Today I got to meet my friends 2+ week old daughter. She was absolutely precious. I am always amazed at how tiny a newborn is, though I know they have to be that small, it still amazes me. God is amazing that he creates life, and then its just the perfect tiny size when it comes out of the womb and then it can become huge like me. I'm 5'10"ish btw.
It seems that in the past 1.5 years I have gotten to see at least 5 newborns, and all of them have been absolutely gorgeous. I really don't think that God can make an ugly baby, and even if he did, the baby would still be cute to someone.
So if you are wondering, the desires still there to have children, and that means more than one. And each day I get more and more ok with God's timing for when I will have a child. I guess sometimes, I just get a little angry at the folks who don't give life a chance and then at the first moment they do they concieve. But maybe they need it as a wake-up call that God wants to be present in their lives making them more holy and closer to heaven by having children. At the same time I think that God wants me to be patient in not having children right now, and to learn to grow closer to him through this.
Honestly if I think about it, I prayed for what seemed forever for my now husband Keith to come along. And God didn't just throw the first guy at me to be my husband but gave me someone who I cannot imagine what life was like before I met him. He is so much more than who I thought I would end up with. God had him picked out and the right timing and everything.
So I know that God is doing just that with the blessing of children. I think right now he is teaching me patience, and also increasing my desire because at one point in my life I didn't want children at all. But now I know I am learning who I am, and who I want to be, as a mother. Because as a woman I am automatically a mother, a mother spritually, in my presence with everyone I come in contact with. So each day I learn, and I grow. Both in my desire for God and my desire for holiness through parenthood.
:)
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
allergies
My allergies seem to be getting worse and worse these days. Not sure if its just everyone is mowing their lawns more often or that there is some other plant in bloom that is totally making my allergies go nuts. I am so tempted to get a Neti pot, does anyone know of a good online or drugstore that carries them at a decently cheap price?
I really don't like taking allergy meds because I don't ever feel like myself when I take them. Medicine, minus tylenol, has a big effect on me, so I try to avoid it unless completely necessary. Maybe today might be one of those days. Though a plus is that I got my glasses back with my new prescription in them. So finally I can give my eyes a rest from contacts after a month straight of wearing them. Some friends have said for them that their eyes itch less when they have contacts in them. But I am not sure if that is true for me. But maybe I just feel more free to itch my eyes with glasses and not worry about losing the contact if I were to rub my eye with it in.
Another non-drug remedy that I use is eating the local honey. Though not sure that I actually eat it but rather drink it in tea. I think it helps a bit, though at the moment I am coming off of a stretch where I haven't been drinking it with my tea in the morning and I think that is why I am paying for it. It is not a fast acting thing but something that builds up over time.
So my question to those of you with allergies, is a neti pot worth it?
I really don't like taking allergy meds because I don't ever feel like myself when I take them. Medicine, minus tylenol, has a big effect on me, so I try to avoid it unless completely necessary. Maybe today might be one of those days. Though a plus is that I got my glasses back with my new prescription in them. So finally I can give my eyes a rest from contacts after a month straight of wearing them. Some friends have said for them that their eyes itch less when they have contacts in them. But I am not sure if that is true for me. But maybe I just feel more free to itch my eyes with glasses and not worry about losing the contact if I were to rub my eye with it in.
Another non-drug remedy that I use is eating the local honey. Though not sure that I actually eat it but rather drink it in tea. I think it helps a bit, though at the moment I am coming off of a stretch where I haven't been drinking it with my tea in the morning and I think that is why I am paying for it. It is not a fast acting thing but something that builds up over time.
So my question to those of you with allergies, is a neti pot worth it?
Monday, June 15, 2009
15 minutes
A fellow blogger has the rule of devoting 15 minutes a day to blogging. I am going to see if I can keep up with this. I am sure there will be some days where a computer is out of reach, but generally I think I can do this. I figure that most of the time, I spend doing mindless quizzes on Facebook I could instead share my thoughts of today or at least talk about something more than which car fits my personality, or how common is my name in the USA. And yes, I did both of these quizzes today, which means that I wasted at least a good 5 minutes right there that I could have spent blogging. So lets see what to talk about...
Tonight I went to a Bible Study small group at my local Parish. A bible study is an interesting thing to me sometimes, because to me it took me a while as a protestant to actually want to go to one. Though once I did, and it was one where it was just fluff, I appreciated it. Which is one of the reasons when I became Catholic that since I enjoyed it so much and found it important to go deeper in my faith with study of the Bible, then I was going to find a bible study to go to.
Bible studies come under all different names, whether they be small groups, or a women's study or a men's study or a couples study, or prayer group. All essentially lead to the same thing, growing deeper in your faith through word and community of fellow Christians. Honestly, you learn a lot about your fellow Christians from Bible studies. Because faith is something that is deep and very intimate. Sometimes there is good reason why Bible studies are done of one sex, because you into a lot of issues that show your soul, which if that person isn't your husband or wife/soon to be husband or wife, then it might cause some major issues.
Granted this doesn't happen in every bible study, sometimes things are taken quite black and white, and co-ed Bible studies work in these cases. But none-the-less, I do see the reason to have sex segregated Bible studies. I also sometimes think because is just women or just men, the bonds that are made there are pretty cool. Men do need other men for brotherhood, women do need other women for sisterhood. And I am not advocating sororities and fraternities of the college greek variety, those I kinda hate, but not because of the sisterhood/brotherhood part, but because of all the other stupid stuff that goes along with them, the rules, the backstabbing and such.
And with that I am done, I like unfluffed Bible studies. The End.
Tonight I went to a Bible Study small group at my local Parish. A bible study is an interesting thing to me sometimes, because to me it took me a while as a protestant to actually want to go to one. Though once I did, and it was one where it was just fluff, I appreciated it. Which is one of the reasons when I became Catholic that since I enjoyed it so much and found it important to go deeper in my faith with study of the Bible, then I was going to find a bible study to go to.
Bible studies come under all different names, whether they be small groups, or a women's study or a men's study or a couples study, or prayer group. All essentially lead to the same thing, growing deeper in your faith through word and community of fellow Christians. Honestly, you learn a lot about your fellow Christians from Bible studies. Because faith is something that is deep and very intimate. Sometimes there is good reason why Bible studies are done of one sex, because you into a lot of issues that show your soul, which if that person isn't your husband or wife/soon to be husband or wife, then it might cause some major issues.
Granted this doesn't happen in every bible study, sometimes things are taken quite black and white, and co-ed Bible studies work in these cases. But none-the-less, I do see the reason to have sex segregated Bible studies. I also sometimes think because is just women or just men, the bonds that are made there are pretty cool. Men do need other men for brotherhood, women do need other women for sisterhood. And I am not advocating sororities and fraternities of the college greek variety, those I kinda hate, but not because of the sisterhood/brotherhood part, but because of all the other stupid stuff that goes along with them, the rules, the backstabbing and such.
And with that I am done, I like unfluffed Bible studies. The End.
get your readings on...
this struck me today, its from the daily readings of June 15, 2009
2 Cor 6:1-10
"Brothers and sisters:
As your fellow workers, we appeal to you
not to receive the grace of God in vain.
For he says:
In an acceptable time I heard you,
and on the day of salvation I helped you.
Behold, now is a very acceptable time;
behold, now is the day of salvation.
We cause no one to stumble in anything,
in order that no fault may be found with our ministry;
on the contrary, in everything we commend ourselves
as ministers of God, through much endurance,
in afflictions, hardships, constraints,
beatings, imprisonments, riots,
labors, vigils, fasts;
by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness,
in the Holy Spirit, in unfeigned love, in truthful speech,
in the power of God;
with weapons of righteousness at the right and at the left;
through glory and dishonor, insult and praise.
We are treated as deceivers and yet are truthful;
as unrecognized and yet acknowledged;
as dying and behold we live;
as chastised and yet not put to death;
as sorrowful yet always rejoicing;
as poor yet enriching many;
as having nothing and yet possessing all things."
2 Cor 6:1-10
"Brothers and sisters:
As your fellow workers, we appeal to you
not to receive the grace of God in vain.
For he says:
In an acceptable time I heard you,
and on the day of salvation I helped you.
Behold, now is a very acceptable time;
behold, now is the day of salvation.
We cause no one to stumble in anything,
in order that no fault may be found with our ministry;
on the contrary, in everything we commend ourselves
as ministers of God, through much endurance,
in afflictions, hardships, constraints,
beatings, imprisonments, riots,
labors, vigils, fasts;
by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness,
in the Holy Spirit, in unfeigned love, in truthful speech,
in the power of God;
with weapons of righteousness at the right and at the left;
through glory and dishonor, insult and praise.
We are treated as deceivers and yet are truthful;
as unrecognized and yet acknowledged;
as dying and behold we live;
as chastised and yet not put to death;
as sorrowful yet always rejoicing;
as poor yet enriching many;
as having nothing and yet possessing all things."
Friday, June 12, 2009
why get married in a church?
Here's a question that I posed on Facebook that got really good responses:
Kiera Kurak: Not to offend anyone, but do you think one of the reasons that people no longer have weddings inside of churches is that the modern church is no longer made to look beautiful on the inside?
JG at 11:56am June 12:
I think that when the church doesn't have beauty on the inside, it loses the sense of tradition, which is probably one of the main reasons why people would have a wedding in a church. Tradition and faith. And let's face it, Americans are becoming more secular at times like this and they would probably have a wedding inside a church for tradition. So yes, I definitely concur.
But on the other hand, people have weddings at other places for a "once in a lifetime" feel. You can always be in a church, but can you have a wedding in Hawaii anyday you choose? Or because they just are not religious or it does not mean much to them.
MH at 12:09pm June 12
I'm glad you brought this up. The churches around here (at least the 2 catholic ones I've been in) are not pretty at all because they are modern. I think they were built in a time when the church was trying to show that it was with the times and not dogged down in tradition, but I don't like the more modern churches that much. Especially ones that are semi- circular. I like my rows of pews and stained glass windows. I know some religions think fancy stuff is too flashy and detracting from the purpose of church (worshipping God) and I see their point. But I think it shows that church is a special place. I think I would like to get married in a church, but I'd like it to be a traditional church. So I think you guys are onto something. Although there is something to be said for Hawaii =)
KW at 12:29pm June 12
I totally concur with you guys...but I still wanna get married @ St. Basils no matter what...Hawaii can be my honeymoon spot...it sounds too typical nowadays, wanting a destination wedding (like Hawaii)...sounds cool but too cliche nowadays
JS at 1:11pm June 12
I think that's part of it, but I think it is also because so many people don't have their faith as an important part of their life. If God isn't important and church isn't important, then why should a church wedding be important? I don't think many other faiths have the basis in tradition (whether that be good or bad or indifferent) as the Catholic church does, so I think a fancy church wedding is just traditionally more important to Catholics and htheir families than it is to many other faiths.
What are your thoughts on this?
Kiera Kurak: Not to offend anyone, but do you think one of the reasons that people no longer have weddings inside of churches is that the modern church is no longer made to look beautiful on the inside?
JG at 11:56am June 12:
I think that when the church doesn't have beauty on the inside, it loses the sense of tradition, which is probably one of the main reasons why people would have a wedding in a church. Tradition and faith. And let's face it, Americans are becoming more secular at times like this and they would probably have a wedding inside a church for tradition. So yes, I definitely concur.
But on the other hand, people have weddings at other places for a "once in a lifetime" feel. You can always be in a church, but can you have a wedding in Hawaii anyday you choose? Or because they just are not religious or it does not mean much to them.
MH at 12:09pm June 12
I'm glad you brought this up. The churches around here (at least the 2 catholic ones I've been in) are not pretty at all because they are modern. I think they were built in a time when the church was trying to show that it was with the times and not dogged down in tradition, but I don't like the more modern churches that much. Especially ones that are semi- circular. I like my rows of pews and stained glass windows. I know some religions think fancy stuff is too flashy and detracting from the purpose of church (worshipping God) and I see their point. But I think it shows that church is a special place. I think I would like to get married in a church, but I'd like it to be a traditional church. So I think you guys are onto something. Although there is something to be said for Hawaii =)
KW at 12:29pm June 12
I totally concur with you guys...but I still wanna get married @ St. Basils no matter what...Hawaii can be my honeymoon spot...it sounds too typical nowadays, wanting a destination wedding (like Hawaii)...sounds cool but too cliche nowadays
JS at 1:11pm June 12
I think that's part of it, but I think it is also because so many people don't have their faith as an important part of their life. If God isn't important and church isn't important, then why should a church wedding be important? I don't think many other faiths have the basis in tradition (whether that be good or bad or indifferent) as the Catholic church does, so I think a fancy church wedding is just traditionally more important to Catholics and htheir families than it is to many other faiths.
What are your thoughts on this?
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
checking in
so I haven't really posted about much in over a month. Must be a dryspell. Or just too busy. In the past month I have flown across the country to a conference in a cold but beautiful and transportationally efficient city, then went the city of my birthplace. That was a big deal, I hadn't been there since I was a few months old. I loved it too. If I had to pick somewhere to live in CA, that would be the place. My mom called later to check in and she said that Sacramento was the one place that she liked in CA too. It's kinda funny, up to this point, I thought I liked all of No. Cal. but hated all of So. Cal. Well, I still don't care much for So. Cal. visit and talk to the people and you might agree and the traffic is outrageous (someone needs to teach them conservation!) But now my No. Cal. likings have been refined. I like the areas of the redwoods, the area around Santa Rosa is amazing, and Yosemite is awesome. But I have ruled out San Fran, its just not appealing to me, too cold, too windy, too liberal, too expensive, too dirty. But Sacramento had more of a big little city feel to it. It was nice just to walk around. Anyway, so after that we hiked two days in Yosemite and then flew home. It was a lot of driving!! In a PT cruiser, a very odd car. If you want in another post, I can list the top ten reasons why I wouldn't get one. What saved the day is that my husband bought this amazing Euro phone for me a Nokia N79, and since we were in back country, we used the FM transmitter on it to play all my favorite albums. It made for a much better trip. So then I came back and have been painting and finishing up final corrections on my second journal article. w00t! OK, off to go paint. Love to all.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
do you take on the angry?
So lately there's been a certain person that is extremely angry and passionate about the pro-abort stance on one of my social networking sites. A friend/aquaintance of a family member, a sweet girl really. Very grateful for her help in the past with things. But I am just wondering why did she become suddenly so angry siding with the pro-abort stances? After reading her posts, she has come to stereotype those of pro-life stances as 1.) being afraid of sex 2.)fear mongers 3.) those who want to press their faith agenda on someone that doesn't believe in God and 4.)bullies of those in difficult situations. 5.)and I forgot, apparently pro-lifers are anti-adoption as well.
Fellow pro-lifers is this true?
1.)Afraid of Sex?
As I am a birth-control free girl who has sex, I would have to say no to this one. Granted, I do think sex is designed for a married committed relationship, due to the damages that happen from the instability of a non-committed relationship. Biologically speaking there are chemicals released during sex that bond one person to another, that get messed up if there is no commitment there. So no, we are not afraid of sex, we just want it to occur where it the fullness of it can be achieved.
2.) fear mongers?
So as to tackle fear mongers, I just have to say really who's the one afraid of having babies, the pro-lifer, or the pro-abort? If having a child is something to be afraid of, then why have we been doing it from the beginning of time. In our society today, pregnancy has become disease-like and must be avoided at all cost. Its like our own humanity scares us so much that we have to void it with all our might. Really think about it, how did you get here? Umm, well, yeah, your parents had sex. But again society has told us that sex should come with no consequences, and I can't even fully discuss the ramifications of that here. But really safe sex? Is there such a thing when you have risks involved with all the contraceptive devices. Its been proven that condoms don't prevent 100% against STDs and especially HIV, and people still get pregnant when on hormonal birth control. So really what is safe? To me it means I have a ring on my finger vows said faithfully so that I know I am safe in having sex, no infidelity included.
3.)those who want to press their faith agenda on someone that doesn't believe in God?
Here I have to say the believe in God is definitely a well-sized bonus to understanding sex, and being pro-life. But really we have secular humanists marching with us in the March for Life, and political groups not associated with religion. My husband and I, while devout Catholics, do think that there is argument that you don't have to believe in God to value life. You just have to think that life is something worth fighting for, something important. More important than material things and wealth. That's it.
4.)bullies of those in difficult situations
Well the media would like you to think so with this one. What they report are the crazies, and so we as a pro-life movement get a bad name. Are we all that crazy? Do we all harass someone who has had an abortion? No. Actually we (the pro-life movement) set up a lot of medical and psychological care facilities for post-abortive women, those facing difficult decisions with an unexpected pregnancy, and actually when it comes to rape, some pro-life scholars argue for emergency contraceptives (not sure if I agree with this, and I know if I was raped, I would keep the baby, but its out there).
5.) pro-lifers are anti-adoption.
No, the problem that stems this arguement, is that we feel it a right to have children instead of it being a gift. So we put so much emphasis on having biological children enough to go through laboratory methods of the extreme variety that adoption is seen as a last resort. To me I think adoption is an amazing gift as well, and not one to be taken lightly. But a lot of people because they stress that biological children are a must, they only want children like themselves, and this is from both sides of the spectrum, leftists and rightists think this alike. To adopt is not second rate, and to adopt outside of your ethnic background is not second rate, but both are equal to a biological child. Especially to the infertile or those who have the monetary means to give the child food, love and a roof over its head. So to answer this, there are probably some miseducated pro-lifers that are anti-adoption, but the majority sees it as a way to give that life a better option than one full of hardship.
and with that I am done. Do you think this response would hold up to her remarks? If you have suggestions on strengthening the argument let me know. Thanks :)
Fellow pro-lifers is this true?
1.)Afraid of Sex?
As I am a birth-control free girl who has sex, I would have to say no to this one. Granted, I do think sex is designed for a married committed relationship, due to the damages that happen from the instability of a non-committed relationship. Biologically speaking there are chemicals released during sex that bond one person to another, that get messed up if there is no commitment there. So no, we are not afraid of sex, we just want it to occur where it the fullness of it can be achieved.
2.) fear mongers?
So as to tackle fear mongers, I just have to say really who's the one afraid of having babies, the pro-lifer, or the pro-abort? If having a child is something to be afraid of, then why have we been doing it from the beginning of time. In our society today, pregnancy has become disease-like and must be avoided at all cost. Its like our own humanity scares us so much that we have to void it with all our might. Really think about it, how did you get here? Umm, well, yeah, your parents had sex. But again society has told us that sex should come with no consequences, and I can't even fully discuss the ramifications of that here. But really safe sex? Is there such a thing when you have risks involved with all the contraceptive devices. Its been proven that condoms don't prevent 100% against STDs and especially HIV, and people still get pregnant when on hormonal birth control. So really what is safe? To me it means I have a ring on my finger vows said faithfully so that I know I am safe in having sex, no infidelity included.
3.)those who want to press their faith agenda on someone that doesn't believe in God?
Here I have to say the believe in God is definitely a well-sized bonus to understanding sex, and being pro-life. But really we have secular humanists marching with us in the March for Life, and political groups not associated with religion. My husband and I, while devout Catholics, do think that there is argument that you don't have to believe in God to value life. You just have to think that life is something worth fighting for, something important. More important than material things and wealth. That's it.
4.)bullies of those in difficult situations
Well the media would like you to think so with this one. What they report are the crazies, and so we as a pro-life movement get a bad name. Are we all that crazy? Do we all harass someone who has had an abortion? No. Actually we (the pro-life movement) set up a lot of medical and psychological care facilities for post-abortive women, those facing difficult decisions with an unexpected pregnancy, and actually when it comes to rape, some pro-life scholars argue for emergency contraceptives (not sure if I agree with this, and I know if I was raped, I would keep the baby, but its out there).
5.) pro-lifers are anti-adoption.
No, the problem that stems this arguement, is that we feel it a right to have children instead of it being a gift. So we put so much emphasis on having biological children enough to go through laboratory methods of the extreme variety that adoption is seen as a last resort. To me I think adoption is an amazing gift as well, and not one to be taken lightly. But a lot of people because they stress that biological children are a must, they only want children like themselves, and this is from both sides of the spectrum, leftists and rightists think this alike. To adopt is not second rate, and to adopt outside of your ethnic background is not second rate, but both are equal to a biological child. Especially to the infertile or those who have the monetary means to give the child food, love and a roof over its head. So to answer this, there are probably some miseducated pro-lifers that are anti-adoption, but the majority sees it as a way to give that life a better option than one full of hardship.
and with that I am done. Do you think this response would hold up to her remarks? If you have suggestions on strengthening the argument let me know. Thanks :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)