180 Movie

There's a video that's going around called the "180 Movie." It's pro-life, made by a Jewish man who likens the Holocaust to the abortion epidemic that is happening today. For the record, I recommend watching this movie. If you're not pro-life, it makes a very good argument; if you are pro-life, you'll probably find it encouraging by the end. (The beginning is kind of sad because of how uneducated people are.)

I "like"d the Movie's page on Facebook and now I get a lot of things from it. Some I enjoy; sometimes it's just kind of annoying. It's taking a good thing and shoving it in your face so much that it gets wearisome. Like a good song that you really love until you hear it all day every day for a week. And then you can't stand it. But that's a rabbit trail.

These posts that I see are often statements about how people value Stuff above People. I completely agree with this take on the world; stuff is extremely important to people and other people are often seen as only a way to increase one's Stuff. In today's post, it compared a rolex watch to a baby. How many people would stop someone from smashing an expensive watch, but have no qualms if they hear someone is going to have an abortion?

The meaning is well-taken, but my brain didn't want to leave it at just that. How many people would rather have the watch than see it smashed? Or in the parallel, how many people would want the baby rather than know it's going to be killed? What if the baby were being aborted for medical reasons (a deformity, a mental illness, a disease, etc. etc.)?

Being pro-life shouldn't just be anit-pro-choice. It should mean, if I have the opportunity to save a life (without sinning), I take it. I should WANT to take it, not just feel that it's my duty as a Christian. Honestly, I don't feel that way right now. There's a difference in my head between accepting MY children no matter what issues they have and accepting someone ELSE'S child no matter what issues they have. I don't really have a choice when it's my kid. I don't HAVE to adopt a drug baby. If we chose to adopt, we could choose a nice, healthy baby. A baby that we think is cute or one that has the same coloring as us or whatever parameters we want.

But I shouldn't feel that way. If I can SAVE a life, it shouldn't matter what the condition of the body of that life is in. It should not matter if it's an old person who won't remember that I saved them, or a baby with such extreme mental health problems that they'll never have the capacity to form a real sentence.

Obviously, this is pretty much hypothetical right now. Maybe one day, if we ever have enough money to adopt, it won't be. But I think it's good to have such things stirring around in my head. One day it may all be very much real, and being who I am, it'll go better if I have an idea of what I believe and why BEFORE any of it happens.

In closing, let me quickly add that I stated some things very dogmatically. I believe them which is why I said them strongly, but I am very open to discussion and/or debate. I think today is the first time I've ever thought about this - at least in this way.

Happy Monday. :)

Getting old. . . .

I know I'm not getting OLD old, but I've been feeling kind of old because I've been forgetting things lately. That's not like me. But then again, maybe it's not like me because I'm not used to being quite "so busy." (I'm not actually busy as in things are taking up all my time; I'm busy in that the things that take up my time are all different things - makes it harder to keep track of stuff.)

So in the spirit of being forgetful, I'm going to blog about something that I'm pretty sure I've blogged about before, something that's been on my mind a lot recently.

My topic is things that I always wanted/always expected. And my thoughts about WHY I wanted those things or expected those things.

Something I expected (though not something I wanted) was that I would not live around my family when I grew up. I didn't know where I would live, I hoped for certain kinds of places, but in all my thinking about what life would be like as a grownup, I never expected to live around my family.

I wanted to marry a preacher - a pastor, a missionary, an evangelist, it didn't matter. I went through them all at different stages, but the overarching theme was I wanted to marry a preacher.

This one I didn't just expect, I was relatively certain of, even though it began later in life (I think I was pretty convinced by the time I was fourteen): I had to meet the guy I was going to marry online. People liked me better online; I could get to know people online; I had an easier time communicating, etc. etc.. There were lots of reasons.

On the flip side: I could never picture myself dating, and in actuality, I've been on very few dates. "Dating" for us was talking on the phone for more than three hours on Saturday night. I knew I would get engaged, because I knew I would get married; but not being able to see myself dating helped my conclusion that I would marry someone I met online. It also made being Zack's girlfriend somehow more novel to me than being his fiance. Haha.

I expected to be poor. Not super poor, but as fun as it is to think about having money. . . . I wouldn't know what to do with it. Or, at least, I can't think of worth-while things to do with it. Haha. I could spend lots of money on STUFF - but what good is stuff?

Anyway, the WHY of all of this. Believing, as I do, in the God Who is involved in every aspect of the goings on in the world, I know that He orchestrated it. He gave it to me to expect things that He had long before determined were going to happen. Part of the reason, I think, is because I don't do well with unexpected things (I think I've learned to be more flexible, but it still gets rough sometimes). So He decided to let me know YEARS prior to events the basic way that things would happen.

Maybe He knew that if I hadn't been somewhat mentally preparing to leave my family for as long as I can remember, I wouldn't have been able to when Zack came along. The really interesting part is that God used my fears - my fear of being alone - to help me get used to the idea of not having my family around, so that when it came time for me to leave. . . I was sad and it was hard. But moving across the country was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than losing them for the rest of my life. I can visit them in Michigan this way; I get to see them on Skype every week.

Anyway. It's been on my mind. God is. . . . Heh. I couldn't think of a word that would fit what I wanted to say, so. . . God is that He is. And anyone who knows Him partially understands the depths of what that conveys.

"Deliciously Sinful"

Please note the quotes. ;)

First, let me say that this is not to reprimand anyone who has used this phrase or something similar to it. It's just something that was brought to my attention and it got me thinking (again) about how free we are with our words and how we all say things without thinking about what we're really communicating.

So what's wrong with this phrase? It's probably really easy to see once you think about it. Saying something like "that was deliciously sinful" or "this triple-chocolate truffle cake MUST be wicked" makes it sound like all things that are pleasing to the senses are wrong. Something that tastes so amazing CAN'T be morally right to enjoy. (Sarcasm. . . .)

This is obviously silly. We know that every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of lights - not just spiritually good things, but physically good things. But somewhere in our hearts, we sometimes still feel guilty (or feel like we should feel guilty) for enjoying the good things that God has given us - and yes, that includes a triple-chocolate truffle cake (if such a thing exists; sounds yummy, doesn't it?).

I don't want to beat a dead horse, so in conclusion: Enjoy the delicious things that you have, and the fun games and the beautiful days, and make it even better by giving the credit to the right Person - the One Who made all those good things for us.

I Think There Was Caffeine in That. . . .

So I was thinking about starting a new blog that was not about my life, but was a realistic story about SOMEONE's life from their perspective. I wrote one post and then I nixed the idea. I'm just not good at coming up with interesting things about real life and things nowadays. I prefer something more fantastical. But the idea is still lingering. Maybe something more Sci-fi though. . . . If I do, I'll probably let all of my (four? three?) readers know.

I miss other people's blogs. Mike used to blog. Mom only did it once. :/ Dave used to write about his life. That could get long-winded, but I felt informed. Of course, he calls me now, so that's all good. :) Zack was blogging for a little while, but he hasn't done that in well over a year. (I know because the last post was like three-five months before we got married [I think] and we've almost been married for a year.)

Speaking of which, we've been married for almost a year! =D That's pretty cool. It's also weird. Sometimes I wonder when the "newlywed" feeling is going to go away. Or if it only goes away if things get hard. Or when you start having kids. Or what exactly. I don't know. I know that sometimes I feel like an old married couple, and sometimes I feel like it's been a few months.

I think part of that is that the passing of time is all mixed up for me right now due to the lack of seasons in CaliLand. There are only two. . . . How am I ever supposed to feel like it's been a year when we've only had two seasons? Or maybe, I'll just know that time is passing because "Summer is here again already!?" ;) Hehe. I always have great ambitions to get tan and then it gets hot and I spend all my time inside and out of the sun as much as possible.

On the up side, we don't have a water bill at our apartment so I can cool off in the shower as much as I want. I'm also already trying to come up with cute/nice ways to keep my hair up all summer so I don't end up chopping it off again. I would like to grow it out for the cooler months, but my hair doesn't grow fast enough for that to work unless I can make it through at least one summer. We'll see if I can make it this year. I'm betting I won't. Hahaha.

Also, I like losing weight. It makes me happy. I feel better and it makes me want to move so that it doesn't come back. I lost some weight over the holidays (weird, right? Not really, I had the flu) and I SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO want it not to come back. So I think I'm going to start working out again - something I should have already been doing. There's a treadmill in the common room of the apartment complex. I should really start making use of it. I don't need a jogging buddy if I'm on the treadmill.

Anyway. Lots of random things this time.

2012

There's been a lot of talk about this year. The end of the Mayan calendar, there was an end-of-the-world movie named "2012," and then there's just all the talk about the collapse of the US and all the emphasis being put on this year's election.

I get some of it. I mean, it's fun to think about the future and it's fun to think about the way things might go and try to predict things and make contingency plans. I enjoy doing that. I even enjoy doing it for things that are ridiculous. But I don't really think that things are that imminent or that bad. I'm not going to say they definitely aren't. I just don't think that things are going to go anywhere close to the way people have talked about them going.

So first up: The End Of the World vs. The Collapse of the USA
With the eschatological beliefs that I have, the end of the world can't happen this year. The end of the US? Eh, maybe. So what's the proper take to all of this? Let's say that the US does go down the drain, that there are (as I've heard some people say there could be) droves of vagabonds pillaging and thieving because now there's no societal system to hold them accountable. What do I do?

I do the same thing I should have been doing my whole life; I do the same thing that Christians are always supposed to do. I go to God. If I were a poor person on the street today with nothing, no food, no home - what would I do? I would pray. I would try to find work to earn something for myself. I would ask people for help. Why does the fact that the nation might go poof change anything that we would do? Why does the idea of the nation dissolving make people think that the place God has them now will suddenly NOT be the place He'll want them afterward?

There's absolutely no reason to think that way. Because I think that if I go home, there's a better chance of surviving because there's open land to farm in MI? Since when does "better chance of surviving" factor into it? There's a guaranteed "chance" of survival if you are where God wants you to be - as long as God wants you to be alive.

Next: The Elections and Their Place in this
I will vote for the guy I think is best for the country. I think Ron Paul is the only one who has a chance. But I have a hard time thinking that any ONE guy can get an entire NATION of people out of debt. And if the nation fails, oh well. America is NOT my home - and that's not unpatriotic. That's Christianity. I will seek the best for her, but if she dies, that's not a huge loss in my book. America doesn't have a soul.

Last, I'm not trying to downplay anybody's concerns or scold people for being concerned. But there comes a point where it just doesn't matter. It doesn't do any good to think about moving or think about spending money on food for later when you're hardly paying the bills now. God isn't going to just hang you out to dry. If the US goes back to the stone-age, God is going to be just as much with the Christians who were prepared and waiting for it to happen as He is with the ones who never gave it two thoughts.

So just do what you think is right, and don't worry about the rest. I read a thing the other day that made the argument that the Devil is most pleased when Christians are focused on the Future, instead of the Present.

December Without Snow

It has been a while now. I don't really have a topic, so this might be a bit on the "stream of consciousness" side of things.

A few things that have been going on: Christmas is coming with all the stuff that means. I've never had to think about making goodies or sending cards before. Not that I've made any goodies, but I did go buy some Christmas cards this morning. I was thinking about making some cookies. Without chocolate chips. Mwahahahaha! ;) (Saves money!)

This Christmas is my first in many categories. My first not at home, my first after being married, my first in the springlike CaliLand. I'm excited. We're celebrating on Thursday which is only three days away! Whooo!!!! We bought a large portion of ham for Christmas Eve dinner. :) I'm not sure what to make with it yet. I bought Zack a mango; he bought me icecream. Hehe. (I'm pretty sure he's going to eat some of it, too. . . )

I love Christmas; I like Christmas cards, I like Christmas caroling; I like Christmas lights, trees, presents, food, even the guys that stand in front of the stores ringing the bells. I especially love Christmas morning when it's really dark except for the Christmas lights and the candles, we get snuggled up on the couch, listening to the Christmas story (I like Luke 2 a lot, but one year Dad read the beginning of Hebrews - it was really good, too.) with bleary eyes and lots of yawns.

In other news, I did NaNoWriMo again this year and again wrote 50k words and finished a story. It was sad and horrible and I hated it. Haha. BUT, something good may have come of it, because the winners get 5 free copies of a manuscript (just have to pay for shipping). The only question is whether or not it has to be what I wrote for THIS Nano. . . . and if there is anyway for them to know if I'm using a different manuscript.

So right now, I have two options. Write like crazy to finish my book before March, send it out for people to read and help edit, and get it "published" in May and have five copies. OR, I can use last year's NaNo (which is a thousand times better than this year's ). That option is a lot less work - that's for sure. That is, if I don't have to use the one I wrote this year - because I wouldn't want five copies of that anywhere, not even in my basement (if I had a basement).

And that, for the time being, is my life. Most things are on hiatus for Christmas.

Merry Christmas - and in case this is the last one for a while again - Happy New Year!!! =D

Devil's Advocate

I was going through old blogs and found this one and wondered why I'd never posted it. I think maybe I was a little too fired up at the time and thought I shouldn't. Since I can't remember what sparked it's being written though, I feel safe enough in posting it now.

Why do people play Devil's advocate? With a name like that, why would you even want to? The Devil needs help now? He's not persecuting God's people well enough on his own? We have an Advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous. I don't want to play that kind of part for the Devil. I don't want to get anywhere NEAR it. Now, obviously, I know that people don't mean the phrase that seriously. But things are usually called what they're called for a reason.

Observation: All the people I can think of that I know to play Devil's advocate tend to be the same type of person. Egotistical males (by their own admission) who think that they know more than others and that it is their responsibility to test, try and prove other Christians with their knowledge. (My experience is very limited, but that's what it has been.) This raises many flags in my mind - flags, not condemnation.

So what's the point of Devil's Advocate, and is it really the best way to reach your desired goal? (I give the benefit of the doubt here and presume their goal to be helping other believers.) Or is it a not-so-great way to do things except in very particular circumstances, even potentially damaging to those same people you say you're trying to help?

It seems like there are a few reasons for playing Devil's advocate. One, it allows you to argue and be on opposite sides instead of working together. Two, it allows you to be much harsher on someone's beliefs. You can scornfully question an answer the other person offers and tear it to pieces if you're on opposite sides of a debate. Three, it's a great way to show off just how much you know. If you can tear apart Johnny's (I use Johnny 'cause I don't know any) argument while knowing the right way to answer all of your own questions, boy howdy, you must be a genius! (Please note the sarcasm.)

My argument against playing Devil's advocate:

1) We're Christians. All things are supposed to be done in love. "Be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves." How often is playing Devil's Advocate being harmless as a dove? I would submit, very rarely. Usually the person who plays Devil's Advocate is one of the smarter people in the room, and probably everyone else respects their opinion. When they start tearing down beliefs that often aren't well-founded to begin with, serious questioning takes place within the person who is being . . . well, grilled. It's not very nice to try to destroy someone's, as far as you can tell, correct beliefs before they've had a chance to really even believe them. Especially if that person looks up to you.

I suggest a different approach. Either teach them or come along side them. Be their advocate; offer to be a sounding board. Ask questions in a constructive way, not a destructive way. Don't debate, suggest. Point out inconsistencies with thoughtfulness, not "Haha! Now your argument is destroyed!"

2) People don't like other people to know that they're playing Devil's Advocate. . . . Why, I don't really get. Probably because as soon as you say, "I'm doing this," then all of a sudden it's less intense. Which makes it seem like the whole point of playing it, is not to help people but because you like the pressure, the atmosphere of a debate. Honestly, I think this is why it bothers me. Christians don't know how to come along side and help others with beliefs. They know how to teach and they know how to argue. There is another way, but it requires a more listening and less talking.

It's just deceptive. I'm going to pretend to disagree with you, I'm going to tear apart all of your arguments as much as I can, and then at the end I'm going to say, "I was just messing around; I totally believe the same thing you do."

Really? And it was all for my benefit? I feel so special that you deceived me and tore apart my mental processes with such gusto. . . .

Nah. Secretive Devil's advocate is way worse than just presenting opposition. Sharp opposition when you're trying to settle things in your head is hard enough, but when you find out afterward that they don't even believe what they were arguing? It's much worse. It feels like a betrayal.

Addendum: I understand that for some people having a person, someone they respect, play the opposing side might be helpful. In fact, it might be exactly what they need in order to work things through in their head. My problem is when the person doing the opposing just decides to do it without anyone knowing, without anyone asking, really without taking into account who they're doing it to. They just decide to test whoever they feel like.

Which brings me to point, 3) It's really presumptive. These people need their faith tested, their beliefs challenged. I'm just the person to do it! It's up to ME to make sure that they know everything they believe and know exactly why they believe it.

And what if you "challenge" their beliefs so well that then they don't know what to believe? Good job; you gave the Devil a point on that round. Did your advocate thing a little too well. Playing Devil's advocate is like tossing around a stumbling-block. Like a ball, you throw it up and try to catch it again every time you argue with someone. And occasionally, you miss and they trip, and it's your fault.

There's got to be better way.

Another Debate

So I wasn't planning on making this a thing I do, but after listening to only part of another GOP debate, I feel like writing some more. (I did watch the whole thing; I just wrote things down while watching it.)

Anderson Cooper: I was surprised to see him as the moderator. I don't think he was really cut out for it. He did a poor job of keeping any kind of order; people were jumping in all over the place, and he interrupted quite a lot with his own snide remarks. He also seemed to be gunning for certain people, giving some people all the time they wanted and cutting other people off.

Perry: Most of the time, I can't stand him. He comes across as so artificial and actually not very informed. But I gotta give him credit for taking on Romney on immigration, even though I think he got skewered with it just as bad. I would be thrilled if he could keep throwing doubts on Romney and take himself out of it as well. I think he may have ended up making Romney look better though by the end of it. :/

Cain: His plan got hammered at the beginning! I was really happy to hear him talk about something other then 9-9-9 when the healthcare thing came up. He gets points for owning up to his former position on TARP in my opinion. He seems like a very up-front person, but he also seems to have a hard time getting across what he's trying to. Thankfully for him, most people don't seem to care if you can explain it, as long as it works.

Paul: He did really well with the Latino question, and I'm glad he had more of a chance to talk later on. I'm not sure that I completely agree with him on the March on Wall Street thing . . . . But that's probably because I'm not sure how things work. It seems to me though that if President Obama was the one that sanctioned what the FED was dong, then some of those people are definitely at fault, because they voted for him. If the FED did it all themselves, without help from the administration, then Paul is right. I just don't know which one it is.

Bachmann: She did WAY better this time, in my opinion. I don't know if it's actually seeing and hearing her, or what, but I liked her a lot more this time around. I thought her appeal to moms was a little weird. That didn't seem like a debate forum thing, but whatever. I also think she's advertising for herself a little too hard.

Santorum: I didn't like that he got so fired up with Romney. Saying Romney was out of time was not a good thing; that wasn't his job. I think he'd have done better if he'd kept his cool, but he obviously has a big problem with Romney's less-than-open approach, which I have to agree with. He did a really good job emphasizing family with the Latino question - I would bet that he would get a lot of Latino votes for that because of his references to family and faith (and his being a Catholic). I think he has a problem with referring to the other candidates specifically though. I don't know if he's doing it on purpose or what, but I think he'd serve himself better to answer questions in the positive (I would do X) rather than the negative (They brought this on us).

Gingrich: I love how he called out Romney about Romney not getting that idea from him. That was great. Also, his address to the Latino community was very well done. I really liked his answer to the faith/religion question. I think he did slightly better with it than Santorum even. I also think he did better in this debate than the last one.

Romney: The more I hear about him, the worse he seems. I think the only reason he could get anywhere is because he's really the only one with charisma. He's got the salt-and-pepper hair, a good voice, it takes a lot to get him upset, and he has the ability to make himself look like the one who's been wronged. And he's a politician - he can speak well without saying much but sounding like he knows exactly what he's talking about.


Overall: The only two people that I really, really, really don't want to see win it are Romney and Perry.

Politics

There was a debate recently amongst the Republican Candidates that I would have known nothing about had my brother not posted something about it on Facebook. But he did, and I had time and I took the opportunity to read the transcript from said debate. There were a few things that struck me from the debate itself and from a few articles about the debate. Most of these people I know nothing about other than what I can remember from listening to the debate, so bear with me. I may be way off on things.

The moderating job didn't seem to be done very well. The guy even forgot that Romney came before Santorum. Thankfully, Santorum caught it and passed the spotlight to Romney, but Romney had to rub the poor PBS guy's face in it a little before continuing.

The winners and the losers seem to be determined by who got to talk the most. In the context of Proverbs, this bothers me. Romney did a lot of talking; he seems popular; from what was written, he seemed to have the easiest time communicating his ideas and thoughts - other people seemed to stumble around for words a bit - and from what I read today, he doesn't seem like he'd be terrible for our economy. However, he did a lot of talking, and I find that I can't sum him up at all. There's nothing I can say, "He is definitely for (or against) X." That makes him seem very much a politician and that makes me not trust him.

Santorum is for family. That was obvious when he said, "Families that have two- that have a husband and a wife working. . . ." He didn't want to say families that have two "parents." I wished he'd said more without mentioning Cain. He also seemed to be for cutting taxes, which sounds good to little ole me.

Ron Paul (It seems weird if I just called him Paul. . . .) seems very informed and unpopular to the point of everyone paying attention knowing that he's the "unmentionable guy." He gets included in appearance but he's not in the In Crowd. I can't remember anyone asking him a question; he got lumped in with the "Winners" by virtue of asking worthy questions; and basically was ignored (as far as I saw) in the reports on the debate. He was also the only person mentioned in the fact-checkers article that didn't say anything wrong (unlike Santorum, Romney, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, and Huntsman), if you trust the people who wrote the article.

I'd never seen Cain, nor heard him speak before, but I was very turned off to him. He had one tune, and he didn't seem to understand it very well. He seemed to want simplicity in a complex situation, and I don't think he's going to find it. I was a little surprised about him, because I'd heard a lot of talk about him, and he was nothing like what I expected. He was nit-picky and overall didn't seem very gracious. The question wasn't about the morality of beer as opposed to pizza; it was about taxing food.

In my opinion, Bachmann should get out of it. I think she's a smart, classy lady, but she didn't seem to have very much ability to say what she wanted to. She was difficult to understand and she went back and forth from being, "I'm a mother of 28" to "I'm a lawyer." On the one hand, she seemed almost too down to earth, and on the other hand she struck me as being very legally minded. Maybe it was an off day for her or maybe I just didn't get her. I don't know.

Huntsman didn't seem to be taking it seriously and therefore, I found it hard to take him seriously. He also totally spaced on the point of how (I think it was Romney) wanted to repeal Obamacare and how that worked. I liked how Santorum jumped in and explained it for him. Hehehehe.

Gingrich didn't seem to be there for himself. He seemed to be there to say, "Yeah, he's right about that. You've got that right, Bachmann. Listen to so-and-so." It was slightly confusing, and yet refreshing. He didn't seem to make any overtures for his own bid, rather boosting other candidates that he thought were correct, as well as taking shots at people like Bernanke. He seemed more interested in making sure that the people listening were getting correct information than trying to market himself. I liked it.

Perry also seemed to get a lot of talking in without saying much. He seemed focused on getting a good leader for the country, but he didn't want to share his plan for the country - which made him not seem like a leader. There were a couple of other red flags that come up with him that made me think twice.

Overall, I like Santorum for his graciousness and Ron Paul for his very "this is the way it is" take on things. I dislike Cain and Romney makes me wary, though Perry worries me even more. Gingrich, Huntsman, and Bachmann I have a hard time thinking that they're really going to do much.

Life with God is Exciting

It really is. We've been going through Esther in our Ladies' Bible Study recently and it's been very cool. Normally, I'm not a big fan of Esther. I like how well it shows that God is in control, but I don't really identify with any of the characters and I don't like the lack of mention of any people who are definitely "the good guy."

Now, as a rabbit trail, let me say, I hope that Esther and Mordecai were true Jews and spiritual children of Abraham as well as physical ones; but I don't see any definite evidence of that, as everyone who's paid attention knows there is no mention of God, prayer, or anything else that would lead to that.

Back to my point though, life with God is seeing growing bills and shrinking paychecks and waiting with wonder at how God is going to save us. What Esther (no matter what her spiritual beliefs were) is He putting up to deliver His people? What or who is He going to use next to get us through another week, another month, the next year?

And that's exciting. It's like a beautiful, lazy summer evening spent with family and friends, sitting out on the lawn looking up at the sky waiting for the fireworks to start. Or sitting at the airport waiting for the plane to land so you can see your beloved again.

There is the other side to it though, the harder side. What am I trying to hold onto? What worry do I have that nags me? What thing am I wondering, "What do I do, what do I do" about?

I've had a few of those recently, and it's really hard to really give things over to God and say, "I don't want to keep trying to grab it. I can't hold it up; I can't fix it; I don't even know how to try to fix it. But I don't want to make it worse by hanging on. I don't want to make it worse by worrying and filling myself with anxiety until I finally do something stupid out of desperation." It's an interesting thing - giving it up is a lighter weight than carrying it around; but it's a harder thing to do sometimes.

Anyway. Life is exciting. It's rough and it hurts and it's long; but God is gentle. He binds up the broken-hearted and He gives rest to the weary. And it's exciting to see how He works.