A school in psychology (I can’t remember which one) came up with the theory that a man’s life is shaped predominantly by either nature or nurture. The former basically means that a person can attribute (or blame, whichever way the wind blows :p) his/her life to his/her genes. A person is tall or short, smart or not-so-smart based on the genetic configuration that s/he has. The latter, on the other hand, follows the thought that a person is shaped based on his/her environment. For the second one, it’s all about the exposure to the elements, in a manner of speaking.
In truth, I neither agree nor disagree with both of these. Or rather, I don’t completely subscribe to one over the other. I think that it’s a bit of both. Sure, genes cannot be taken out of the picture even if we’re talking about attitude more than a person’s appearance. One cannot recall just how many times one has heard lines that go something like, “You are as grouchy as your dad!” or “You are as stingy as your lolo!” or “You are as kind as your mom!” You get the drift. However, one can easily argue that these are easily attributable to nurture and not just to nature. Being surrounded by people who act in a certain way, it’s almost a sure thing that a person will either follow that attitude, or go the complete opposite way. Or, even if one is possessed by this or that certain trait, it doesn’t necessarily follow that that person will stick to what the stereotype that surrounds that. A popular example would be of a short guy being an excellent basketball player. So yes, it’s partly nature and partly nurture, but I think that there’s something else, and I think that that something is called choice. (Hmmm… I think I think too much. What do you think?:p)
Yeah, sure, a person can’t choose his/her own parents. A lot of times also, one cannot choose one’s own environment. What a person can choose, however, is whether or not to subscribe to a certain point-of-view that s/he is exposed to. I believe that ultimately, it’s in the person’s choices that will determine what kind of a person s/he will be. You choose to be who you are by your actions. Sure, a person can always put up the defense that s/he has been set up, or backed into a corner so that there’s nothing left to do but that one way, which just so happens to be completely opposite to what one wants to do. However, a person can’t keep on saying that that’s the case for the rest of his/her life. That’s not always the case. Besides, first and foremost, we all have the freedom to choose. I don’t think I’ll ever tire of saying this, that each one of us is blessed with an organ up there in our heads called the brain, and that we should use it, because that’s the reason why it’s there. It’s our choice whether we limit ourselves or we allow ourselves to broaden our horizons. We can choose to be narrow-minded little prats or brainless robots if we want, but then, why should we? Why would we want to be like that?
Of course, there’s a limit to being broad-minded – almost everything has a limit, when you get down to it. I’m referring to the term to cover only a certain scope. We should be broad-minded not in the sense that we just accept anything and everything as perfectly all right (which is just wrong), but that we discern for ourselves what is good. It’s not about the relativity of goodness – we’ve been equipped by God with a conscience that makes us know instinctively whether what we’re doing is right or wrong. Job 34:4 says, “Let us discern for ourselves what is right; let us learn between us what is good.” We see for ourselves whether something is bad for us and for our soul. Of course, there will always be things that are mala in se (bad by themselves), such as pagan worship and pornography, but there are also things that are dependent on what kind of person you are. For example, a person can get exposed to certain literature, such as music or books, which will not affect him/her at all, because the person will not allow that to twist his/her ideals, concepts, or whatever since s/he knows that that’s just what these are – literature. On the other hand, another person might be exposed to that same medium, and end up not as unscathed as the first person. S/he will be so affected by it that there will be something inside him/her that would be changed, and even possibly forever. But here’s the deal: a thing cannot get to you unless you allow it to. Besides, as Mk 7:15 says, “Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile.” We might go and “ingest” all things seen as “pure,” but if what comes out of us are filled with venom and spite, what good would subscribing to these things do? Absolutely nothing, except to make one be in danger of being so incredibly self-righteous without realizing that one is no better than the rest of humanity. Again, it’s about discerning what is right for you, and what is not an abomination for Him. Each person has his/her own weakness, his/her own Waterloo, and if one knows of it, then stay away from it. If you think that you’re vulnerable to something, then don’t expose yourself to it, but do not assume that everyone else is suffering from the same weakness that you have. Romans 14:3 says, “The one who eats must not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains must not pass judgment on the one who eats; for God has welcomed him.” To extend this thought (and the chapter further), let’s see verses 8-9, “For if we live, we live for the Lord, and if we die, we die for the Lord; so then, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For this is why Christ died and came to life, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.” God does not discriminate. If we choose to see Him from this angle while another looks at Him from another, it does not mean that you are the one who is right and the other is wrong. That is just your ego talking.
As long as we know we are in the center of God’s Will, as long as we know we are following Him, we are letting Him lead our lives to where we’re supposed to be, it’s fine. We’re not going to go and do something that’s contrary to what He wants for us just because – and especially not so when we have already come to know Him. That would just be insulting. We live for Him and not for what other people are saying. If we know inside us that we are living for His glory, why should we prescribe to what people around us are doing? They have their own different path; all of us have different paths because all of us are different, but all of these ultimately lead to Him, for He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (Jn 14:6). He has a different call for us, but all of these are to bring us to Him, not away from Him. If we go and condemn other Christians for keeping the faith in a way that is a bit different from ours, even if they are following what God wants of them, we would be no better than the Pharisees of old who think that they’re the only ones who are right, and follow the law for its own sake. We do not see that it’s not so much about the method of walking, but that we have our hearts, our souls, our minds focused on our goal: our Lord.
Sirach 15: 17 “Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him.”
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Thursday, November 24, 2005
From inq.net: Conrado De Quiros' Article
Found this article really amusing and refreshingly honest. Kudos to Conrado De Quiros for a great article.
For those who want to read it themselves, just check out this link.
.
There's The Rub : Authentic fakes
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News
ONE. The joke is attributed to the Moro, though these days his Christian counterpart more easily fits the bill. The Moro trader is selling gold earrings, but one of his customers decides to test the authenticity of the product. He soaks the earrings in vinegar and, alas, the gold turns to dross. Unfazed, the trader exclaims, "Ah, clearly your vinegar is fake!"
Two. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP, the central bank) has just apologized to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for issuing a P100-bill that misspells her name. Instead of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, what appears on it is Gloria Macapagal-Arrovo. The BSP hastened to assure the public the bill is not fake, it is valid legal tender. In fact, the BSP urged the public to rush to get it-as a bill that makes that mistake is a first in this country. It should be a collector's item, the BSP proposed.
The apology is misdirected. The BSP shouldn't be apologizing to Arroyo, it should be apologizing to the public. The glaring
mistake in that bill is not "Arrovo," it is "President." The "Arrovo" is real (notably given that "robo" is the Spanish word for robbery), the "President" is fake. It is a first in this country, someone who did not win the elections, having money made in her name. The bill is truly a collector's item in the same way that the Ferdinand Marcos bust in Agoo town is a real treasure, a monument to folly and a reminder of the depths to which this country can sink. A country that likes to tolerate authentic fakes.
Well, one thing in Arroyo's P100-bill is real enough. Its value has gotten smaller and smaller.
Three. Juan Ponce Enrile's logging company, San Jose Timber Corp., has a license to log but not to operate as a corporation. The Securities and Exchange Commission revoked SJTC's certificate of registration a couple of years ago for failure to comply with requirements. It has not lifted its revocation. Quite apart from that, Samareños, who fear the areas in their island that Enrile is determined to despoil may become other Ormocs and Infantas, say there's a current log ban covering the entire Samar Island.
Not so, say Enrile and Mike Defensor. Defensor, who issued an order in August allowing Enrile to break a 16-year-old logging ban in Samar, says it is perfectly legal.
Well, Enrile and Defensor have something in common. Enrile is the guy who faked an assassination attempt on himself to justify martial law and who made the term "dagdag-bawas" [vote-padding and vote-shaving] a household word. Defensor is the guy who abducted Panfilo Lacson's witness against Pidal and called it a rescue and who cited an American expert to prove the "Hello Garci" tape was doctored only to be refuted by the expert himself. They're both authentic fakes.
Four. What do Virgilio Garcillano and Elvis have in common? They have both been the subject of "sightings."
Some say they've seen the former election commissioner in Vietnam, others say they've spotted him in other parts of Southeast Asia. The region does not require a visa from nationals of Asean countries, thus allowing fugitives to sneak in without leaving a mark in Immigration. Still others say he's been sighted in Lanao and other parts of Muslim Mindanao, visiting relatives and other strangers. The last prompted Lacson to propose a way for Filipinos to become instant millionaires: Arrest Garci and turn him over to Congress. There's a standing P1-million reward for him.
I myself do not know how Congress settled on the bounty of P1 million. P1 for every vote of the one million votes Arroyo won over Fernando Poe Jr.?
Aquilino Pimentel though has another theory. The only place where Garcillano can be sighted now, he says, is either heaven or hell, though the second is more likely than the first. He personally does not think Garcillano is a current resident of earth. "Someone who holds that kind of information cannot be allowed to live," he says.
Of course, someone who can fake election returns can always fake his return from life, or death. A real fake can always fake or realize a fake reality. But his real absence is the best commentary on the fake presence of the current occupant of Malacañang. Elvis sang "Don't Be Cruel," Garcillano sang "Pipilitin ko po Ma'am." Elvis was called The King, Garcillano is (was?) just called names.
Five. During the recent Apec, Arroyo decried the conditions in Burma and vowed she would help bring democracy to that country. What are the signs of the lack of democracy in Burma and the robustness of it in the Philippines?
One, Burma has no elections; the Philippines has fake elections. Two, Burma is ruled by a vicious junta without the consent of the governed; the Philippines is ruled by a ruthless cabal without the consent of the governed. Three, Burma will not allow people like Aung San Suu Kyi to say what they have to say about the junta; the Philippines does not allow people, like Francisco Gudani and Alexander Balutan, to say what they have to say about the cabal. Burma gags its journalists; the Philippines kills its journalists. Burma has remained one of the most backward and impoverished countries in the world; the Philippines has become one of the most backward and impoverished countries in the world.
Those who can't do, teach.
Six. The First Couple say they went to Disneyland in Hong Kong for their "apo" [grandchildren]. Look at the picture of them that appeared in the Inquirer and see if that's so. They looked absolutely thrilled. The apo were probably bored.
They said they were also there to scout for investment opportunities. Well, they might not have found an opportunity for their country to get rich, but they might have done so for themselves. Disney would pay them a fortune just to not look like Goofy and Minnie Mouse.
Seven. In this country, when gold turns to dross at the touch of vinegar, the vinegar must be fake.
For those who want to read it themselves, just check out this link.
.
There's The Rub : Authentic fakes
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News
ONE. The joke is attributed to the Moro, though these days his Christian counterpart more easily fits the bill. The Moro trader is selling gold earrings, but one of his customers decides to test the authenticity of the product. He soaks the earrings in vinegar and, alas, the gold turns to dross. Unfazed, the trader exclaims, "Ah, clearly your vinegar is fake!"
Two. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP, the central bank) has just apologized to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for issuing a P100-bill that misspells her name. Instead of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, what appears on it is Gloria Macapagal-Arrovo. The BSP hastened to assure the public the bill is not fake, it is valid legal tender. In fact, the BSP urged the public to rush to get it-as a bill that makes that mistake is a first in this country. It should be a collector's item, the BSP proposed.
The apology is misdirected. The BSP shouldn't be apologizing to Arroyo, it should be apologizing to the public. The glaring
mistake in that bill is not "Arrovo," it is "President." The "Arrovo" is real (notably given that "robo" is the Spanish word for robbery), the "President" is fake. It is a first in this country, someone who did not win the elections, having money made in her name. The bill is truly a collector's item in the same way that the Ferdinand Marcos bust in Agoo town is a real treasure, a monument to folly and a reminder of the depths to which this country can sink. A country that likes to tolerate authentic fakes.
Well, one thing in Arroyo's P100-bill is real enough. Its value has gotten smaller and smaller.
Three. Juan Ponce Enrile's logging company, San Jose Timber Corp., has a license to log but not to operate as a corporation. The Securities and Exchange Commission revoked SJTC's certificate of registration a couple of years ago for failure to comply with requirements. It has not lifted its revocation. Quite apart from that, Samareños, who fear the areas in their island that Enrile is determined to despoil may become other Ormocs and Infantas, say there's a current log ban covering the entire Samar Island.
Not so, say Enrile and Mike Defensor. Defensor, who issued an order in August allowing Enrile to break a 16-year-old logging ban in Samar, says it is perfectly legal.
Well, Enrile and Defensor have something in common. Enrile is the guy who faked an assassination attempt on himself to justify martial law and who made the term "dagdag-bawas" [vote-padding and vote-shaving] a household word. Defensor is the guy who abducted Panfilo Lacson's witness against Pidal and called it a rescue and who cited an American expert to prove the "Hello Garci" tape was doctored only to be refuted by the expert himself. They're both authentic fakes.
Four. What do Virgilio Garcillano and Elvis have in common? They have both been the subject of "sightings."
Some say they've seen the former election commissioner in Vietnam, others say they've spotted him in other parts of Southeast Asia. The region does not require a visa from nationals of Asean countries, thus allowing fugitives to sneak in without leaving a mark in Immigration. Still others say he's been sighted in Lanao and other parts of Muslim Mindanao, visiting relatives and other strangers. The last prompted Lacson to propose a way for Filipinos to become instant millionaires: Arrest Garci and turn him over to Congress. There's a standing P1-million reward for him.
I myself do not know how Congress settled on the bounty of P1 million. P1 for every vote of the one million votes Arroyo won over Fernando Poe Jr.?
Aquilino Pimentel though has another theory. The only place where Garcillano can be sighted now, he says, is either heaven or hell, though the second is more likely than the first. He personally does not think Garcillano is a current resident of earth. "Someone who holds that kind of information cannot be allowed to live," he says.
Of course, someone who can fake election returns can always fake his return from life, or death. A real fake can always fake or realize a fake reality. But his real absence is the best commentary on the fake presence of the current occupant of Malacañang. Elvis sang "Don't Be Cruel," Garcillano sang "Pipilitin ko po Ma'am." Elvis was called The King, Garcillano is (was?) just called names.
Five. During the recent Apec, Arroyo decried the conditions in Burma and vowed she would help bring democracy to that country. What are the signs of the lack of democracy in Burma and the robustness of it in the Philippines?
One, Burma has no elections; the Philippines has fake elections. Two, Burma is ruled by a vicious junta without the consent of the governed; the Philippines is ruled by a ruthless cabal without the consent of the governed. Three, Burma will not allow people like Aung San Suu Kyi to say what they have to say about the junta; the Philippines does not allow people, like Francisco Gudani and Alexander Balutan, to say what they have to say about the cabal. Burma gags its journalists; the Philippines kills its journalists. Burma has remained one of the most backward and impoverished countries in the world; the Philippines has become one of the most backward and impoverished countries in the world.
Those who can't do, teach.
Six. The First Couple say they went to Disneyland in Hong Kong for their "apo" [grandchildren]. Look at the picture of them that appeared in the Inquirer and see if that's so. They looked absolutely thrilled. The apo were probably bored.
They said they were also there to scout for investment opportunities. Well, they might not have found an opportunity for their country to get rich, but they might have done so for themselves. Disney would pay them a fortune just to not look like Goofy and Minnie Mouse.
Seven. In this country, when gold turns to dross at the touch of vinegar, the vinegar must be fake.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Houston, We Have A Problem
I think our computers last week had some sort of a conspiracy and decided to have a mutiny, because by Friday, all of them suddenly conked out on us. Seriously. The computer downstairs (the one used by my ate and my kuya) hasn't really been functioning for a couple of weeks now. My desktop was fine (save for it being on Windows 98) until it suddenly decided to stop working in the middle of the week, when I had to print some documents for school. Fine. I still had Woofy. Or so I thought. I went back from school Saturday morning thinking I could play a couple of hours of Final Fantasy VIII (yes, it's an old game, but I still like it :p), I pull out my laptop, turned it on, grabbed my mouse... to have the wire drop limply on the floor. I initially thought that I just didn't plug it in well, so I tried to put it back in, except that it couldn't. Turned out that for some weird reason, the USB slot glued itself to the mouse's cable and was pulled with it.
So there. All three computers were down by Saturday. We brought all three to the shop. Turned out that the first one was programmed all wrong (we just had it repaired last month) and my desktop had its motherboard chewed by creepy crawlies when we were still in the province (disgusting, I know). As for Woofy, I will (hopefully) be able to get him 2-3 weeks from now, because they have to bring it to the main office of Acer to have the repairs done. I'm just thankful I got my desktop back now. I probably won't be able to update this blog that much until then. I'd still be able to go online (it helps me keep whatever sanity I have left), but not as frequently as I had before.
Howell.
So there. All three computers were down by Saturday. We brought all three to the shop. Turned out that the first one was programmed all wrong (we just had it repaired last month) and my desktop had its motherboard chewed by creepy crawlies when we were still in the province (disgusting, I know). As for Woofy, I will (hopefully) be able to get him 2-3 weeks from now, because they have to bring it to the main office of Acer to have the repairs done. I'm just thankful I got my desktop back now. I probably won't be able to update this blog that much until then. I'd still be able to go online (it helps me keep whatever sanity I have left), but not as frequently as I had before.
Howell.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Tanging Ikaw
Bawat araw akong naglalakbay
Umiikot, gumagala
Hindi alam kung saan patungo
Hindi alam kung ano ang gagawin
Pakiramdam ko na ako ay nalulunod
Dinadala ng mga along hindi nakikita
Pakiramdam ko'y umaakyat ako ng bundok na walang katapusan
Patuloy na pakikipaglaban sa mga bato at buhangin
Akala ko'y ako ang naghahanap
Ang katotohanan ay Ikaw ang nagsikap
Pagbalik ko sa Iyo ay tanging ligaya
Pagmamahal Mo'y aking muling nadarama
Ngayon Ikaw ay nakita
Pag-ibig mo ang tanging nais
Buhay ko ay aking iaalay
Ikaw lamang ang aking sinasamba.
[Haha! First attempt to try writing something in Filipino.:p Feel free to edit it for grammatical errors or whatever.]
Umiikot, gumagala
Hindi alam kung saan patungo
Hindi alam kung ano ang gagawin
Pakiramdam ko na ako ay nalulunod
Dinadala ng mga along hindi nakikita
Pakiramdam ko'y umaakyat ako ng bundok na walang katapusan
Patuloy na pakikipaglaban sa mga bato at buhangin
Akala ko'y ako ang naghahanap
Ang katotohanan ay Ikaw ang nagsikap
Pagbalik ko sa Iyo ay tanging ligaya
Pagmamahal Mo'y aking muling nadarama
Ngayon Ikaw ay nakita
Pag-ibig mo ang tanging nais
Buhay ko ay aking iaalay
Ikaw lamang ang aking sinasamba.
[Haha! First attempt to try writing something in Filipino.:p Feel free to edit it for grammatical errors or whatever.]
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
God's Best
[This is the first of two entries I have posted regarding this entry. This one is the one written recently, while the other, which follows right after this, was made a little less than a year ago. I haven’t read the one I wrote earlier again, so if you notice some differences between the two entries, feel free to point these out.]
Since 2/3 of the S.S. has decided to write about God’s Best in one way or the other, I feel this compulsion to write one of my own.:p Heehee! Just kidding, sorta.
Anyway, Marley was right when she said that this is one of the topics we love talking about. After all, almost every female (or even male) would eventually want to have a family of her (or his) own, and to care and be taken care of. Of course, we also talked about wanting to choose the right guy from the first; the first man we would have a relationship with will hopefully be the one we would also eventually marry.
I’ve always said that apart from God, I don’t want to base my happiness on another person, because that would be just, well, sad. Yet I won’t deny that I still want what I mentioned above. I would be lying if I said that I’m not looking forward to having a family of my own. Just how much exactly I give focus on that drove home when I realized that out of all the Christian books that I own, a huge chunk of it has been devoted to having relationships – Godly ones, certainly, but still on relationships. I have those written by Joshua Harris, Eric and Leslie Ludy, even Dr. Ron Raunikar. I don’t have anything against them, certainly. If I did, I would not have purchased (much less read) these in the first place. Yet I realize that by reading these, it allows me too much to daydream and focus on my ideal home: a wonderful husband, three kids (two guys and one girl, the latter being the youngest), and pets, especially dogs (See, I told you I’ve thought about it too often!) Reading these is not bad; in fact, it’s actually good, as it prepares a person for that certain time in life where God might call him/her to marriage. What isn’t really good is the aftermath of it. Some friends have commented more than once that the problem with us girls is that we are way too emotional, and I have to agree that it’s true at times. We want to find security and belongingness, and the problem enters when we want to have it now, and hopefully in the arms of a guy. I’m not generalizing that this applies to all girls, but this is applicable to a huge chunk of the female population. A part of the blame lies in the world and what it teaches – that a person cannot be complete without a “significant other.” You’re a complete loser if you haven’t found someone yet by the time you’re twelve years old. Maybe I’m exaggerating, but then again, maybe not.
Focusing way too much on this dims why it is called G.B. in the first place. It becomes Lani’s Best and not God’s Best, that is, it becomes too much centered on what I, we, want and not what His Will for us is. It’s like that bumper sticker I see from time to time that goes something like, “Lord, grant me patience right now.” We pray for our God’s Best without realizing that it becomes what we think is best and not what He wants for us. For that matter, how can we say that our G.B. has to be a person to begin with? It could be in the form of ministry, family, or friends, but not in terms of that so-called “significant other.” It’s G.B. because it’s God’s Best – His perfect plan for us. How can we challenge something so incredible? How can we say that what we want is better, when we can have what is the best? Besides, it’s a two-way thing if a person is meant to have a G.B.: it means that s/he is also the other’s G.B., or, as the people from the Bible study that I go to say, you have to be G.B. material yourself. This means developing on your character, and not just allowing yourself to be just the way you are. And yes, I know we can be stubborn and say, “Why do I have to change? He has to accept me just the way I am.” Borrowing from one of my history teachers in college: “That’s baloney.” If you will be just the way you are forever, you’d still be in the cradle sucking on your pacifier. We have a high expectation of who we want our G.B. to be, and we have to have it clear on the outset that chances are, the other person also expects a lot. As Christians, it’s a definite that we choose someone who’s also a follower of our Lord. How can we hope for someone like that when we don’t develop our relationship with Him? This does not mean that we only work on ourselves just so we can get something back. First of all, do we just continue to know more about Him just so we can get a “significant other”? Who are we fooling but ourselves? It’s an insult to God if we do that: to pretend to be in Christ when all we’re striving for is something extremely worldly. Besides, when we come to know Him and be serious in our faith, we can’t help but be changed by Him. It’s about following Him because we love Him, and not because we want to please someone else. If we do find someone, all well and good; if not, we have an Eternal Bridegroom waiting for us in Heaven.
I will probably never forget what Fr. Meehan said to us in our Th 151 class. He said that God loves us all universally, and at the same time, He loves each one of us personally, and one way of letting this love known to us is by being blessed with a spouse – the reason why marriage is given such importance in Church. A friend also once told me that being committed to someone entails maturity and stability in a person’s life. That’s one of the reasons that I now have when I renewed my commitment to Him. If it’s His will for me to have someone, then Thank You, Lord. I’m willing to wait 5, 10, how many years, knowing that it’s definitely God’s Best. Besides, I don’t want to bank on it that much now, because I know it’s not right for me yet. I’m still a student, for crying out loud! I still want that first guy to be the only one for me, God willing. If it’s not His will for me to be with someone, still, Thank You, Lord. That would be my G.B., and I know that He has a different plan for me, and not one involving matrimony. Besides, above it all, I know that no one else can complete me other than Him. I know, because He has always given me that security.
So now, two words will sum up what I will do: active waiting. For what, only He knows. For sure, I trust Him.
Song of Songs 3:5 “I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and hinds of the field, do not arouse, do not stir up love before its own time.”
Since 2/3 of the S.S. has decided to write about God’s Best in one way or the other, I feel this compulsion to write one of my own.:p Heehee! Just kidding, sorta.
Anyway, Marley was right when she said that this is one of the topics we love talking about. After all, almost every female (or even male) would eventually want to have a family of her (or his) own, and to care and be taken care of. Of course, we also talked about wanting to choose the right guy from the first; the first man we would have a relationship with will hopefully be the one we would also eventually marry.
I’ve always said that apart from God, I don’t want to base my happiness on another person, because that would be just, well, sad. Yet I won’t deny that I still want what I mentioned above. I would be lying if I said that I’m not looking forward to having a family of my own. Just how much exactly I give focus on that drove home when I realized that out of all the Christian books that I own, a huge chunk of it has been devoted to having relationships – Godly ones, certainly, but still on relationships. I have those written by Joshua Harris, Eric and Leslie Ludy, even Dr. Ron Raunikar. I don’t have anything against them, certainly. If I did, I would not have purchased (much less read) these in the first place. Yet I realize that by reading these, it allows me too much to daydream and focus on my ideal home: a wonderful husband, three kids (two guys and one girl, the latter being the youngest), and pets, especially dogs (See, I told you I’ve thought about it too often!) Reading these is not bad; in fact, it’s actually good, as it prepares a person for that certain time in life where God might call him/her to marriage. What isn’t really good is the aftermath of it. Some friends have commented more than once that the problem with us girls is that we are way too emotional, and I have to agree that it’s true at times. We want to find security and belongingness, and the problem enters when we want to have it now, and hopefully in the arms of a guy. I’m not generalizing that this applies to all girls, but this is applicable to a huge chunk of the female population. A part of the blame lies in the world and what it teaches – that a person cannot be complete without a “significant other.” You’re a complete loser if you haven’t found someone yet by the time you’re twelve years old. Maybe I’m exaggerating, but then again, maybe not.
Focusing way too much on this dims why it is called G.B. in the first place. It becomes Lani’s Best and not God’s Best, that is, it becomes too much centered on what I, we, want and not what His Will for us is. It’s like that bumper sticker I see from time to time that goes something like, “Lord, grant me patience right now.” We pray for our God’s Best without realizing that it becomes what we think is best and not what He wants for us. For that matter, how can we say that our G.B. has to be a person to begin with? It could be in the form of ministry, family, or friends, but not in terms of that so-called “significant other.” It’s G.B. because it’s God’s Best – His perfect plan for us. How can we challenge something so incredible? How can we say that what we want is better, when we can have what is the best? Besides, it’s a two-way thing if a person is meant to have a G.B.: it means that s/he is also the other’s G.B., or, as the people from the Bible study that I go to say, you have to be G.B. material yourself. This means developing on your character, and not just allowing yourself to be just the way you are. And yes, I know we can be stubborn and say, “Why do I have to change? He has to accept me just the way I am.” Borrowing from one of my history teachers in college: “That’s baloney.” If you will be just the way you are forever, you’d still be in the cradle sucking on your pacifier. We have a high expectation of who we want our G.B. to be, and we have to have it clear on the outset that chances are, the other person also expects a lot. As Christians, it’s a definite that we choose someone who’s also a follower of our Lord. How can we hope for someone like that when we don’t develop our relationship with Him? This does not mean that we only work on ourselves just so we can get something back. First of all, do we just continue to know more about Him just so we can get a “significant other”? Who are we fooling but ourselves? It’s an insult to God if we do that: to pretend to be in Christ when all we’re striving for is something extremely worldly. Besides, when we come to know Him and be serious in our faith, we can’t help but be changed by Him. It’s about following Him because we love Him, and not because we want to please someone else. If we do find someone, all well and good; if not, we have an Eternal Bridegroom waiting for us in Heaven.
I will probably never forget what Fr. Meehan said to us in our Th 151 class. He said that God loves us all universally, and at the same time, He loves each one of us personally, and one way of letting this love known to us is by being blessed with a spouse – the reason why marriage is given such importance in Church. A friend also once told me that being committed to someone entails maturity and stability in a person’s life. That’s one of the reasons that I now have when I renewed my commitment to Him. If it’s His will for me to have someone, then Thank You, Lord. I’m willing to wait 5, 10, how many years, knowing that it’s definitely God’s Best. Besides, I don’t want to bank on it that much now, because I know it’s not right for me yet. I’m still a student, for crying out loud! I still want that first guy to be the only one for me, God willing. If it’s not His will for me to be with someone, still, Thank You, Lord. That would be my G.B., and I know that He has a different plan for me, and not one involving matrimony. Besides, above it all, I know that no one else can complete me other than Him. I know, because He has always given me that security.
So now, two words will sum up what I will do: active waiting. For what, only He knows. For sure, I trust Him.
Song of Songs 3:5 “I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and hinds of the field, do not arouse, do not stir up love before its own time.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)