~PD

Note: There was much more to the original post above which I’ve responded to. Unfortunately, most of it disappeared before I was able to capture it.

My Response:

Pd,

What is with this silly terminology you are using. It’s called spanking, and it is a word. I’m afraid that the simple fact that you’ve stumbled across some research that attempts to support your claim is unconvincing and inconclusive to say the least. With little effort I could find some bit of research to support just about any odd ball belief that I may attempt to force upon myself or, as in your case, others. It is silly beliefs like yours (notice and give credit that I didn’t say “silly people like you”) that are the reason why my wife and I can hardly go shopping or have dinner at a restaurant without being completely disrupted by out of control, screaming children. By the way, the examples of parenting that we see on “Super Nanny” are not those of overbearing parents who are “biscuit bopping” (or whatever you might call it) their kids to the point of driving them to rebellion. It is, in fact, quite the contrary. We witness Dads who are either uninvolved, disinterested, constantly screaming at the kids, or simply big pansies who let their wives run all over them while they sit smiling foolishly and forcibly.
And finally, the vast majority of professionals believe that “ass grassing” isn’t healthy? What professionals? Were you referring to professional parents? Or perhaps you were talking about child psychiatrists who also hold the majority opinion within their circles that so much as using a red pen to score a test is also harmful to children. Maybe next time you come to the table, you should bring a little common sense with you, rather than your mindless research.

Is it just me or does the Christian faith ever seem a bit complex and confusing? One of the greatest pitfalls that I see young Christians facing while attempting to adhere to “Christian standards” is that no two Christians maintain the same standards to be relevant. Every group of Christians that we run across holds to a set of moral standards, none of them are completely consistent with each other, and all of them sneer at either the stringency or the leniency of all the others. I think that it’s important that we as Christians take a step back every so often to examine our moral codes of ethics, holding them up against true biblical doctrine to see if they in fact hold water. If we are unwilling to do so, we risk forming our own sets of extra-biblical rules, attempting to base them on the Bible, and confusing the people around us who are watching to see if there is any relevancy to our claims.  Now understand that I am in no way against maintaining personal convictions which may be extra-biblical. The danger emerges when the Bible is referenced as a source for such personal preferences when these preferences are simply not based on biblical doctrine. In Matthew 15:9 Jesus called this activity, “Teaching as their doctrine the precepts of men”. The indication here is that extra-biblical rules being regarded as biblical doctrine even bothered Jesus, and according to Christian beliefs, He was God. Perhaps we should consider this seriously. I’m going to list some examples, not in effort to put anyone off or to make all of my readers, friends, and family angry. But to… Well, just for fun. Examples are bullet-pointed bellow.

• “I don’t smoke because of my Christian faith. After all, my body is a temple of God, and I will not defile it. Hey, I’m feelin’ a Quarter Pounder, some greasy fries and a bucket of Coke! I’m already 40 pounds overweight, but who cares, let’s go!”

If this is you then really what you are concerned with is maintaining a “Christian” image. You base your moral animadversion against tobacco products on the Biblical idea that our bodies are a temple of The Lord and thus we must keep them healthy. Then you, at least to some degree (admit it), condemn people around you for smoking while you don’t condemn (or at least not to the same degree) others around you who are indulging in another unhealthy practice. The Bible says absolutely nothing against tobacco products specifically. What it does talk about is the importance of not defiling our bodies which are indeed His temple. Christians have rightly considered unhealthy habits to be one source of defilement. The problem emerges when Christians regard one unhealthy habit as somehow being worse, according to God’s standards, than another unhealthy habit.

• “I am a woman who does not wear makeup because of my Christian faith. After all, the Bible mentions Ol’ Jezebel and her face painting and that’s condemnation enough for me.”

I think that there was more to Jezebel’s evil ways than “face painting”. This one is really funny to me because, in the story of Jezebel, the Bible never says anything against makeup. It simply mentions that she was wearing it. To say that the Bible’s mentioning Jezebel’s face painting is an indication of the sinful nature of painting one’s face is a little like saying that partaking of The Lord’s Supper is a sin because the Bible mentions that Judas did so. And he was a bad one.

• “I give my pastor complete authority over what spouse I choose, what car I drive, what clothes I wear, how I spend my money, etc., because of my Christian faith.”

Really? Either explain the biblical basis for this or stop looking down your noses at everybody else who disregards what you consider to be a super Christian example as a legalistic lifestyle. Mmmm, a little harsh, huh? I’ll tone it down. I promise.

• “I don’t drink because of my Christian faith.”

Did Jesus drink?

“Yes.”

Oh… I’m confused.

• “I believe that the Bible is the only acceptable work of literature because of my Christian faith; therefore, I only read the Bible rather than cluttering my mind with the simple opinions of others.”

Obviously, if you’re reading this, then you’re not one of these people. Nevertheless, remember that many books of the Bible were not initially written to be part of the Bible; they were added later. I believe that God knew as they were being written that these books would be used in His Bible, but the authors most likely didn’t know. Consider that, even though the books were not necessarily written to be part of the Bible, they were still written. And why do we write books? Because we expect people to read them. Thus we deduce that even the writers behind the Bible itself wrote and most likely read outside of the specific books of the Bible. Again, what did they know.

• “I am a stay at home mom because of my Christian faith”.

What about the proverbs 31 woman? The proverbs 31 woman is one who does the following: Selects wool and flax and works with eager hands: She brings her food from afar: She gets up while it is dark and provides food for her family and servant girls: She buys a field and out of earnings plants a vineyard:  Her arms are strong for tasks, her trading is profitable.

Kind of hard to do all of that from the house don’t you think?

“Well, I didn’t say I was a Proverbs 31 woman. I said I was a Christian woman! And my faith compels me to stay at home.”

Now we’re getting somewhere! If this is a personal rule that you’ve set for yourself, great! Really. But regarding this personal rule as biblical doctrine which is set in stone spawns confusion for young Christians who are watching you closely, and are having a hard time finding any such standard in the Bible itself.

These were just a few examples that I could quickly think of. If I were to really think about it, I’m sure the list of examples would be endless ( e.g., I only study out of the King James text: Hymns are the only form of worship songs approved by God: Wearing a ball cap in church is an abomination: Girls can’t wear pants: No PDA: No birth control: No dating: No coffee in the sanctuary: God likes darn better than damn: All truth can be found in the scriptures, etc.)

At this point, I can assume that many of you may be asking yourselves, “Wouldn’t it be better, if we are going to err on one side or the other, to err on the side of too legalistic rather than too lenient?” I used to work with a guy who believed this to be true. And perhaps I should admit that I do as well, but only if the erring is unintentional. It may be that while trying to interpret modesty for herself, a woman will err unintentionally to one side or the other, and erring toward a little too modest is probably better than erring toward a little too immodest. I could think of other for instances, but the point is that the woman’s erring, whether to one direction or the other is unintentional. She has not discovered for herself what may be the biblical standard for modesty and decided to turn it up a notch or two. Instead, she is simply on the path of discovery. Perhaps soon she will develop a better balance in this area. I think we lose balance when we read our Bibles and discover what it says about how we should dress, eat, speak, learn etc., and we determine that it is our Christian duty to, in a sense, outperform the Bible. Then we begin to intentionally develop a legalistic standard of living that transcends the example given by the Saints and even Christ!

TheDinkerson

I’ve been doing some reading about various friendship types. There are, it seems, many different friendship labels available for us to research and categorize our existing friendships into. I’ve read about the “fun friends”, with whom we enjoy going out, getting away from our routine, and often times getting into trouble. Also, I’ve read about the “confidants”, whom we spend a great deal of time relaying our secrets, exposing our inner selves, and perhaps even confessing sins to. There are friends that are mentors whom we look up to and glean wisdom from, and intellectually challenging friends who serve well to teach us about ourselves and the world around us. The label of friendship covers a wide spectrum of relationships from business associates all the way to our spouses. Something I have noticed, and I believe to be worth exploring, is that however different in appearance and approach these relationships may be, the fundamentals are always the same. These fundamental elements of friendship, from my perspective, are as follows:

• Friendships require effort and commitment, and must be mutually pursued. Never one-sided.
• Friendships require an element of exclusivity.
• Friendships are never completely lost due to circumstances (Although circumstances may bring about a diminishment of potency, estrangement will never be the outcome).
• Friendships will at times require some amount of disregard for, and thus irritation of other relationships.
• Friendships will meddle with marriages and marriages with friendships. A proper esteem for both must be maintained.
• Friendships require, at times, for us to abandon our comfortable routines in effort to meet the needs of others.
• Varying dimensions of Friendships require their own appropriate measure of access. This must be considered, quantified, and closely monitored to avoid allotting inappropriate amplitude of time and resources to friendships belonging to the “fun friends” or “business associates” categories while all but abandoning our confidants and spouses.
• Friendships require our time and resources; therefore, a certain amount of willingness to be “put out” is required in order for us to adapt appropriately to the requisites of the friendship.
• Friendships require an obligation, recognized by all parties, to meet the above requirements.

These are just a few simple thoughts that came to mind while I’ve been dealing with the frustration of disappointment over most of my present friendships. This thought process has helped me not only to consider what kind of friend I would like to be, but also to reevaluate what my expectations are regarding people who I’m willing to welcome into and even allow to remain in my inner circle of close friendships. I suppose that one could step far out of balance if he chooses to regard these passive and typically unspoken requirements as a systematic protocol overtly demanded by all who wish to befriend him. But, I’m choosing not to allow myself to lose balance on this issue. Friends will disappoint, and they must be allowed that; However, I do believe that friendships, if they are going to last and be at all fulfilling, must satisfy some fundamental level of expectation, however elementary.

Written by

Jamie

My Response:

Jamie, after perusing your blog I decided that you seem like a well-rounded and pleasant enough fellow; however, some of your points in this comment simply don’t hold up well to actuality. First, to say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay is an oversimplification. My first question would be, there is nothing wrong with being gay, why? Based on what standard? If we’re just going off of gut feeling here, well, this could pose a problem. You see, I live in the state of Arkansas in The USA and, as you may know, there is a running joke/rumor going around that people from Arkansas are known for incestuous relations with cousins. I have not personally observed any such thing, but let’s suppose for a moment that this rumor is true. Suppose that we from Arkansas decided that sleeping with or marrying our sisters and cousins was simply okay. And if questioned, our simplistic response was, “There’s nothing wrong with it”. Would that be conclusive reasoning by your standards? I doubt that it would. In fact, I would assume that there would be many who would want to know what we base such an assertion on. “Who is setting the moral code down in Arkansas?”, they might ask. Do you understand, Jamie, that you can’t simply say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with something or that something is most positively wrong simply because that is the way that you would like to view things. Instead, questions must be asked. Questions like, is there such a thing as morality? And if there is, what does morality look like in one’s life once it is achieved or pursued, and who or what makes up the standard for moral behavior?

Your perspective is that “There is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay”. Another man’s perspective may be that there is nothing wrong with screwing a cow. The simple fact that the one man thinks that bestiality is acceptable behavior isn’t likely going to convince you that it is. Perhaps you should bring more evidence to the table.

Now, when you say that “Gay people have been persecuted for hundreds of years because of one book” I assume you are referring to The Bible. In response to this, I will briefly point out that The Bible never commands nor does it suggest that its adherers should persecute people who are gay. I think it would be to your benefit to put down the tissue box for a moment and realize that throughout history, people of most creeds, societies, races, and political or moral persuasions have had to endure their share of persecution from the masses. To place the blame for any one of these examples on one book that speaks of nothing having to do with the given examples is mere foolishness.

And finally, to say that Europe is moving in the right direction and that being gay goes unnoticed there carries little weight to an American simply because… Well, we stomped all over England’s tea drinking pansy warriors a couple of hundred years ago in an effort to not be “European”!

Today, at the US Chamber of Commerce,  Obama demanded that business leaders “start hiring”. Hmm… Brilliant! Why didn’t we think of this before!?!?!?!?! If only we had known during The Great Depression that all we had to do in order to fix things was to demand that things get better,  wouldn’t the whole damned world be a better place? Thanks Barrack for letting us know how big men get things done. “Start Hiring” the man says, “And let me know if there is any reason why you can’t do so”. Well, we’ve tried that sir, and it worked about as well as telling Mexico we don’t want their bastard children. Shortly after declaring an open door policy for economic concerns, the president defended his two landmark bills, the financial reform bill and the health care reform bill, and stated that, though the simple minds of US business moguls may not be able to fully understand the up side of these bills, he was sure that soon the parochial mindsets of these multibillionairs would fully grasp the young presidents savvy business logic.  Has the Oval office ever housed a more simplistic mind than that of our current president? I think not. Perhaps Barrack Obama should make us all feel better and go-a- hunting with Dick Cheney.

This is not a subject that I would categorize as a favorite of mine about which to write. I would far rather spend my writing hours on subjects that carry much less weight. It should be noted that, in writing this essay, I do not purpose to incite “trouble” on my blog, or to make anyone feel small about whatever choices they may be facing at present.  That being said, this is indeed a troublesome subject; Nevertheless, one that you and I might do good to consider slowly, and with much patience. Before we begin, allow me to note that if you happen to be someone who is dealing with the question of whether or not to end your pregnancy via abortion, and you would like someone to talk to, I will certainly make myself available through my “comments” option below. I may do no good at all, but I will certainly not be judgmental, and I myself know what it is like to need to talk to someone. Now, I’ll begin my essay.

Let’s consider the origin of the word, “aspiration”. Noah Webster had a very clear definition of this term. In one of Webster’s original dictionaries from 1828, he defines the term aspiration as, “The act of aspiring or of ardently desiring what is noble or spiritual”. How odd, then, that one presently accepted definition of the word aspiration is, “To suck puss”. This is an egregious adaptation indeed, but perhaps there is more Devil’s work taking place here than simple etymological evolution. Should someone be held accountable for this cynical degeneration of what was once a beautiful term into something so morbid? What was the bleeding void suddenly formed in our language which could only be remedied through the augmentation of the term aspire into such filth? Perhaps there was no void. Perhaps the absence of a void in our language is where the Devil’s work is manifested.

The most common type of abortion procedure is one that was developed in 1958, but was not introduced into the United States until close to fifty years later. The procedure is performed by a tiny vacuum being inserted through the cervix up to the baby, and then the baby being broken into tiny pieces as it is sucked into the tiny opening at the end of the vacuum. This procedure is called the Aspiration Procedure. Doctors favor this type of abortion procedure because it is non-surgical and can be performed without any dilation of the cervix. It takes approximately five minutes to “suck the puss”, and the woman is able to leave the clinic feeling normal as she resumes her previous activities. No follow up visit is necessary. Come on in girls, for an Aspiration! Incredible isn’t it, the power of a tiny play on words.

There are two pictures below. The object depicted in the picture on the left  may frighten you. Scientists along with our president are confused as to exactly what it is. Even though it continuously wiggles its toes, suckles at its mothers breast and sneezes, scientists have assured us that it is certainly not alive. The other picture – the one on the right – is of my beautiful daughter taken just days after she was born. I took the liberty of placing the picture of my daughter just to the right of the image of the hideous, lifeless form to better demonstrate the distinction between the two. According to science, one is a baby; the other is puss.

We know that the image on the right is that of a small child. But that other image, what exactly do you suppose it is? The picture portrays an object that is so baffling that even our president claims it would be above his pay scale to attempt to determine whether or not it is alive, let alone what species it may be. Allow me to enlighten you; The picture on the left is of what scientists and Planned Parenthood call “puss”. At least that is what it would be called if it were still inside its mother’s uterus like it was just moments before this picture was taken. According to scientists, just moments ago while still in utero, this was a lifeless 24-week-old fetus. Moments ago, inside its mother, it was not a baby, it was not a life, it was a clump of puss aspiring to be human but at risk of being aspired. Now that it is born and its parents actually want to keep it, scientists are baffled, along with our president. They feel strongly that these parents should be locked up and put away. Imagine the audacity of such parents wanting to take a dead fetus, or clump of puss, out of the hospital and home with them. After all, it will still be several weeks before the thing develops life and becomes a baby.

Please understand that I have utmost respect for life and I understand that this is a baby that I’m calling puss. Really, I’m only mimicking the philosophy of Planned Parenthood and scientists around the globe. It is they who refer to the picture above as a clump of puss. Perhaps in their minds the picture below depicts a more appropriate demise for something so repulsive. Before you turn your eyes away, let me make you aware that the baby below was 22 weeks old and was not considered human nor was it considered to be alive before it was killed. On the other hand, the baby above was born at 24 weeks to loving parents, and survived.

Readers, it’s time we started holding our scientists and our politicians accountable for their research, and their actions. The same scientists who say that life began because of fairies riding in to earth on magic crystals, and the same scientists who claim that we evolved from monkeys – While offering no follow up explanation as to why the species that supposedly evolved into humans still exists – are allowed to determine what life is, and who has a right to it. When will we take the reins back and say to the scientist, “Your Research is faulty, and your science lacks evidence. For too long you’ve used the name of science as if the word itself possessed some divine power rather than the simple promise of sound, laborious experimentation. We demand research based science rather than politically based agendas”?

Perhaps it is too much to ask.

Thank you.

Nathan Gray

“She tailored her data to suit the ideologies she went their to substantiate.” — E. Michael Jones (Of Margaret Mead’s trip to Samoa)

There will always be people in the world who say that there is no God. Conversely, there are many people who claim that God does exist. When attempting to decide for yourself whether there is in fact a god or not, I would encourage you to first consider the arguments used by the proponents of theism vs. the arguments proposed by the atheists. First, let’s consider some of the viewpoints that renowned atheist Bertrand Russell subscribed to. Bertrand Russell claimed that there was no reason to believe that the universe had a beginning at all. Russell claimed that to assume that the universe must have had a point of origin demonstrated a lack of comprehension and imagination to conceive otherwise. Science has now proven that the universe does indeed have a beginning, thus demanding a new perspective from Russell, that is if he were still alive. Even Antony Flew mentioned his dismay at the discovery of the definitive origin of the universe. Dr. Flew realized the tremendous monkey wrench in the chain of his philosophy of atheism that this discovery, and its acceptance by secular scientists, seemed to present. If Russell were still alive, he would have to change his stance on this subject due to its inconsistencies with modern science and philosophy. As an aside, Russell also compared the belief in God to the belief in an orbiting tea pot, and maintained that the best way to raise children was to take them away from their parents and isolate them from any other “negative” influences from birth, allowing them to grow in an open environment where morality was not encouraged and open sexuality at a young age was all but encouraged.

Let’s now move on to another notorious atheist, Richard Dawkins. Dr. Dawkins has built an entire belief system around many of the “missing links” that have passed through the research rooms of liberal science labs, including the following: Lucy, whom almost all experts now realize was a small chimpanzee; Heidelberg Man, whom was later discovered to be a human; The infamous Nebraska Man, which consisted of a tooth that turned out to be that of a pig. As he moves from one fallacy to another, Dr. Dawkins inevitably has to pretend that he never held to the previous one, which has since been invalidated. With Dawkins, it is truly interesting to me to note that even though he constantly has to change his stance or his element of proof, he claims that he should no longer have to debate theists because his position has already been proven through science and debate. “The debate is over”, Claimed Dr. Dawkins in one interview. On another occasion, at Wellington College, Dr. Dawkins claimed that he would not debate creation scientists as he put it,  “Because I’m busy”.  It interests me that he would make the claim that the debate over the origin of the universe is over when he himself lost his last debate on the subject with an acclaimed theist named Francis Collins. I’ll just point out here that not only did Dr. Dawkins lose the debate with Dr. Collins, but he was quite literally made to look pitifully much like an undergrad. Because Dr. Dawkins lost his last debate, and now, presumably, the debate is over, what does that mean for Dr. Dawkins’ atheistic claims? I think that if I were an atheist, I should be concerned by these events. Let’s move forward. Another atheist named Lawrence Krauss tried to use quantum physics to demonstrate that due to the vacuum state and particles emerging from it, something can indeed come from nothing, thus the entire order of the universe appeared out of nowhere. William Lane Craig responded simply and beautifully to Dr. Krauss’ supposition by  explaining that the quantum state is in fact not nothing; Instead, it is a sea of energy from which only naturally should something emerge. Dr. Krauss has yet to change his stance on the subject because his position is still being applauded by many liberal professors who are not quantum physicists and don’t understand the first thing about what Dr. Krauss is presenting in their classrooms.

Another atheist whose words we should consider is the pedantic lunatic, Michael Shermer. Shermer is the publisher of skeptic magazine. Just hearing this man’s name makes me cringe, remembering the embarrassment I felt while watching him debate a group of theists on whether or not the universe had a purpose. During this debate, Shermer seemed to forget which side of the issue he was supposed to be arguing, and thus began to debate and support both sides of the issue while his opponents observed in bewilderment. Shermer uses an emotional argument to attempt to disprove the existence of God by claiming that he doesn’t believe in God simply because God hasn’t put new limbs on wounded Christian veterans of war. He then accuses theists of using only emotional arguments. Who is really using emotional arguments here, theists or Shermer? [I've edited out the rest of this paragraph because, after much thought, I've decided that its brutality went a little beyond the purpose of communicating my point.]

Wake up Academia and get off of your damned high horses! One of these days the creator of the universe is going to come out of the sky on a horse much bigger and much higher than yours, you bloody fools! On that day unless you’ve accepted the obvious truth that is revealed to all men through the evidence of the universe and God’s priceless personal invitation, your academic pedestals will topple and your snarky attitudes with your pitiful choices will be on your own heads, you academic clowns! The evidence for theism is always consistent. It never changes. The universe in all of its created grandeur came from something, and I tell you that that something is more than a thing. That something is God!

In a follow up to this essay I intend to demonstrate some of the reasonable arguments for the existence of God. I am not a full time blogger, and I don’t have a lot of time to say everything that may need to be  said in each of my posts.

The Dinkerson

It has been years since the last time I have involved myself in the taking of The Lord’s Supper, but just the thought of it causes at best boredom and at worst extreme nausea accompanied by that cotton mouth feeling that only Welch’s grape juice can deliver. I’ve always been told to sit very still and pray to God during these ceremonies. I’ve been instructed to confess all sins and capitalize on the opportunity to sit silently while abating inwardly the distance between relationships with fellow church members and even Christ. And that’s only the first part of the ceremony. Then comes the beautiful trays filled with vials beautifully manufactured by Chinese prison workers for the Lord’s Supper and filled with grape juice rather than wine (for political correctness), and the nasty little wafers that always get stuck halfway down my throat leaving me wanting for just one drop more of that grape juice. As an aside, Mom used to always scold me when she would catch me trying to lick the last bit of juice from the bottom of the little glass. I never really gave it much thought. Nothing much to consider. A sip of grape juice and a stale cracker which posed a sure chocking hazard for anyone under fourteen. My question is, what really is the purpose of The Lord’s Supper, and do you think that modern day churches are hitting the mark with their practice of it?

The Dinkerson

I have never really had much of a reason to sit and think long on this subject, but it has come up so many times in recent conversations that I couldn’t escape the nagging feeling that I should write about it. I’m just going to begin and see where it goes.

When I turned twenty, I fell in love with Stephanie. Three years later, I married her. For those of you who haven’t met Steph, she is quite beautiful. Her beauty is, in fact, something so refined, so rare, so… beyond words that I’m at a loss wondering how to describe such a thing. Sometimes, when she and I are out with friends, I enjoy just keeping my distance in order to observe men as they attempt to speak to her, watching in amusement as they stumble about. On at least three occasions, while the two of us have dined out at a public restaurant, certain men have gotten up from their tables, left their wives, and approached mine just to tell her that she was, well… beautiful. Now, please don’t jump to conclusions about where all of this is leading. Steph’s beauty is not the focus of this essay. It is simply a point that must be established in order for the essay to go in the direction that I’ve intended. People have said to me that I must be the luckiest man in the world to have the love and commitment of a woman who is so attractive. But I disagree. You see, Steph has never realized how beautiful she is. She, in fact, often times complains that she must be the ugliest girl she has ever seen. So, if I were to base my appreciation for her only on her physical qualities, then in her eyes she could quite possibly feel my appreciation was either based on nothing, or at best that it was a feeling that would fade with time.

I met Steph through a friendship that had developed between her brother, Craig, and me. The first time I saw her, I was stopping by her brother’s house to check in on him. How could I ever forget. She was lying on the couch reading a book. I still can remember, as I made my way through the room, simply being overwhelmed by her. I can think of nothing else to say in effort to better describe my thoughts at that moment of first seeing her. Needless to say, I was not disappointed in the least when I discovered that Craig was not home! Steph and I only spoke briefly that day, as I quickly ran out of things to say due to my nervousness. It would be months before we spoke again. Those months passed quickly however, and one day as I was talking to Craig, I asked him why he had not mentioned before that he had a sister. He replied, “Oh her. Yes, she has had a crush on you for so long now. I think maybe years.” My heart ascended into my lower mouth, dropped back down, bounced twice, and landed sideways wrapped tightly around three ribs. But I played it cool. To make the story short, I ended up calling her, asking her nervously to go out with me, she did, and now we live in a little house and have two small children named Alek and Taylor. Alek looks like me with Steph’s dimples, Taylor looks like Steph with my smile.

That moment when I first saw Steph has now been seven years ago. At the time, it was tremendously important to me that I made a way to date this beautiful girl who had, with a smile, captured my heart. But what is interesting to me now is that it has not been her looks that has served as the relational glue in our marriage. However much I do still enjoy looking at her, I have noticed that sometimes, when she sits up in bed first thing in the morning, she reminds me ever so much of Claire from LOST in the final season (stress the final season). The first time I observed this phenomenon, I screamed like a school girl and offered her all of my money and my credit cards if she just would leave the room quietly. She didn’t find that the least bit amusing. But my point is that, rather than her looks, it is the person of her that has held my heart and my desires. Even though those blue eyes caught my attention initially, I have since realized that no matter what may happen to fade her beauty, I will still love her the same as I do now, which is more every day. I did not commit myself on the day of our marriage to her body or her radiant smile, I committed myself to the girl. Therefore, no matter what happens to her physical attributes, as long as the girl is there, so is my commitment. C. S. Lewis wrote these words, “The idea that being in love is the only reason for remaining married really leaves no room for marriage as a contract or a promise at all. If love is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing; The curious thing is that lovers themselves, while they remain really in love, know this better than those who talk about love.” Lewis also wrote, “A promise must be about things I can do, about actions: no one can promise to go on feeling a certain way. He might as well promise never to have a headache or always to feel hungry.” And, ” Being in love is a good thing but it is not the best thing. There are many things below it, but there are also many things above it. You cannot make it the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling but it is still a feeling. Now no feeling can be relied upon to last in its full intensity, or even to last at all. Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go.” (Cited source: C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. From book three titled Christian Behavior: ch 6, Christian Marriage)

Perhaps you are someone who is searching, diligently or not, for those intense feelings of love that may eventually lead to marriage. Or maybe you have found someone and you are wondering why the intensity of the relationship is not what you had hoped or had expected. Understand that the thing you are searching for or missing is the feeling of being in love; it is not the commitment of loving. However long you may search for those feelings of being in love, bear in mind that once they are found they are quickly lost again because feelings are something over which we have no control. Now a commitment, which is what true love is, is something that is lasting because we are able to keep our commitments if we so choose. Our commitments remain something that we are able to guide and control. Therefore, a marriage that is based on a foundation of commitment is naturally going to have more longevity than one that is based on the fleeting feelings of being in love. Was I so lucky to have married a girl who is so beautiful? No. I was fortunate to have married a girl with substance, and she just happened to be beautiful according the ever-changing standards of culturally perceived beauty. ~Nathan Gray