Do Not Merely Exist BLESSED SINGLENESS + FORSAKING IT ALL SAIL THE HIGH SEAS + BIBLE MAN ARMOR

Character or Reputation?

May 27, 2011

"Worry about your character, not your reputation because your character is who you are & your reputation is what people think you are." John Wooden

modesty 101; vol. 2: Shorts

May 17, 2011

I love wearing shorts, even in the winter. I'll go into town wearing a big furry coat with shorts and I get thousands of stares and unguarded whispers. Oh...you think it's because my shorts are too short and immodest!? 


Ha! No, it's usually because my sense of "winter fashion" is always way over some people's heads, because half of me got them memo that it was frigged outside and the other half of me forgot to watch the news! 


Today's topic is SHORTS: how short is too short for shorts? That's what we're going to find out. 


Now, I know some of you won't agree at all about wearing shorts because they show too much skin, and that's fine. But, for those of us who choose to wear shorts, I think it's a good time-especially since summer is almost here-to discuss or point out the many flaws shorts have and how to avoid immodesty (while still looking good!).


I see London, I see France...I can almost see this girls' underpants! Not the route to take when trying to maintain that modesty, while still looking fashionable. Seeing underwear and other unsightly parts of the body-that should be kept covered-is repulsive. And even though some girls think this sort of thing is HOT, it's really not. Guys may like it, but let's be real here! Be a lady and dress appropriately. Later on the guys will thank you for allowing them to see you for how beautiful your heart is...not by the things you wear to direct attention to yourself in the WRONG way!

Well, what do we have here? As first sight, some might think these shorts are super cute and that they display the three girls' legs tolerably well. But, in my humble opinion, I think these shorts are too short for anyone to be wearing. These shorts come way above the knee and completely by-pass the thigh and move right on to the crotch area (where no short-short should ever venture to explore!). Bring the level of those shorts down a bit girlfriends!
Um, I can barely find the shorts! Where are they? One tip: If I can't see your shorts because your top is covering them, that means they're-you guessed it-TOO SHORT! Keep 'em where we can seem 'em!

Astonishingly, this pair of shorts are the longest, most modest I've been able to dig up on the grand Internet without any booty showing or the threat of crotch exposer flying at my face. I am exasperated by the number of slutty short-short styles that are out there. Do they not make anything worth wearing these days? Or, is it all about looking like trash because that's the style? (Don't like the shirt, either!).
We're getting there ladies! It's OK if you still don't agree. I probably would wear these, but they'd have to fit perfectly and not ride up too high on my thigh. I have long legs and they're all muscle, so these might not be right for me. Someone who's shorter and has a slimmer leg might be able to pull this off. Still looking for my version of the perfectly modest short!
Just throwing this in here. This, in my opinion, is a good way to make an immodest pair of shorts into a more respectable item of clothing. Put leggings on underneath. They did it in the 80s! And the leggings can be knee length and any color you want. Fun.
Tadda! This is it-the perfect short! I think it may be too tight, but you can always adjust the sizing to get the right fit. Not too tight, remember! And where the hem of the short falls is right up my alley: just above the knee and right below the thigh. I love Bermuda Shorts and think they are an excellent way to wear shorts without over exposing yourself and maintain that lovely modesty!
So, what do you think? Comment and let me know what you're thoughts are on wearing shorts. I'd love to hear what you have to say.

Hold On a Minute...

May 2, 2011

I could barely believe my eyes when I ran across this image on We {Heart} It. It isn't something I would normally care to think about. Actually, I don't even care to think of it now. But it is just so messed up that it makes me wonder....what is the world coming to?

Really shows you the thought process of the world, eh? I can't imagine!

Just how disheveled and lost are we going to get before we wake up and realize that this is just sick? These antics are a poor showing of rebellion. Yet, everyone seems to be making a career out of it-denying Christ, or making up some fake, monstrous mumble-jumbo.  

(A little too harsh?)

And I'm sorry to all the Homosexuals out there, but this doesn't justify your sins! You're not gay
because you were born that way, as Lady Gaga says:
Oh there ain't no other way
Baby I was born this way
Baby I was born this way
Oh there ain't no other way
Baby I was born-
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way
Just toss that whole "I was born this way" philosophy down the drain, because deep down inside, you know you were NOT "born that way". God even says so himself. Don't believe me, then go check out these verses:
Genesis 2:24:
"That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh".
(Where does it say in the Bible that a man will stick to his man, neither a woman will stick to her woman? Nowhere. Come on! If God wanted a marriage to be between two people of the same gender, I am sure He have done that when He created Adam and Eve! Instead, God intentionally created Adam and Eve as man and woman.)
Romans 1: 24-27:
"Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."
(God sees homosexuality as something not natural and obscene. And I agree. God didn't create men to marry men, or women to marry women. What beauty is there in that? Marriage between one man and one woman is beautiful, precious and a promise that should not be tainted or obscured by those who would rather push their gay-rights on people, rather than accept the truth that they've strayed far away from. It's not that God hates the person who thinks they're gay. He doesn't hate the sinner, just the sin.).
1Timothy 1: 9-11:
"In the knowledge that this fact, the law is promulgated, not for righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, lacking loving-kindness, and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, man slayers, fornicators, MEN WHO LIE WITH MALES, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in OPPOSITION TO THE HEALTHFUL TEACHING according to the glorious good news of the happy God, with which I was entrusted."
(Again we see here that men who lie [or sleep, have sexual relations] with males is in opposition to the healthful teachings of God.)
1Corinthians 6:9-11
"...nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men...will inherit God´s kingdom..."
Genesis 19: 4,5:
"Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: "Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them".
Then verses 24, 25 says:
"Then Jehovah made it rain sulfur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah. So he went ahead overthrowing these cities, even the entire District and all the inhabitants of the cities and the plants of the ground."
(Sodom and Gomorrah were two cities full of badness and homosexuality. The name Sodom has become the basis for the word "sodomy", which usually designates a homosexual practice. Didn't know I knew that, did you?)
Jude 7:
"So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same matter as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after FLESH FOR UNNATURAL USE, are placed for us as a WARNING EXAMPLE by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire."
Let me ask you this, since it displeases God so much for two people of the same sex to be together, don´t you think He would have done the opposite of marriage between persons of the opposite sex, man and woman? But he didn't—did He? Because He knew it was crude and obscene. It wasn't a binding marriage, and it certainly doesn't have any merit.

There are things that the Bible doesn't come right out and say, that's for sure. However, it's our job to look deep in the words to get the point. Unfortunately, some people like to obscure the message of God by turning it into a piece of justification for their own sinful purposes, schemes and ideas.

I don't recall reading anywhere in the Bible that God had two Homosexual fathers, do you? Funny how people like to twist and reinvent the wheel, eh?

It’s stated quiet clearly that God, our Father has, yes, two "Fathers". BUT, it's not what you think. You see, God—Christ really— was the Son of God. He was also the son of Joseph (who really wasn't his father at all, just his "substitute" Father) who was the husband (later on) of the Virgin Mary.

God sent His son to earth to be an eternal sacrifice for us here on earth that we might have a second chance. Not so He could, in a sense, become the perverted symbol of Homosexuals who mock and 
make fun of His name, or seek justification for their sins (as we all do, I’m sure).

You’ll see here what I mean by Christ not really having "two fathers" (which were not gay, by the way). Joseph really wasn't Christ's father, just a substitute, so-to-speak. God's the only father in this whole equation. You do the math. Here, take a look:
Matthew 1:24-25
 "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
Matthew1:18
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost ... 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."
For some of you, you’ll be surprised to know that Christ is God. And if you ask me, that’s kind of gross to speculate that Christ had "two fathers" who were linked by Homosexuality when Christ is God.
1 Timothy 3:16
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
John 10:30
 Jesus said: I and my Father are one.
John 14:10
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?  The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works."
Is it all really so hard to understand? Or do some people choose to be ignorant of these things? Either way, it's a shame and I pray for them. Confused? Do a little investigating for yourself. See what you can dig up. I bet you'll find more convincing evidence than you ever bargained for. God's incredible, don't deny it. 

Modesty 101; vol. 1: Anna Sophia Robb

May 1, 2011

I am all about being modest. It gets under my skin watching girls, even guys, walk around in skimpy clothing. Do they think they're hot or something? I mean, come on! It's not even that attractive-dressing inappropriately, showing too much, you know, skin.

I'm all for having fun with clothing choices, but there is a fine line between modesty and immodesty. The later I don't care much for (as you already know). Just so you know, I detest mini skirts, short-shorts, and low-cut blouses. ;)

Not that I am trying to promote Anna Sophia Robb or anything, but I do find her to be a pretty good actress (not my favorite, though), and, well, kinda modest. Kinda.

Really liking the color. And the halter top is a great way to stay stylish without compromising modesty. I wish, though, that there wasn't so much space showing near the armpit. Ya know?
Now, this is cute! I love the pattern. I confess, I am a little liberal when it comes to modesty, BUT not by much. Showing some neck isn't a crime, as long as I can't see anything else.
Amazing top! I want it so badly. The color is nice, and the jewels around the neckline are very retro. Appears modest enough for my taste. You?
This looks so clunky and seems to swallow Anna's small frame. I hate the color black, but it is truly modest. Could work better for me if it were salmon or white.
Stunning dress. Delightful pattern. Um...a little short. I would prefer it a little longer (perhaps below the knee). It's flattering, though. Just not for me!
Here we go, the perfect modest outfit! Jeans, a T-shirt and adorable shoes! Not too tight, just right.
Modest fashion flaw! Alert! I do not think these shorts qualify as modest, do they. NO THEY DO NOT! Hun, go change into something appropriate, and while you're at it, but a shirt on. Please.
Purple seems to be her color. I think at least. I love the way the top crosses. Just enough skin. But, I can't say much for the lower half. Crossing my fingers it's a lower bottom.