concluding that Something Must Be Done, I then had to think about what to do. It was during this time I had an epiphany about myself. I think if people figure out this simple truth and work with it, they'd have an easier time of life. This is what it figured out:

I have a Lazy Bum living inside me. Not just any ordinary lazy bum, it's a clever conniving persuasive Lazy Bum. If you tell me to do something I don't want to do (and sometimes what I do want to do), the Lazy Bum will come along and immediately work out ways to 1) get out of the work, 2) avoid the work, and/or 3) reduce the amount of work that has to be done. The Lazy Bum always talks me into getting out of work. Every. Time.

Now some people try to beat their Lazy Bum out of them with will power and discipline. Sometimes this works, but most of the time this shows that people underestimate their Lazy Bums. The Lazy Bum can not be chased off, or run away, he'll stay in the corners of your mind waiting for a moment of weakness. And make no mistake, a weakness will always show up, because we're human and that's our nature. We are weak, and people who pretend like they aren't will just end up being sweet talked by their Lazy Bums and be worse off than when they started.

So I thought about my Lazy Bum and how he works. Lazy Bums have certain hallmarks, certain ways of doing things. Once you acknowledge what those are (rather than pretending they don't exist), you can start working around them.

I knew a few things that would be automatic failures for me. Large over-arcing goals would not work. A rigid diet and exercise wouldn't work. And anything that my mind labels as "hard work" definitely would not work. This pretty much meant that every single diet I knew of was unworkable for me.

I had to think outside the box. I had to think Nikki shaped. It wasn't worth thinking too much about what I couldn't do, because that was also a tactic of the Lazy Bum. I had to think in terms of what I could do, no matter how small and seemingly laughable.

Firstly, there are no "goals", just "aims". My AIM is to walk at least once a week for a whole year. The reason is to prove to myself I can start something and finish it. The purpose of walking is to stop gaining weight. If I should lose weight during this, well then.... that's an unexpected bonus. But that's all it is, a bonus... it's NOT the main reason for what I'm doing.

I am also willing, though I'm not required, to push myself when I walk. If I feel up to it, I can try walking faster or jogging. But only if I want to, and never because I "have to".

Secondly, eat food that "feels good", fills me up, and try not to starve myself. This is harder than it sounds, because I'm discovering that a lot of food that tastes good makes me feel like crap afterward and food that's "good for you" doesn't fill me up (so I end up hungry). When I get busy or am thoroughly distracted, I forget to eat and starve myself (which makes me over eat later and then I'm back to feeling like crap again).

Yesterday I decided not to cook but waited too long to order pizza. When it finally came I gorged myself on pizza, over eating, and felt heavy and icky for hours afterward. I spent the entire night regretting eating that pizza, I should have just had spaghetti and meatballs like I'd planned. (This is an example of the Lazy Bum kicking me in the arse in a round-about way.)

I started this in January. (It wasn't a New Year's Resolution. It just happened in January.) It feels like it's been an awful long time since I started, but it's only March. Still, for 3 months I've done what I set out to do, and that's a small accomplishment in and of itself.

I have not gained weight, which is nice. I'm quite happy about that. After gaining weight for the last 8 years, stopping the trend is a wonderful feeling.

I was surprised to discover I have also been losing weight. I'm not really sure how much since I don't keep track via the scale. (And the Hospital scales keep giving me different numbers so...) Rather, I have a different method of knowing how much weight I'm losing. I use my pants. Yep, if the pants are feelin' lose, then I'm losing weight. If they're tight, then I'm gaining. (It's not accurate to the pound, but it's much more noticeable.)

I'm actually a bit curious to know when my weight will level out. Eventually I'll hit a point where the energy being expended will be equal to the energy being put in, and I'll stop losing weight. I haven't decided on what I'll do when I reach that point...

Like I've said, I'm not aiming to lose weight. Changing things up mid-way could just lead to disaster. I'm thinking I'll keep doing what I'm doing and just change my aim when 2013 comes around.

A Response To Some Other Article Some Place

The below is a response to an article posted in RELEVANT. The article can be found HERE and is called "Will the Internet Kill Christianity?". I feel a bit bad, in retrospect, posting such a long comment to this post. Very long winded, I doubt anyone will read it on there! (Definitely a TL;DR moment. :( )

Firstly, Where did all these atheists come from? Do they normally hang around here, or have they decided to amass at this article in particular? o_0


NOTE: It really was remarkable how many atheists showed up for the comments in this article. Generally Relevant attracts Christians, with only the occasionally atheist poking the more gullible members into arguing. But, wow, they were every where! I can only call them Trolltheists, since they weren't there to do anything but argue.

Secondly, the internet can be a great place to find information, but you should always take everything you see and everyone you meet with a great big bag o' salt. The anonymity that the internet grants means people can be as ruthless, cruel, dishonest, and underhanded as they want to be without suffering any kind of real consequences. This is why debates don't happen on the internet*, just screaming contests to see who can shout the longest and get the last word in. People online don't typically treat each other with the same dignity and restraint they would in person, because they "aren't really real people" online.

It's not a matter of exchanges ideas, understanding an opposing view points, or even trying to mutually figure out what to believe, it's about winning. And the only real way to win is to tear the other person down until they're crying on the floor, praising their opponent for their superior logic, and waving the proverbial white flag.**  Or if they won't give up, humiliating them in front of as many people as possible.*** As long as you come out on top, regardless of whether you're right or not, that's all that matters.

I've long since figured out that it's no use participating in the online community's "debate" when it deals with religion or politics. No one listens. All they ever do is talk over each other and trample over people in their rush to "win". That's not the kind of people I want to be associated with, and certainly not the kind of debate I want to be involved in.

However, a lot of people get online and are completely unaware of the environment they're stepping into. They don't realize that when they debate or argue with someone, what they're saying or thinking or feeling doesn't matter. They'll just keep being torn down until they convert or run away with their tail between their legs because it's always about "the win".

Thirdly, American Christians are astonishingly ignorant of their own faith. I suppose on a day-to-day basis, this is fine. (I mean, historically humanity has spent a lot of time being ignorant and getting away with it.) In real life you generally don't have to worry about someone randomly coming up to you, shouting about what a moron you are and then giving a 5 point dissertation on all the moronic things you've said, but online that's exactly what happens. Online, that level of ignorance is a faith killer.

So, yes, the internet can be a faith killer. If you walk into it thinking you know everything, or that what you know is enough, or not even knowing how ignorant you are, prepare to get torn apart from the butt up. You'll get chewed up and spat out and then have your virtual corpse danced on. That's just the kinda place the online community is if you aren't careful. And people aren't careful.

I've been an active user of the internet for 14 years. I have survived--nay, retained my humanity-- online by knowing where to go, where not to go, the kinds of people who are worth investing in, and the kinds of people who are basically trolls pretending to be human.

There's a lot of great things about the internet, but debating about religion and politics****? That's really not one of them. I stick with nerd stuff, and only certain places, because even being a nerd with opinions can be a dangerous thing on the internet.

*I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm talking about normal every day behavior online.
**Does this ever happen? I've never seen this happen, especially when dealing in politics and religion.
***This is pretty common though! It's practically an universal pass-time sport online.
****And by this I mean debating two opposing views, not necessarily the subject matter itself. It's possible to talk about religion or politics without it being a debate, but it's a tricky line to walk and most places can't do it. (Mostly because trolls come in and turn it into a debate. Trolls just can't help themselves! <3)

That Subtle Sense of Superiority

This all started with my husband linking to the article "Come As You Aren't" by R. C. Sproul.

I want to start off by saying I have a GREAT DEAL of RESPECT for Mr. Sproul. I like a lot of what he has to say and I want to make sure anyone reading this doesn't judge all his teaching by this one article. He's got a lot of great stuff, so don't be "scared off" by this one thing he's mistaken about. (I mean, he's only human! ;) )

I admit when I first read this I had NO IDEA what he was trying to say. I still think it's a messy article, like Sproul was just ranting or something and wasn't even sure what his actual point was. However, Mike translated it for me into a nice one paragraph easy-to-understand way. The meaning is something like this:

The gist of this article is that how we dress is an outward reflection of an inward attitude. That is, how we dress at church reflects our attitude towards God. Many people refuse to "dress up" because their attitude toward God is not of reverence or (holy) fear or respect, but because of selfish reasons ("It's more comfortable to dress this way"). Therefore, to show respect for God at church we should dress up, not down.

I have a couple of problems with this.

First, it's not Biblical. The inward-to-outward part has some credence, but the dressing up part does not. You can tell even Sproul knows this on some level, as he doesn't quote any scripture at all but uses vague theology principles to back up his belief (and even then he miss applies these principles). For a man who puts so much stock in scripture and church history, he sure does ignore a lot of it when it comes to this one issue.

Second, scripture teaches the exact opposite of what he's saying. Any time dressing up is mentioned in the New Testament, it's always in a negative light. This article has a ton of verses dealing with the subject. Please read the article I linked to, as they give a very balanced answer about dressing up.

It should be pointed out that women are told specifically not to "dress up" for church in scripture. In fact, it is implied that dressing in a plain and simple manner at church shows humility and reverence to God, where as dressing up shows pride and a lack of respect for God.

Third, history is on my side. It wasn't until the 1800s that people in the congregation started "dressing up" for church. (In the historical context, "dressing up" meant you had extra-fancy clothes for church.) Where as, prior to the 1800s, the congregation wore "street clothes" (anything clean and neat that was acceptable to wear in town). The shift of how people dressed at church was tied into the Industrial Revolution and the sudden upsurge in wealth and easy access to nicer materials. It was a culture based trend motivated almost entirely by pride and vanity; it had nothing to do with Scripture or common historical church practice. 

Lastly, I'll give Mr. Sproul some credit for being half right. What we are is sometimes a reflection of who we are on the inside. His conclusion is wrong about how that translates into real-world Christian living though.The Apostle Paul had it right for women. Dress simply and plainly, focus on what matters to God; a gentle and quiet spirit. By being plain on the outside it allows us to focus on what's on the inside.

If we are meeting our King at church, why are we dressing up? We are suppose to bring ourselves low before God, humble and contrite, showing him we understand our true station in life. We are sinners bought with a price, the price of his Son's life. We are to emulate Christ the servant, and be servants ourselves. Therefore, shouldn't what we dress to reflect a humble attitude, one of a servant and saved sinner, rather than one of a royalty? God blesses a humble heart, and dressing up (as proven with women) is not  conducive to a humble heart.

When I was discussing this article with someone, I was accused of being relativistic and post-modern ("faith is private, all religions are equal" etc)  in my outlook on how people should dress at church. I've been pointing back to scripture, with specific examples, while Mr. Sproul has only been able to come up with "it feels holy" and vague theological principles to back up his belief. How am *I* the one being relativistic?

I can't help it if Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10 already sets a precedent about how to deal with differing convictions in the church. If Mr. Sproul has to dress up to feel like he's respecting God, than he should do it. It's just that, as a leader, he ought to go out of his way to say that people who are not dressing up at church are no less respectful to God than him. By not making this distinction, he is basically saying the only way to dress at church and show God respect is to dress up, therefore we can judge a person's respect for God based on what they wear. (Which I don't think he believes at all, so he might as well just nip that kind of thinking in the bud!)

Anyway, this was a great romp through scripture and I learned something I had not really thought much about before. I, as a woman, must be careful how I dress in church, but not in the typical "must be modest" way. Rather, I must not dress flashy or in a way to gain attention. My focus at church should never be what I'm wearing (and other people shouldn't be focusing on what I wear either) but on the inward beauty that really matters to God.

I have never been a flashy dresser, but that doesn't mean I don't dress for selfish reasons rather than Godly ones. When it comes to church attire, I typically try to blend in with everyone else. The idea being if I look like them, they won't judge me so harshly or have as many preconceived notions as to the type of person I am before they get to know me. I often find myself in the uncomfortable position of compromising my beliefs on what's acceptable to wear so that other people won't give me the stink eye. And looking back, I feel sad for myself. What a terrible mindset to go to church with!

Well, I can only change the future, not the past! Next time I go to church, I will dress exactly how my conscience dictates. I will not let myself be intimidated by people who only look at the externals. I will stop focusing on the externals myself! I will put my focus where it needs to be, on the inner qualities God truly cares about. :)