Finding The Perfect Match and A Lilla Rose Giveaway

I've had this dress for a long time, but I've had a hard time finding things to match it. But . . . this outfit just happened, And I'm pleased to say I love it and I think I'll be wearing it more. 

My sister says it looks pirate. A friend says medieval. I'm thinking Germanic/ steampunk. What do you think?

I don't get to wear this necklace much - I bought it at the fair a few years ago. It's vintage! But I love how it draws out the pink in the dress. 

Outfit:
Dress: Gift
Shirt: Borrowed from my sister, but she bought it from Murdochs
Boots: Madison, but bought off of Facebook Classifieds
Necklace: Vintage necklace found at the fair. I have a matching bracelet, too.
Coat: Bought it at a thrift store years ago, but have just been wearing it more this year. It took me while to feel comfortable in it.
Hair Clip: Lilla Rose flexi clip given to me in exchange for a review on my blog. Currently there's a giveaway happening over at my blog for another just like it, along with a matching necklace and earrings!

Also, it's cold so I'm wearing leggings and warm socks.

Do you have clothing items that you love but are just figuring out how to wear? I feel like this entire outfit is such. 
Also, don't forget to check out the giveaway if you love Lilla Rose. 
And, let me know what you think of this outfit. Isn't it just so much fun? 

Love At First Sight: A Myth

I love fairy tales. They are some of the best stories ever. But some of the ideas in modern fairy tales are sort of twisted up.

 Love at first sight. 

Finding your one and only match. 

Love makes all good, and lasts forever. 

And once you have had that first kiss you shall live forever and ever, happily ever after.

Now, I'm not trying to depress you, but love at first sight is silly and unreal. It doesn't happen. One can argue for infatuation at first sight. That I'll go for. But not love.

Why?

First off, we need to understand what love really is.

Love isn't this magical thing that makes two people have to be together forever.

Love is the outcome of doing. Love can be performed to people we don't know or even like. Because love is giving, even when there's no receiving involved.

Some things about true love:

It is sacrificial.

It is unselfish.

It isn't ruled by feelings.

It is stronger than passion.

It is rational.

It always does what is right for the other person.

It affects more than just a couple individuals.

So, on that note, can you see why I don't think it's possible to find true love at first sight?

Not that I don't think people can't say, "Yeah, that's the person I'll end up marrying" and that it won't happen.

Many people have done it, and were married.

But many people have also said that, and then the feelings passed, and they didn't marry that person they were certain they would. So, the rare example of it happening isn't a proof for love at first sight.

And I would still argue that the person saying those words wasn't actually in love. 

Why? (I love this word... it leads to much intellectualism)

Because it was just infatuation. Not love. There was nothing real there. Nothing to make them stay committed.

100% attraction and infatuation. Nothing more.

The misconception of love and infatuation, I believe is the cause of so many divorces and unhappy marriages. Two people who are "clearly in love" marry. But then the passion fades. Life hits. 

And oh, my, what happened to that feeling of love?

"I must have married the wrong person!?"

Which brings up my next point.

There isn't a right person for you. 

(I'm just a mean person today ;D)

If there was just one perfect match for every one, then of course divorce would be more excusable.

But there isn't.

Also, if there were just one person meant for each individual, marriage after the death of a spouse would be very wrong.

Magic couples, meant to be together forever just isn't a thing.

If so, why are there so many unmarried(singles)? Did God just decided not to make them someone special?

No. Marriage is a higher thing than just "It's all about you and me."

Marriage has a purpose. It's about two people coming together to honor God and each other, and raising a family *to take over the world for God*. HAHA. Disregard that last part, if you like. 😉

It wasn't until recently that culture has changed the true meaning of love, marriage, and such.

Just look at history. It is full of women being "forced" or sold into marriages, arranged marriages, betrothals, and matchmaking.

And despite what our media tries to say, I think most of those girls (and definitely, guys ;b) were happy with their practices. It was what they were accustomed to. It was their life. They expected to not choose their partner. 

And most were happy.

Few girls felt like they were prisoners trapped in a life they had no control over. (I don't care what fiction tries to depict, they didn't). Most wanted this life that their culture held up as the ideal.

In fact, in Bloody Mary of England(1500's) begged her father(King Henry, the VIII) to arrange a marriage for her.

Anna Komnene( Byzantine princess, historian, 1083-1153) grew up always expecting an arranged marriage of some sort. And when she did marry she had a very (too) successful marriage.

If love is what should initiate the thing, if there are only two people meant for each other, how did so many people survive before it was acceptable to find your own spouse?

*let me just add that I'm not for my parents arranging a marriage for me. I'm too caught up in this culture to just go for that, lol. I'm just addressing the mindset - not the formula.*

The thing is mindset.

It's all about that.

They weren't looking for the one, they just wanted some one.

They knew what their expected roles in marriage were, and most people had the sense to follow them.

They understood marriage had a purpose, and embraced that purpose.

I mean, I'm sure people still had to deal with sin, but the difference is most people actually dealt with their problems - or just lived with them.

And so, can you see why I don't believe in love at first sight, or finding the one?

I'm sure this is all strange... but honestly, in this day and age, could things get stranger? Lol.

I'd also like to share this quote that my married friend, Esther, believes captures the idea of love extremely well:

Colleen North: [Helen is about to have a baby] I know this is a terrible time to talk about it, but Larry says...

Frank Beardsley: I've got a message for Larry. You tell him this is what it's all about. This is the real happening. If you want to know what love really is, take a look around you.

Helen North: What are you two talking about?

Frank Beardsley: Take a good look at your mother.

Helen North: Not now!

Frank Beardsley: Yes, now.

[to Colleen]

Frank Beardsley: It's giving life that counts. Until you're ready for it, all the rest is just a big fraud. All the crazy haircuts in the world won't keep it turning. Life isn't a love in, it's the dishes and the orthodontist and the shoe repairman and... ground round instead of roast beef. And I'll tell you something else: it isn't going to a bed with a man that proves you're in love with him; it's getting up in the morning and facing the drab, miserable, wonderful everyday world with him that counts.

[Leaving the house, they say good-bye to the little kids]

Frank Beardsley: I suppose having 19 kids is carrying it a bit too far, but if we had it to do over who would we skip... you?

Helen North: [getting into the car] Thank you, Frank. I never quite knew how to explain it to her.

Frank Beardsley: If we don't get you to the hospital fast, the rest of it's going to be explained right here!

If you think about it, the ideas expressed in this quote are quite unique. And the movie is very cute, too :)  Though this post wasn't meant to review a movie, lol! 

We need to think about some of these things and apply them to our thought lives... we need to influence our minds towards thinking about things in perspective. Because, believe it or not, these are some very important aspects in all of our lives today.

"It Looks Better IRL"

So this post is to show how I change my mind over an outfit ;) 

I LOVED this outfit when I wore it. 

And I received a ton of compliments on it. 

But when I looked at the pictures later I HATED IT. 

So much I threw away the boots afterward. 

Like why did I even wear the boots with this outfit? Too much grey. And that skirt just covered up all of the bling of the boots anyways. 

Shirt: Little Bluebird's Boutique

Skirt: Thrift store

Belt: Little Bluebird's Boutique

Tank top: Walmart 

Boots: Some small store at the mall. 

Necklace: Thrift store

I think I'd like the outfit better if my hair weren't so flat and if I wore different shoes with it. I really like the belt and shirt together. Maybe it needs a different skirt, too? 

Expect to see most posts with the shirt and belt to see if I can muster up something nicer :) 

What about you? Ever find you don't like something as much as you thought once you saw the pictures? Or maybe, like me, you feel like the outfit just suited real life better than pictures ;) 

History is About Changing, Not Inspiring

I recently was directed towards this essay by Sir John Glubb. It was a long read, but also a worth while one. And very interesting, too. I believe it was written (or at least published) in the late 1970's. Nevertheless, the information in it seemed to apply to this very day and age.

Now, the article is long (26 pages to be exact), but it's worth setting the time aside to read. In fact I think YOU should read it. Lol. I mean, it wasn't 100% good... but it was pretty good ;)

'The only thing we learn from history,' it has been said, ‘is that men never learn from history’ - Fate of an Empires by Sir John Glubb.

But for your convenience, and just in case you decide not to go read it, I will share with you some excerpts and some of my thoughts.

The first thing Glubb does is to explain what an empire is, according to his essay. This is vital for understanding the context of his whole message.

The word ‘empire’, by association with the British Empire, is visualized by some people as an organisation consisting of a home country in Europe and ‘colonies’ in other continents. In this essay, the term ‘empire’ is used to signify a great power, often called today a superpower. Most of the empires in history have been large land blocks, almost without overseas possessions.

The summary is very neat, as it basically gives you all the hot spots of what he touched on. In fact, this summary alone is almost enough ;) The summary, according to the last part of the article, was as follows;

(a) We do not learn from history because our studies are brief and prejudiced.

(b) In a surprising manner, 250 years emerges as the average length of national greatness.

(c) This average has not varied for 3,000 years. Does it represent ten generations?

(d) The stages of the rise and fall of great nations seem to be:

The Age of Pioneers (outburst)

The Age of Conquests

The Age of Commerce

The Age of Affluence

The Age of Intellect

The Age of Decadence.

(e) Decadence is marked by: Defensiveness Pessimism Materialism Frivolity An influx of foreigners The Welfare State A weakening of religion.

(f) Decadence is due to: Too long a period of wealth and power Selfishness Love of money The loss of a sense of duty.

(g) The life histories of great states are amazingly similar, and are due to internal factors.

(h) Their falls are diverse, because they are largely the result of external causes.

(i) History should be taught as the history of the human race, though of course with emphasis on the history of the student’s own country.

There are a couple things in this summary I'd like to touch on. The first being point (a).

I love what he said about us not learning from history due to bias.

How many of us truly know what happened in the past... or even today? There are always so many prejudices that we have to put into the picture, so many ideals that have warped histories. And we have to remember that most histories were written by the person that won or survived the conflict in question.

Of course, the victor always makes himself look good.

And then those that choose what is to be taught... their agendas and beliefs largely affect what is being taught. So, it's safe to say it's hard to know what you know is really what you should be knowing :) Basically all your facts you've been taught may very well be lies... or truths mixes with lies, which can be even worse. 

He also made a good point in the essay about how people are taught history from the perspective of what they deem important. We don't cover all of the world's history. We don't explain both sides. We don't try to know what's happened or happening elsewhere in the world unless we think it directly involves our well fare.

And his points on how most "empires" have followed the same pattern of stages, all lasting for about 200-250 years was extremely interesting to me.

Perhaps the most dangerous by-product of the Age of Intellect is the unconscious growth of the idea that the human brain can solve the problems of the world…. The impression that the situation can be saved by mental cleverness, without unselfishness or human self-dedication, can only lead to collapse. - John Glubb.

Again, focusing on one of his stages, this struck me as interesting. We are all for education. It seems good and wise... but many things take more than mere brains to solve. There's more to life-sustaining empires than ourselves, basically.

When we read the history of our own nation, we find the actions of our ancestors described as glorious, while those of other peoples are depicted as mean, tyrannical or cowardly. Thus our history is (intentionally) not based on facts. We are emotionally unwilling to accept that our forbears might have been mean or cowardly. Alternatively, there are ‘political’ schools of history, slanted to discredit the actions of our past leaders, in order to support modern political movements. In all these cases, history is not an attempt to ascertain the truth, but a system of propaganda, devoted to the furtherance of modern projects, or the gratification of national vanity.

Of course, though, we would want to think ourselves best. That our country does the most good and was always in the right. That we are the "Land of the Free", "Home of the Brave", but the sad truth is that it's just all lies for vanity's sake.

Are we really free?

How many of us our truly brave? Willing to stand up for truth? Neighbor? God?

That's right... God is a part of the past...

It's all about what we need for our own comfort... who really cares that we live by lies... especially when those lies feel good...

Perhaps, in fact, we may reach the conclusion that the successive rise and fall of great nations is inevitable and, indeed, a system divinely ordained. But even this would be an immense gain. For we should know where we stand in relation to our human brothers and sisters. In our present state of mental chaos on the subject, we divide ourselves into nations, parties or communities and fight, hate and vilify one another over developments which may perhaps be divinely ordained and which seem to us, if we take a broader view, completely uncontrollable and inevitable. If we could accept these great movements as beyond our control, there would be no excuse for our hating one another because of them. However varied, confusing and contradictory the religious history of the world may appear, the noblest and most spiritual of the devotees of all religions seem to reach the conclusion that love is the key to human life. Any expansion of our knowledge which may lead to a reduction in our unjustified hates is therefore surely well worth while. 

Of course, the only thing we want to know after reading this essay is can we escape this pending fall of our country? Or are all doomed at the end of 250 years?

John Glubb doesn't give a straight answer. He suggests that maybe this is all arranged by the hand of divinity - I think he had more leniences towards Islam than God, but we can still take this to mean God doesn't want us becoming too powerful, so he only allows nations to thrive for 250 years.

But then Glubb goes on to say, either way, despite it being set by the hand of God or not, shouldn't this give us more reason to love our neighbors rather than hate?

Lol, the classical final answer boils down to love.

And sometimes, I'm like, "Enough of love, let's do something."

But really, is it such a wrong idea? Didn't Jesus come because of love?

Aren't we to love all?

Maybe this classic answer is the correct one.

As long as we are showing love in the correct way.

Because love isn't necessarily tolerant. Or says what people want to hear. Or makes one feel good.

Love can still be hard. 

Because real love is giving, not receiving.

And if a few more of us could learn to give more... maybe then our country would really have a fighting chance to live.

Are we doomed? Is this just God's way of keeping us from "reaching heaven"?

Or is there a way out?

 Love. Maybe that is the answer after all. 

It's worth a try. :)

Just Belt It

My mom downloaded an app awhile back that had a bunch of nice dresses, so she asked if each of us girls would like a dress . . . I saw this one and thought it was so pretty and unique. 

I loved it - except I have this thing about wanting a waist. 

Some probably think it looks fine as is. But I had to get a belt. And then after that I just went crazy (note the scarf in my hair for a full gypsy look) 

Dress without embellishment.

Now doesn't the belt make it look a hundred times better?

And the scarf it just so fun, plus adds color ;) 

This is one of my favorites of the pictures ;) 

The poor flowers were hailed on, so I showed them off. 

Just balancing

Dress: Wish
Belt:  Little Bluebird Boutique FB and Little Bluebird Boutique Website
Necklace: I made it :)
Sandals: Walmart
Scarf: Thrift Store



I wore this outfit to a friend's graduation party. They had such a nice yard I decided to do my photo shoot there ;) That's why the scenery is so pretty. But I'm afraid the lighting isn't the best ;/ 

Would you wear a dress like this? And if so would you belt it or not? 

"Thy Will Be Done" ... Even if God Says No

Originally posted at Keturah's Korner

I recently came across this book titled Christ the Healer by F. F Bosworth. It was very… interesting, I must say.

Now I don't normally tear books apart, but this topic has been on my mind for several months now ever since I met this guy who believed it was his calling to preach divine healing and that, if you had enough faith, God never said 'No'.

Don't get me wrong, I still think God can and will do miracles. But I think this whole belief of God healing us unconditionally has some flaws. And I think this belief is a very dangerous belief for the Christian person's relationship with God.

Here is a poem from the book;

Death comes, and then we blame our God.

And weakly say, “Thy will be done”;

But never underneath the sod

Has God imprisoned any one.

God does not send disease, or crime,

Or carelessness, of fighting clans;

And when we die before our time

The fault is man's

He is God of life, not death;

He is one that gives us birth;

He has not shortened by a breath

The life of any on earth;

And He would have us dwell within

The world our full allotted years.

So blame not God-for our own sin

Makes our own tears.

Beautiful poem, yes. But let me point out the problems.

And weakly say, “Thy will be done - When is it ever weak to say, “Thy will be done?” Even in the midst of facing death, Yeshua(Jesus) did not say, “Father I demand my way!” but, “Thy will be done.”

Submitting to God is never NEVER weak.

But never underneath the sod, Has God imprisoned any one. - God has sentenced many to death – all, in fact. It was He that said, “If you eat of the tree you will die.”

God does not send disease, or crime, - read 2 Samuel 24 and Exodus 7-12. When David angered God God gave him three choices, all involving hurt, and in the end it was chosen to have a pestilence (plague, disease…) and many died at the hand of God.

And in Exodus when Pharaoh would not let the Israelites free, many plagues were sent, and at the end, even the children's lives were taken.

Of course you could argue this last part that God only punished those that did wrong, or were evil  (which is true). Still, even the truth of that argument contradicts the line of that poem.

And when we die before our time, The fault is man's – if the writer meant the fault being man's as in when the fruit was taken and eaten, then yes, he is correct. But if he means that we only die now because of not being holy enough then he is wrong. And before our time? I must argue that we each die in the right time that God has appointed for us to die. Job 14:5 and Psalm 31:15

He has not shortened by a breath, The life of any on earth - Again not true. He has shortened the breath of many. He even set the time of our deaths.

And He would have us dwell within, The world our full allotted years. - But more than this He would have us to be with Him.

So blame not God-for our own sin, Makes our own tears. - This is very true. WE are responsible for our own tears, our own sin… though we are sometimes the victims of other's consequences. But that's another topic. Despite this, despite us being the guilty one, we can't fix our problems by trying to force God to do our will, or refusing to say, “Thy Will be done.” And most of all, even if we are truly believers of God we aren't exempt us from the casualties of sin.

For this world is full of sin… it's around every corner, in every space.

Some other things I'd like to point out with the belief of Divine Healing:

1. We must pray more and more. Once is not enough. God hears our prayers if they are continued, but if they stop, this is the Devil's opportunity to do his work.

First off, yes, we need to continue praying. But despite our prayers we can't bribe God by making him think we are so Holy. And in the end, whatever we pray for it is ultimately God's will. We can't even start to understand what His perfect plan may be. Sure, to our mortal minds, long life and abundant health seem ideal. But God's way is utmost.

And I'm not saying stop praying. I'm saying keep saying, “Your will be done, Father.”

2. If you are sick, if a loved one is dying, or if you are dying this is a sign of lack of faith.

Not true. Where in the Bible does it say this?

Sickness is a part of life. Death is a part of life. They are both the results of the original sin, but not necessarily of a sin you or someone else has committed.

And think about this for a second. According to this logic, I can die because of your lack of faith. Sure, I may have perfect Faith in God, but yours was not enough to keep the Devil from taking me.

Comforting?

Wow, no. That does not seem like a very strong and almighty God to me… only able to save from the Devil if enough of us send up the correct quota of prayers and have the right amount of Faith.

3. Don't listen to the Devil. Facts are lies from him. Doubting is a lie. If you say, “God heal my cold, but your will be done.” You are giving in to the doubtful spirit of the Devil. Don't be double minded – but ask and believe that what you ask for will happen.

And if it doesn't happen, what then? You must have not believed hard enough.

The book was full of “biblical examples” of all sorts of people doing things or not doing things, using proof that I believe was totally construed. And I'd write about each one in detail if it wouldn't make this post too long ;b Honestly, when reading through the book I was getting riled up.

Why?

Because man was trying to put God into a box and control others at the same time. As the back of the book read:

"The truths discussed in this book, together with the “prayer of faith” have brought healing within the grasp of many thousands of sufferes who could not have recovered with out the direct action of the Holy Spirit. To God be all the glory."

Yes, to God be all the Glory, and may the Holy Spirit take action in all of our lives with out this book, or belief. How can a book hold truths separate from the Bible? Show true healing?

Yes, I believe God loves us, wants us whole, and wants us to be living.

But if He expected us to live only by faith, praying with out a doubt that He'd grant our every plea, then why would He have created labor, herbs, not to mention bodies?

If we are to trust He'll do whatever we ask, never saying no then why do we work for our money? We should just expect Him to give us our every need and want… after all wasn't it Jesus that said do not worry for tomorrow? (disregard the sarcasm, please.)

And He would not have created herbs, for if He heals unconditionally, it would be wrong to use those herbs, as they would be giving in to the lies of the devil.

It would be wrong to try and protect our children from running into the road - “Trust God. His will is never to harm us.” 

Or to wash our hands - “He cleanses us and keeps us from all disease.”

And to try and upkeep our bodies and eat healthy? All stupidity, for God would not make us fat for eating sugars and processed foods if we prayed enough.

But, besides of these sarcastic arguments, what is the real reason I believe this belief is so dangerous?

I believe it is dangerous for this purpose: When God does not do what you want, when He says that dreaded word 'No', how will you react and respond?

For the few people I know of that have held this belief, it has torn their families apart, caused anger and bitterness, and made many doubt God's existence.

Believing in God isn't about what we can get out of Him, but having a relationship with Him, trusting Him to do what's best for you all the while loving Him more than you would your best friends.

It's about trusting and loving unconditionally, not getting "my way".

We need to love God for who He is, not for what He might do for us.